Wilson is 50% over enrolled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we spent a decade changing law to reflect how impulsive developing young adult brains are? Or is that all hooey? Yeah, I agree that most of the kids are minding their own business and having fun, but for some young people "fun" doesn't always equal good behavior. Two massively over enrolled schools empty into the same space everyday and other young people come by to hang out as well. To not pay attention to that time and space does a disservice to the good tweens + teens. It's like leaving the door to the Peach Pit unlocked and stepping out.

Deal is not massively over enrolled. It has what like 1200 students this year and trending down. Stop with the dramatics. With new High School and white people beginning to look more at Banneker, Wilson will be just fine, if not under enrolled in 5 years.

I've been actually wondering if the new school will become the 'local' Wards 2/3 school and Wilson will just continue to be overenrolled with kids from far flung feeders (which is a weird model for a city that "believes" in neighborhood schools? What is the actual plan for who goes where?

What does this mean? If schools feed into Deal then they are in the feeder pattern. I'm guessing what you meant was kids from "far away". You said the quiet part out loud.

Eh, I think Hardy is pretty far from wilson.

Wilson is the closest high school by miles for some kids at Hardy, like those who live near Sibley hospital

Georgetown to Cardozo is 2.7 miles.
Georgetown to Wilson is 3.2 miles.

Guy Mason to Cardozo is 2.7 miles. Wilson is 2.4 miles.
Oyster Adams is 2.1 to Cardozo, 2.5 to Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we spent a decade changing law to reflect how impulsive developing young adult brains are? Or is that all hooey? Yeah, I agree that most of the kids are minding their own business and having fun, but for some young people "fun" doesn't always equal good behavior. Two massively over enrolled schools empty into the same space everyday and other young people come by to hang out as well. To not pay attention to that time and space does a disservice to the good tweens + teens. It's like leaving the door to the Peach Pit unlocked and stepping out.

Deal is not massively over enrolled. It has what like 1200 students this year and trending down. Stop with the dramatics. With new High School and white people beginning to look more at Banneker, Wilson will be just fine, if not under enrolled in 5 years.

I've been actually wondering if the new school will become the 'local' Wards 2/3 school and Wilson will just continue to be overenrolled with kids from far flung feeders (which is a weird model for a city that "believes" in neighborhood schools? What is the actual plan for who goes where?

What does this mean? If schools feed into Deal then they are in the feeder pattern. I'm guessing what you meant was kids from "far away". You said the quiet part out loud.

Eh, I think Hardy is pretty far from wilson.

Wilson is the closest high school by miles for some kids at Hardy, like those who live near Sibley hospital

Georgetown to Cardozo is 2.7 miles.
Georgetown to Wilson is 3.2 miles.

Guy Mason to Cardozo is 2.7 miles. Wilson is 2.4 miles.
Oyster Adams is 2.1 to Cardozo, 2.5 to Wilson.

That’s nice, but you conveniently avoided noting travel time. It’s a lot faster to go N-S than E-W.

eg, Guy Mason to Wilson is 90% of the distance but 60% of the travel time to Wilson compared to Cardoza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

I had kids in an elementary school that wasn't in-boundary for Deal in 2008, and that's not the way I remember it. Back then, every school in DCPS was under-enrolled, you could basically enroll wherever you wanted, except for a few WOTP elementaries. As late as 2007 I remember the Deal principal coming to our elementary's PTA meeting on a recruiting trip, the message was "consider Deal." Then Deal got renovated, it's reputation improved, and practically overnight there were more kids than seats. DCPS didn't have a playbook for that, there was no central lottery back then. Feeder rights was something they came up with on the fly.

Stop introducing reality and facts into the discussion. PPP and the other perpetual whiners on this forum prefer to just employ revisionist history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.

That was an interesting digression into SAHM bashing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.

LOL. I get that couldn’t foresee everything.

But higher in the thread, a PP seems to claim that no one should dare suggest that policy be changed to end feeder rights (despite the fact that, as was pointed out, the policy was changed before.)

The PP ridiculously rants, “Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.

That was an interesting digression into SAHM bashing.

Worthy of Bob Avery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we spent a decade changing law to reflect how impulsive developing young adult brains are? Or is that all hooey? Yeah, I agree that most of the kids are minding their own business and having fun, but for some young people "fun" doesn't always equal good behavior. Two massively over enrolled schools empty into the same space everyday and other young people come by to hang out as well. To not pay attention to that time and space does a disservice to the good tweens + teens. It's like leaving the door to the Peach Pit unlocked and stepping out.

Deal is not massively over enrolled. It has what like 1200 students this year and trending down. Stop with the dramatics. With new High School and white people beginning to look more at Banneker, Wilson will be just fine, if not under enrolled in 5 years.

I've been actually wondering if the new school will become the 'local' Wards 2/3 school and Wilson will just continue to be overenrolled with kids from far flung feeders (which is a weird model for a city that "believes" in neighborhood schools? What is the actual plan for who goes where?

What does this mean? If schools feed into Deal then they are in the feeder pattern. I'm guessing what you meant was kids from "far away". You said the quiet part out loud.

Eh, I think Hardy is pretty far from wilson.

Wilson is the closest high school by miles for some kids at Hardy, like those who live near Sibley hospital

Georgetown to Cardozo is 2.7 miles.
Georgetown to Wilson is 3.2 miles.

Guy Mason to Cardozo is 2.7 miles. Wilson is 2.4 miles.
Oyster Adams is 2.1 to Cardozo, 2.5 to Wilson.

Fair point, but straight easy to travel miles? Cardozo is a beautiful building - if it's easier to get there they should go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.

LOL. I get that couldn’t foresee everything.

But higher in the thread, a PP seems to claim that no one should dare suggest that policy be changed to end feeder rights (despite the fact that, as was pointed out, the policy was changed before.)

The PP ridiculously rants, “Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC?”

DP here (IB for Deal and Wilson), but this has been the policy and if it bothers you so much then you should have looked into it before you opted into DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.

LOL. I get that couldn’t foresee everything.

But higher in the thread, a PP seems to claim that no one should dare suggest that policy be changed to end feeder rights (despite the fact that, as was pointed out, the policy was changed before.)

The PP ridiculously rants, “Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC?”

DP here (IB for Deal and Wilson), but this has been the policy and if it bothers you so much then you should have looked into it before you opted into DCPS.

It’s ok to disagree with a DCPS policy and want it changed, no matter when you learned about it. We’re EOTP and my kids will never go to Jackson Reed, but I would love for DCPS to revisit this policy. It has an effect on the entire system. My only concern would be increased segregation, which DCPS uses the feeder pattern rules to mitigate and would need another solution for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because when Bowser said “Deal for All” she literally meant that she would stuff more kids into Deal and Wilson

They are literally building a new high school to divert kids from Wilson.

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they filled the empty seats in under-enrolled schools by re-drawing and enforcing boundaries.

Or people WOTP who are dissatisfied with the size of the enrollment at Jackson-Reed could simply enroll their kids at one of the under-enrolled EOTP schools. That would seem to be quicker solution for those folks than redrawing boundaries.

Why do you bother? To be cute? You know full well why there are multiple under-enrolled DCPS middle and high schools EOTP. These schools are dysfunctional, either moderately or extremely. What, exactly, do you get out making such an asinine statement?

Read carefully. I was responding to someone who suggested that boundaries should be redrawn. Presumably that would mean that some WOTP kids who are currently zoned for Jackson-Reed would be shifted elsewhere. My suggestion is that these folks could just enroll in these other schools now if they aren’t satisfied with Jackson-Reed. Wouldn’t that be more efficient than redrawing boundaries?

The problem with your plan is that no one will choose to travel for a school that parents in that school’s neighborhood refuse to send their kids to. And you know that.

An overenrolled school is a problem for every student enrolled and the school system should be able to adjust enrollments so that existing empty seats are filled and no new building is done until that happens.

The solution is to redraw boundaries and require people to enroll in their IB school just like most school districts in the country. The per pupil funding will stay with those students and allow those schools to offer more programming for those students. Of course, this is problematic in this city for political reasons.

So they are going to open a new school with new seats so that more people have to travel and the now-empty seats remain empty and those under-enrolled schools continue to see funding per student drop and move to another ward. And of course, people will complain that W3 is getting another new school because people who live there are rich and white.

Please identify the US school district where charter, private, Catholic and all other religious schools are illegal. No one anywhere in the is country is required to send their children to a government school.

Of course that is not what PP meant. There are zillions of school districts that don’t permit students to choose an OOB school in the same system.

Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC? OOB has been going on for decades--easy google search. It will take time to undo, if necessary.

The policy of automatically feeding to the next school started with Michelle Rhee.

Circa 2008. Everyone who is affected by the policy was born after it started.

It wasn’t a policy change most laymen were aware of until the results became evident over the years in the unrelenting enrollment growth at Deal and Wilson.

What the heck does that mean? You (or someone like you) acts like this is a change that impacted your school decisions. Someone points out that you are full of crap and the policy has been in place since 2008 and your defense is that a "layman wouldn't have known" and/or that overcrowding wasn't a problem then? First, ignorance is no defense. What you mean to say is that it didn't impact you until now and it doesn't count until it impacts you. The policy was published - if you didn't look that's on you. Second, you people need to pick a lane and stay in it. So many of you complain that DCPS isn't solving today's problem today and that the long view is of no concern to you. In 2008 DCPS put in place a policy designed for 2008. No one could see the population growth in DC coming or the places in DC where real estate values and demand would skyrocket. Now you indict the leaders of 2008 for not seeing 10+ years down the road.

The whining and complaining from so many of you boils down to, "This is all about me. I want what I want for my kid and all of my protestations pretending to care about public policy or the greater good are window dressing designed to distract from my selfishness." Just be honest with yourselves and everyone else and stop pretending to care about any policy or greater good.

I think it was the 2008 policy makers that didn’t take the long view and didn’t foresee the results of the change that they made. It’s their job, not parents, to understand enrollment patterns and keep the schools functional — including not over-crowded.

As someone has just reminded you all, the enrollment patterns and lay of the land in 2008 was very different. You sit here now with the benefit of hindsight and pretend all this was foreseeable. There are so many SAHM/D or people with jobs that don't require making hard choices that sit here and play Monday morning quarterback. It is funny.

LOL. I get that couldn’t foresee everything.

But higher in the thread, a PP seems to claim that no one should dare suggest that policy be changed to end feeder rights (despite the fact that, as was pointed out, the policy was changed before.)

The PP ridiculously rants, “Did you all know this before you moved to DC? Or before you decided to procreate in DC?”

I am not the person who posted that line about "did you know this when you moved here" but let me try and explain what I think they meant. I don't think they meant to suggest that changes shouldn't be made and that voters shouldn't advocate for changes they feel would improve the educational outcomes. There are a lot of people on DCUM who like to suggest that all of this is easy and that somehow the current state of affairs was the result of some conspiracy against UMC W2/W3 families that began in 2008. I think the "did you know when you moved here/had babies here" is a reaction to people who both allege a conspiracy and act surprised that this is how things work in DC.

My major issue with how this narrative always seems to go is that a bunch of people who have never had jobs where they need to make large decisions with major consequences sit around and snipe at people who put it all out there and had leadership roles. It is fair to say you think the results were bad. Where I take issue is this idea that negative outcomes were clearly foreseeable, and as proof they offer up the current enrollment/population/overcrowding issues when the facts of DCPS enrollment/population/under enrollment at 14 years ago were dissimilar (and in many ways in opposition) to where we find ourselves today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we spent a decade changing law to reflect how impulsive developing young adult brains are? Or is that all hooey? Yeah, I agree that most of the kids are minding their own business and having fun, but for some young people "fun" doesn't always equal good behavior. Two massively over enrolled schools empty into the same space everyday and other young people come by to hang out as well. To not pay attention to that time and space does a disservice to the good tweens + teens. It's like leaving the door to the Peach Pit unlocked and stepping out.

Deal is not massively over enrolled. It has what like 1200 students this year and trending down. Stop with the dramatics. With new High School and white people beginning to look more at Banneker, Wilson will be just fine, if not under enrolled in 5 years.

I've been actually wondering if the new school will become the 'local' Wards 2/3 school and Wilson will just continue to be overenrolled with kids from far flung feeders (which is a weird model for a city that "believes" in neighborhood schools? What is the actual plan for who goes where?

What does this mean? If schools feed into Deal then they are in the feeder pattern. I'm guessing what you meant was kids from "far away". You said the quiet part out loud.

Eh, I think Hardy is pretty far from wilson.

Wilson is the closest high school by miles for some kids at Hardy, like those who live near Sibley hospital

Georgetown to Cardozo is 2.7 miles.
Georgetown to Wilson is 3.2 miles.

Guy Mason to Cardozo is 2.7 miles. Wilson is 2.4 miles.
Oyster Adams is 2.1 to Cardozo, 2.5 to Wilson.

Fair point, but straight easy to travel miles? Cardozo is a beautiful building - if it's easier to get there they should go!

Couple of observations about this sub-thread.

1. You don't have some legal right to a school around the corner from you and/or a vested right to a school no farther away from your current school.
2. No one is walking 2.7 miles now. So the idea that another .5 miles is somehow material is silly.
3. These are averages. You are having this discussion as if every kid walks only this distance. It is an odd intellectual exercise.
4 Commute is one consideration...ONE. There's also availability of buildings and what the quality of the school is upon completion.
5. Another consideration is demographic projections 5-10 years out. You are all looking at demos today. Schools aren't built just for today or 22-23.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we spent a decade changing law to reflect how impulsive developing young adult brains are? Or is that all hooey? Yeah, I agree that most of the kids are minding their own business and having fun, but for some young people "fun" doesn't always equal good behavior. Two massively over enrolled schools empty into the same space everyday and other young people come by to hang out as well. To not pay attention to that time and space does a disservice to the good tweens + teens. It's like leaving the door to the Peach Pit unlocked and stepping out.

Deal is not massively over enrolled. It has what like 1200 students this year and trending down. Stop with the dramatics. With new High School and white people beginning to look more at Banneker, Wilson will be just fine, if not under enrolled in 5 years.

I've been actually wondering if the new school will become the 'local' Wards 2/3 school and Wilson will just continue to be overenrolled with kids from far flung feeders (which is a weird model for a city that "believes" in neighborhood schools? What is the actual plan for who goes where?

What does this mean? If schools feed into Deal then they are in the feeder pattern. I'm guessing what you meant was kids from "far away". You said the quiet part out loud.

Eh, I think Hardy is pretty far from wilson.

Wilson is the closest high school by miles for some kids at Hardy, like those who live near Sibley hospital

Georgetown to Cardozo is 2.7 miles.
Georgetown to Wilson is 3.2 miles.

Guy Mason to Cardozo is 2.7 miles. Wilson is 2.4 miles.
Oyster Adams is 2.1 to Cardozo, 2.5 to Wilson.

Fair point, but straight easy to travel miles? Cardozo is a beautiful building - if it's easier to get there they should go!

Couple of observations about this sub-thread.

1. You don't have some legal right to a school around the corner from you and/or a vested right to a school no farther away from your current school.
2. No one is walking 2.7 miles now. So the idea that another .5 miles is somehow material is silly.
3. These are averages. You are having this discussion as if every kid walks only this distance. It is an odd intellectual exercise.
4 Commute is one consideration...ONE. There's also availability of buildings and what the quality of the school is upon completion.
5. Another consideration is demographic projections 5-10 years out. You are all looking at demos today. Schools aren't built just for today or 22-23.

This last point links to the post above.

Demographic projections 14 to 15 years ago clearly pointed from an increase in live births 2006-2008 to an increase in numbers of MS/HS age children now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't we spent a decade changing law to reflect how impulsive developing young adult brains are? Or is that all hooey? Yeah, I agree that most of the kids are minding their own business and having fun, but for some young people "fun" doesn't always equal good behavior. Two massively over enrolled schools empty into the same space everyday and other young people come by to hang out as well. To not pay attention to that time and space does a disservice to the good tweens + teens. It's like leaving the door to the Peach Pit unlocked and stepping out.

Deal is not massively over enrolled. It has what like 1200 students this year and trending down. Stop with the dramatics. With new High School and white people beginning to look more at Banneker, Wilson will be just fine, if not under enrolled in 5 years.

I've been actually wondering if the new school will become the 'local' Wards 2/3 school and Wilson will just continue to be overenrolled with kids from far flung feeders (which is a weird model for a city that "believes" in neighborhood schools? What is the actual plan for who goes where?

What does this mean? If schools feed into Deal then they are in the feeder pattern. I'm guessing what you meant was kids from "far away". You said the quiet part out loud.

Eh, I think Hardy is pretty far from wilson.

Wilson is the closest high school by miles for some kids at Hardy, like those who live near Sibley hospital

Georgetown to Cardozo is 2.7 miles.
Georgetown to Wilson is 3.2 miles.

Guy Mason to Cardozo is 2.7 miles. Wilson is 2.4 miles.
Oyster Adams is 2.1 to Cardozo, 2.5 to Wilson.

Fair point, but straight easy to travel miles? Cardozo is a beautiful building - if it's easier to get there they should go!

Couple of observations about this sub-thread.

1. You don't have some legal right to a school around the corner from you and/or a vested right to a school no farther away from your current school.
2. No one is walking 2.7 miles now. So the idea that another .5 miles is somehow material is silly.
3. These are averages. You are having this discussion as if every kid walks only this distance. It is an odd intellectual exercise.
4 Commute is one consideration...ONE. There's also availability of buildings and what the quality of the school is upon completion.
5. Another consideration is demographic projections 5-10 years out. You are all looking at demos today. Schools aren't built just for today or 22-23.

This last point links to the post above.

Demographic projections 14 to 15 years ago clearly pointed from an increase in live births 2006-2008 to an increase in numbers of MS/HS age children now.

Youth population in DC is driven more by in-migration and out-migration than births. For decades families would leave the city when their kids got to be school age. That started slowing in 2008. For decades few families with children moved into the city. That started changing around 2008. Those kinds of shifts are hard to predict.