Murch Boundary Change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree. This is a city-wide priority. Are there families outside of Ward 3 being excluded or that will be excluded from schools less than half a mile from their homes with the new proposals?

In my neighborhood, there are people who are 1-2 blocks away from H.D. Cooke who have to travel significantly further to get to their in-boundary school, Marie Reed. This is true under current situation and in new boundaries. I'm sure there are others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has DME even mentioned walkability and proximity in the recent forums? I didn't hear it at the one I attended.

"Predicability" is the term I hear - chosen carefully, I'd guess,to imply proximity (which is a form of predictability) when it really means just having a sense of control of your educational "choices"

So, be careful about getting lulled by predictability language or getting on the predictability bandwagon. Instead, listen carefully when you say "proximity" and DME and team respond with "predictability" and ask and demand a precise answer for what predictability means.

Remember the lure of "choice"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ while I agree with the point that rezoning eaton to Hearst does not make sense, I believe the number 47 is not correct . I believe it is 103 - and about half of those currently attend.

I just took the numbers off of the map and notes that was in the Washington Post, April 5th. (See link below. Enlarge Map and click on Hearst and Eaton boundaries. The notes are on the side).

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the numbers in the Post map are old and you have access to updated information. However whether it's 103 or 47, the argument still holds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/proposed-elementary-school-zones/

The number given is "grade-appropriate public school students." Those are the numbers that the DME is always throwing around. It leaves out kids who live in-boundary who attend private schools, as if somehow they're another species.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ while I agree with the point that rezoning eaton to Hearst does not make sense, I believe the number 47 is not correct . I believe it is 103 - and about half of those currently attend.

I just took the numbers off of the map and notes that was in the Washington Post, April 5th. (See link below. Enlarge Map and click on Hearst and Eaton boundaries. The notes are on the side).

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the numbers in the Post map are old and you have access to updated information. However whether it's 103 or 47, the argument still holds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/proposed-elementary-school-zones/

The number given is "grade-appropriate public school students." Those are the numbers that the DME is always throwing around. It leaves out kids who live in-boundary who attend private schools, as if somehow they're another species.

Thanks for the clarification. The 103 number makes much more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New boundary decisions should be driven on boundaries that make sense for commuting, and natural mobility patterns in neighborhoods. The 1968 boundaries were clearly designed to respond to the riots and tensions of 1968. For example, the boundaries are often inclusive of areas closest to Maryland, to prevent suburban flight, which is a short sighted flawed political consideration not necessarily a geographical one.

Good planning should establish a radius around school boundaries as a logical first start. Individuals who live within a specified limit (less than one mile for example) from the school should have access to their neighborhood school in boundary in order to promote walkability and limit congestion. I understand that many of the current boundaries place the school at the outermost limits of a community to create artificial boundaries which likely was done to exclude families within a natural radius around a school.

I am very interested in walkability as a DC resident who believes strongly in pedestrian friendly solutions. Many of the current boundaries seem to go against these principals in Ward 3, and the proposal actually aggravates the situation. For example, I have noticed that in Tenleytown, one of the most walkable areas of the city, students who live blocks away from schools would be further excluded from the closest schools to their homes in order to favor commuters who drive from regions at the outer limits of the city.

It is key that to advocate for decisions that are based on sound planning principles -- walkability seems like the best place to start.

We don't want to repeat or exacerbate the mistakes of the past.

You are talking out of your butt.

The boundaries reach to the "outermost corners of" nwdc because there is no other option. The 1930s schools were sited well before 1968 riots, as you know. And, no schools were built in the 20s-1968 right on the edge of the the Distict in upper NW "near the suburbs." But houses were built there, and kids in those houses have to go to school someplace, no? Where SHOULD they go, if not their closest schools?

Thus you have a kid living on Western and Harrison zoned to Janney in 1968, having nothing to do with race riots in Columbia hts and everything to do with the fact that Janney is the closest elementary school to him (though it's not notably "close"). Same for the kid living on Alberfoyle in 1968 going to 1930s Lafayette. It's not racist or a antidote to white flight: it's quite obviously the closest school building, though not super close.

Sounds like an argument for build more neighborhood schools. I somehow don't think many parents would complain about boundary changes if they had a new, closer neighborhood school. This goes for parents all over the city.

There is no need for multiple additional elementary schools in upper NW to support this half mile rule. I would complain because there is no need Janney is not overcrowded now with the addition and I do not think its proposed boundary adjustment is needed. I believe that Murch is going to receive an addition that will accommodate its students. They are making adjustments around the edges to put more potential students IB for Hearst and reduce the demand for Murch and Janney thereby opening up seats for OOB set asides. In no case is a address (as this is not applicable to current students) that is reassigned to Hearst going to be a mile away from the school. Janney and Hearst are .8 mile apart, Murch is 1 mile from Hearst.

I would much rather such money go into building stronger middle and high school options across the city and continuing to support elementary schools on the rise.

+1. I also think that the rezoning of Murch as it was proposed does not make sense. kids living two short blocks from the school are being rezoned to a school many blocks away, while kids who live between Morrison and Western avenue, who are literally three blocks from Lafayette and many blocks from Murch, are left IB for Murch. Lafayette is also large, but its population seems more stable and is going to be completely renovated this year I think. also, the argument of rezoning kids out of Murch to decrease crowding is strange when the school keeps accepting OOB students, even at pre-k level (unlike Janney, where tens of IB pre-k students were left out this year). rezoning is always painful, but when it does not make a lot of sense is more difficult to accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New boundary decisions should be driven on boundaries that make sense for commuting, and natural mobility patterns in neighborhoods. The 1968 boundaries were clearly designed to respond to the riots and tensions of 1968. For example, the boundaries are often inclusive of areas closest to Maryland, to prevent suburban flight, which is a short sighted flawed political consideration not necessarily a geographical one.

Good planning should establish a radius around school boundaries as a logical first start. Individuals who live within a specified limit (less than one mile for example) from the school should have access to their neighborhood school in boundary in order to promote walkability and limit congestion. I understand that many of the current boundaries place the school at the outermost limits of a community to create artificial boundaries which likely was done to exclude families within a natural radius around a school.

I am very interested in walkability as a DC resident who believes strongly in pedestrian friendly solutions. Many of the current boundaries seem to go against these principals in Ward 3, and the proposal actually aggravates the situation. For example, I have noticed that in Tenleytown, one of the most walkable areas of the city, students who live blocks away from schools would be further excluded from the closest schools to their homes in order to favor commuters who drive from regions at the outer limits of the city.

It is key that to advocate for decisions that are based on sound planning principles -- walkability seems like the best place to start.

We don't want to repeat or exacerbate the mistakes of the past.

You are talking out of your butt.

The boundaries reach to the "outermost corners of" nwdc because there is no other option. The 1930s schools were sited well before 1968 riots, as you know. And, no schools were built in the 20s-1968 right on the edge of the the Distict in upper NW "near the suburbs." But houses were built there, and kids in those houses have to go to school someplace, no? Where SHOULD they go, if not their closest schools?

Thus you have a kid living on Western and Harrison zoned to Janney in 1968, having nothing to do with race riots in Columbia hts and everything to do with the fact that Janney is the closest elementary school to him (though it's not notably "close"). Same for the kid living on Alberfoyle in 1968 going to 1930s Lafayette. It's not racist or a antidote to white flight: it's quite obviously the closest school building, though not super close.

Sounds like an argument for build more neighborhood schools. I somehow don't think many parents would complain about boundary changes if they had a new, closer neighborhood school. This goes for parents all over the city.

There is no need for multiple additional elementary schools in upper NW to support this half mile rule. I would complain because there is no need Janney is not overcrowded now with the addition and I do not think its proposed boundary adjustment is needed. I believe that Murch is going to receive an addition that will accommodate its students. They are making adjustments around the edges to put more potential students IB for Hearst and reduce the demand for Murch and Janney thereby opening up seats for OOB set asides. In no case is a address (as this is not applicable to current students) that is reassigned to Hearst going to be a mile away from the school. Janney and Hearst are .8 mile apart, Murch is 1 mile from Hearst.

I would much rather such money go into building stronger middle and high school options across the city and continuing to support elementary schools on the rise.

+1. I also think that the rezoning of Murch as it was proposed does not make sense. kids living two short blocks from the school are being rezoned to a school many blocks away, while kids who live between Morrison and Western avenue, who are literally three blocks from Lafayette and many blocks from Murch, are left IB for Murch. Lafayette is also large, but its population seems more stable and is going to be completely renovated this year I think. also, the argument of rezoning kids out of Murch to decrease crowding is strange when the school keeps accepting OOB students, even at pre-k level (unlike Janney, where tens of IB pre-k students were left out this year). rezoning is always painful, but when it does not make a lot of sense is more difficult to accept it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely families IB for Hearst that are a hair mile away, but this thread is still missing the bigger threat of city wide lottery or choice sets. Those will dismantle neighborhood schools.

That's because this thread isn't about those issues - those are being discussed on other threads (probably by the same people). This thread is about the Murch boundary change/76-square-foot-per-student-and-dropping problem, which will have to be addressed even if all the DME's other proposals are scrapped.

[Anonymous]

Quick question--how do I know what address will be re-zoned from Murch to Hearst? We are under contract on a home on Nebraska (between Connecticut and Nevada) and I need to know if our house is one of the ones being cut out of Murch! Thanks for your help.

[Anonymous]

PP here--nevermind! I found the PDF map of the proposed changes and we will still be in bounds for Murch if this goes through.

[Anonymous]

Going to throw this out here-- due to the land easement I am betting the Murch remodel is smaller than expected and Murch's zone shrinks even further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here--nevermind! I found the PDF map of the proposed changes and we will still be in bounds for Murch if this goes through.

Well thank god for that. Heaven forbid you'd wind up at Hearst with "those" kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here--nevermind! I found the PDF map of the proposed changes and we will still be in bounds for Murch if this goes through.

Well thank god for that. Heaven forbid you'd wind up at Hearst with "those" kids.

give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here--nevermind! I found the PDF map of the proposed changes and we will still be in bounds for Murch if this goes through.

Well thank god for that. Heaven forbid you'd wind up at Hearst with "those" kids.

give it a rest.

Um, it's the Murch people that keep bringing it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here--nevermind! I found the PDF map of the proposed changes and we will still be in bounds for Murch if this goes through.

Well thank god for that. Heaven forbid you'd wind up at Hearst with "those" kids.

Psst-- that area wouldn't be rezones to Hearst. Stop being paranoid. Your school is just lovely. You love it. Doesn't that make you happy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New boundary decisions should be driven on boundaries that make sense for commuting, and natural mobility patterns in neighborhoods. The 1968 boundaries were clearly designed to respond to the riots and tensions of 1968. For example, the boundaries are often inclusive of areas closest to Maryland, to prevent suburban flight, which is a short sighted flawed political consideration not necessarily a geographical one.

Good planning should establish a radius around school boundaries as a logical first start. Individuals who live within a specified limit (less than one mile for example) from the school should have access to their neighborhood school in boundary in order to promote walkability and limit congestion. I understand that many of the current boundaries place the school at the outermost limits of a community to create artificial boundaries which likely was done to exclude families within a natural radius around a school.

I am very interested in walkability as a DC resident who believes strongly in pedestrian friendly solutions. Many of the current boundaries seem to go against these principals in Ward 3, and the proposal actually aggravates the situation. For example, I have noticed that in Tenleytown, one of the most walkable areas of the city, students who live blocks away from schools would be further excluded from the closest schools to their homes in order to favor commuters who drive from regions at the outer limits of the city.

It is key that to advocate for decisions that are based on sound planning principles -- walkability seems like the best place to start.

We don't want to repeat or exacerbate the mistakes of the past.

You are talking out of your butt.

The boundaries reach to the "outermost corners of" nwdc because there is no other option. The 1930s schools were sited well before 1968 riots, as you know. And, no schools were built in the 20s-1968 right on the edge of the the Distict in upper NW "near the suburbs." But houses were built there, and kids in those houses have to go to school someplace, no? Where SHOULD they go, if not their closest schools?

Thus you have a kid living on Western and Harrison zoned to Janney in 1968, having nothing to do with race riots in Columbia hts and everything to do with the fact that Janney is the closest elementary school to him (though it's not notably "close"). Same for the kid living on Alberfoyle in 1968 going to 1930s Lafayette. It's not racist or a antidote to white flight: it's quite obviously the closest school building, though not super close.

Sounds like an argument for build more neighborhood schools. I somehow don't think many parents would complain about boundary changes if they had a new, closer neighborhood school. This goes for parents all over the city.

There is no need for multiple additional elementary schools in upper NW to support this half mile rule. I would complain because there is no need Janney is not overcrowded now with the addition and I do not think its proposed boundary adjustment is needed. I believe that Murch is going to receive an addition that will accommodate its students. They are making adjustments around the edges to put more potential students IB for Hearst and reduce the demand for Murch and Janney thereby opening up seats for OOB set asides. In no case is a address (as this is not applicable to current students) that is reassigned to Hearst going to be a mile away from the school. Janney and Hearst are .8 mile apart, Murch is 1 mile from Hearst.

I would much rather such money go into building stronger middle and high school options across the city and continuing to support elementary schools on the rise.

+1. I also think that the rezoning of Murch as it was proposed does not make sense. kids living two short blocks from the school are being rezoned to a school many blocks away, while kids who live between Morrison and Western avenue, who are literally three blocks from Lafayette and many blocks from Murch, are left IB for Murch. Lafayette is also large, but its population seems more stable and is going to be completely renovated this year I think. also, the argument of rezoning kids out of Murch to decrease crowding is strange when the school keeps accepting OOB students, even at pre-k level (unlike Janney, where tens of IB pre-k students were left out this year). rezoning is always painful, but when it does not make a lot of sense is more difficult to accept it.

Don't just complain. Vote Catania in November.