Janney third grade parents--what do you think of the giant class sizes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should be an entire thread devoted to "Janney Boundary Cheaters" and how to catch them. The school's so big, and class sizes so large, they can thrive in the anonymity like mice in a blanket.

The only real cheaters would be the ones that do not reside in DC. DCPS has no existing policy about the majority of the OOB folks most in Janney (who are posting here) are so enraged about. All the outrage is really wasted breath. But it's good to vent. I would be mad too if I paid nearly $1.0 million for 2,000 100 year old Sq. Ft. when I could live in a better house for less money. OOB folks don't have the benefit of living in the Janney district school community though which some might argue makes it worthwhile to pay for the real estate.

[Anonymous]

I paid nearly $1.0 million for 2,000 100 year old Sq. Ft. when I could live in a better house for less money.

I don't want to totally derail this thread by asking, but I can't resist: where would you say the truly, objectively better homes are in the District? Not "more vibrant" blocks (Logan?) but the actual homes themselves -- the physical structure -- that look better on the inside and the outside, plus the piece of property where they sit?

I can think of 2, up to 4 neighborhoods that fit that bill -- but the homes cost more, not less.

Here are neighborhoods that come up a lot on DCUM that do not pass this ^ test (i.e. the inside of the homes won't be any better): Brookland, Mt. Pleasant, Petworth, 16th ST heights, most of Crestwood, all of not-historic "capitol hill" (i.e., Hill East, Navy Yard), woodridge, trinidad, burleith, almost all of Woodley park, a lot (not all) of shaw, shepherd park, brightwood, eckington.

the neighborhoods where the homes will have reliably more spectacular interiors in a SFH -- true Logan, tiny historic capitol hill, Georgetown, Dupont, historic Shaw, Kalorama - all cost more for a SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ultimately a boundary issue. Don't forget about the proposal to award 10 percent of lottery seats to at risk kids.

That's what the "Janney annex" (a lease at St Ann's) will be for.

Perhaps Hearst should become the "Janney annex." They could split Janney's boundaries and direct more kids to Hearst, or pair with Hearst and move whole grades over there. Either way, if Janney and Hearst had a common program and perhaps some administrative coordination, more Janney parents would be happy sending their kids over to Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I paid nearly $1.0 million for 2,000 100 year old Sq. Ft. when I could live in a better house for less money.

I don't want to totally derail this thread by asking, but I can't resist: where would you say the truly, objectively better homes are in the District? Not "more vibrant" blocks (Logan?) but the actual homes themselves -- the physical structure -- that look better on the inside and the outside, plus the piece of property where they sit?

I can think of 2, up to 4 neighborhoods that fit that bill -- but the homes cost more, not less.

Here are neighborhoods that come up a lot on DCUM that do not pass this ^ test (i.e. the inside of the homes won't be any better): Brookland, Mt. Pleasant, Petworth, 16th ST heights, most of Crestwood, all of not-historic "capitol hill" (i.e., Hill East, Navy Yard), woodridge, trinidad, burleith, almost all of Woodley park, a lot (not all) of shaw, shepherd park, brightwood, eckington.

the neighborhoods where the homes will have reliably more spectacular interiors in a SFH -- true Logan, tiny historic capitol hill, Georgetown, Dupont, historic Shaw, Kalorama - all cost more for a SFH.

Many of the homes in Crestwood and 16th St Heights. Well maintained houses in this area with similar sized (or larger) lots will likely be less. And many of them don't have awkward additions because they were built 2,000 sq. ft or more. Better that's a better conversation for the Real Estate forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ultimately a boundary issue. Don't forget about the proposal to award 10 percent of lottery seats to at risk kids.

That's what the "Janney annex" (a lease at St Ann's) will be for.

Perhaps Hearst should become the "Janney annex." They could split Janney's boundaries and direct more kids to Hearst, or pair with Hearst and move whole grades over there. Either way, if Janney and Hearst had a common program and perhaps some administrative coordination, more Janney parents would be happy sending their kids over to Hearst.

This is actually not a terrible idea. Make Hearst PK4-2 and Janney 3-5.

[Anonymous]

It is so charming how Janney can annex Hearst - is Mann off the table b/c there s more wealth there?

[Anonymous]

Are families who were granted Principal discretion grandfathered to that decision? Can the new Principal change the rules given that concern of current IB children's needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ultimately a boundary issue. Don't forget about the proposal to award 10 percent of lottery seats to at risk kids.

That's what the "Janney annex" (a lease at St Ann's) will be for.

Perhaps Hearst should become the "Janney annex." They could split Janney's boundaries and direct more kids to Hearst, or pair with Hearst and move whole grades over there. Either way, if Janney and Hearst had a common program and perhaps some administrative coordination, more Janney parents would be happy sending their kids over to Hearst.

This is actually not a terrible idea. Make Hearst PK4-2 and Janney 3-5.

Not this debate again....in fact until about 7 years ago Hearst only went to 3rd grade and DCPS made the decision to have it go to 5th.

And really, Hearst is just fine and many in the Hearst community would not want it to become the "Janney annex." If families from anywhere in the city want to join the community, great, but please don't imply that it needs to become a "Janney annex" for it to be desirable. Come check it out now and see what a great school it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ultimately a boundary issue. Don't forget about the proposal to award 10 percent of lottery seats to at risk kids.

That's what the "Janney annex" (a lease at St Ann's) will be for.

Perhaps Hearst should become the "Janney annex." They could split Janney's boundaries and direct more kids to Hearst, or pair with Hearst and move whole grades over there. Either way, if Janney and Hearst had a common program and perhaps some administrative coordination, more Janney parents would be happy sending their kids over to Hearst.

This is actually not a terrible idea. Make Hearst PK4-2 and Janney 3-5.

maybe the principals should talk about this?

[Anonymous]

Maybe Janney should not have shut down any discussion on boundary changes?

The DME study identified it as a school that was overcrowded and made a recommendation to help alleviate the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ultimately a boundary issue. Don't forget about the proposal to award 10 percent of lottery seats to at risk kids.

That's what the "Janney annex" (a lease at St Ann's) will be for.

Perhaps Hearst should become the "Janney annex." They could split Janney's boundaries and direct more kids to Hearst, or pair with Hearst and move whole grades over there. Either way, if Janney and Hearst had a common program and perhaps some administrative coordination, more Janney parents would be happy sending their kids over to Hearst.

This is actually not a terrible idea. Make Hearst PK4-2 and Janney 3-5.

Not this debate again....in fact until about 7 years ago Hearst only went to 3rd grade and DCPS made the decision to have it go to 5th.

And really, Hearst is just fine and many in the Hearst community would not want it to become the "Janney annex." If families from anywhere in the city want to join the community, great, but please don't imply that it needs to become a "Janney annex" for it to be desirable. Come check it out now and see what a great school it is.

Hearst is fine and getting better. But it would certainly become very high achieving if it effectively went to 95% Upper NW SES students with very involved parents. That may not be so PC to point out, but it's the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is so charming how Janney can annex Hearst - is Mann off the table b/c there s more wealth there?

Nah, it's because Mann's Achilles Heel is that it's stuck with Hardy for middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so charming how Janney can annex Hearst - is Mann off the table b/c there s more wealth there?

Nah, it's because Mann's Achilles Heel is that it's stuck with Hardy for middle school.

And its principal is less progressive

[Anonymous]

Are all those 3rd graders really IB Janney??? I wonder what the classes sizes are like in the other Deal feeders? Because, if it's similar, Deal is going to be even more outrageous in 3 years. At what point is someone Downtown going to actually tackle this? There may be no political appetite to removed feeder rights, or remove some schools from the feeder system, or cut whole swaths of WOTP areas out of Deal, but something has to be done. At some point someone is going to have to stop ignoring the problem and actually face pissing of some people and deal with it. Because this is just nuts. And DCPS is no MoCo, so making that comparison is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so charming how Janney can annex Hearst - is Mann off the table b/c there s more wealth there?

Nah, it's because Mann's Achilles Heel is that it's stuck with Hardy for middle school.

But if Mann was the PK-1 and Janney the 2-5, would the Mann kids then go to Deal from Janney?