Greater Greater Washington story on school enrollment growth

[Anonymous]

Don’t you sometimes get the impression that Greater Greater Washington bloggers tend to view DC from the perspective of their millennial basement flats - or perhaps their mother’s basement? They tend to be single, childless and have little concept of the real world educational considerations faced by parents in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t you sometimes get the impression that Greater Greater Washington bloggers tend to view DC from the perspective of their millennial basement flats - or perhaps their mother’s basement? They tend to be single, childless and have little concept of the real world educational considerations faced by parents in DC.

Exactly. Their education coverage reads like an alien visiting this planet and trying to make sense of our strange customs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s rather ironic that GGW seems to be advocating a move away from a neighborhood-based school system. I thougjt they were all about walkable neighborhoods and reducing the role of the automobile. A complete lottery system would undercut these goals.

Or perhaps GGW’s walkable, green rhetoric is just that - just empty talking points to advance their pro-Big Develoment agenda.

Go back and read the article and tell me exactly what the article is advocating for. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nick, the MFP says there are 26 buildings that are District-owned. Yes, some need to stay swing space, but some could be used. I don't even know the names of them all, but re-run the numbers with the following buildings added and I think you will find a lot of problems solved.

Emery
Spingarn
Meyer
Bruce (Chavez)
Fletcher-Johnson
Marshall
Old Miner
Old Randle Highlands
Winston
1325 S St NW (small but perfect for preschool?)
Current Banneker site
Garnett-Patterson
Any others?

Nick here.

I made a conscious effort just to write about what the DME provided. In the Master Facilities Plan there is a facilities spending plan for the next six years, and that plan is reflected in the capacities for 2027. I agree that DCPS needs to add capacity, the problem is that the current plan isn't to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So thanks to Nick for writing this story. I don't know him but I have tracked these issues for years and this all makes sense to me. The truth is there is no easy solution and it is not just a WOTP issue. He mentioned Capitol Hill elementary schools and he is right (as the Miner post confirms). A little further south, look at the growth in the Navy Yard and SW in the last 5 years and there are still cranes for additional apartment buildings.

This is a once in a generation (or a few) challenge and I'm glad it is at least being discussed.

And Eastern has plenty of capacity, assuming IB families take advantage of it. And if they don't, application school slots are plentiful and growing.

But the elementary schools are packed, which is still an issue.

But there is still capacity to the east and south (EOTR). Lines will need to be redrawn.

But to Nick's point, they would have to be re-drawn to the extent that if you lived on top of a school building, you would be assigned to another one miles away. You are kidding yourself if you think that will work.

No. Nick persists in thinking new schools cannot be created. That may be true in Ward 3 but it is not true elsewhere in the city. E.g. re-open Spingarn and Eastern's boundary can shrink or shift west. Some kids end up at Spingarn which is closer to their house than Eastern is.

Nick here.

It's not that I don't think that new schools can't be created. It's that the DME published plan is that new schools won't be created, and that while the city is going to spend $1.6 billion on school modernization in the next six years it's going to result in very few additional seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article makes me want to have DCPS gore some data people to break out the likely results of changing the lottery preferences. I want analyses not DCUM complaints.

As a data person I'm opposed to data people being gored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So thanks to Nick for writing this story. I don't know him but I have tracked these issues for years and this all makes sense to me. The truth is there is no easy solution and it is not just a WOTP issue. He mentioned Capitol Hill elementary schools and he is right (as the Miner post confirms). A little further south, look at the growth in the Navy Yard and SW in the last 5 years and there are still cranes for additional apartment buildings.

This is a once in a generation (or a few) challenge and I'm glad it is at least being discussed.

And Eastern has plenty of capacity, assuming IB families take advantage of it. And if they don't, application school slots are plentiful and growing.

But the elementary schools are packed, which is still an issue.

But there is still capacity to the east and south (EOTR). Lines will need to be redrawn.

But to Nick's point, they would have to be re-drawn to the extent that if you lived on top of a school building, you would be assigned to another one miles away. You are kidding yourself if you think that will work.

No. Nick persists in thinking new schools cannot be created. That may be true in Ward 3 but it is not true elsewhere in the city. E.g. re-open Spingarn and Eastern's boundary can shrink or shift west. Some kids end up at Spingarn which is closer to their house than Eastern is.

Nick here.

It's not that I don't think that new schools can't be created. It's that the DME published plan is that new schools won't be created, and that while the city is going to spend $1.6 billion on school modernization in the next six years it's going to result in very few additional seats.

Then why does "Re-Use Public Facilities" appear in the "Recommendations and Options" section, on page 4-3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, the MFP says there are 26 buildings that are District-owned. Yes, some need to stay swing space, but some could be used. I don't even know the names of them all, but re-run the numbers with the following buildings added and I think you will find a lot of problems solved.

Emery
Spingarn
Meyer
Bruce (Chavez)
Fletcher-Johnson
Marshall
Old Miner
Old Randle Highlands
Winston
1325 S St NW (small but perfect for preschool?)
Current Banneker site
Garnett-Patterson
Any others?

Nick here.

I made a conscious effort just to write about what the DME provided. In the Master Facilities Plan there is a facilities spending plan for the next six years, and that plan is reflected in the capacities for 2027. I agree that DCPS needs to add capacity, the problem is that the current plan isn't to do that.

You're being tendentious in refusing to consider these obvious options, and I think you're doing it because you want to believe that Ward 3's problems are shared by the rest of the city, but it just isn't true. DCPS and the Mayor do things that aren't on the plan whenever they feel like it, and there's plenty of time for them to figure out years 7-10.

You still haven't answered the question of why an all-lottery system is inevitable even though people dislike it and it increased segregation in San Francisco. How can something unpopular and problematic be inevitable, yet kicking schools out of the Wilson group is impossible because it's also unpopular?

[Anonymous]

Nick since you’re reading and responding here rather than at ggwash, why do you believe we should expand WOTP when student growth is from families living EOTP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, the MFP says there are 26 buildings that are District-owned. Yes, some need to stay swing space, but some could be used. I don't even know the names of them all, but re-run the numbers with the following buildings added and I think you will find a lot of problems solved.

Emery
Spingarn
Meyer
Bruce (Chavez)
Fletcher-Johnson
Marshall
Old Miner
Old Randle Highlands
Winston
1325 S St NW (small but perfect for preschool?)
Current Banneker site
Garnett-Patterson
Any others?

Nick here.

I made a conscious effort just to write about what the DME provided. In the Master Facilities Plan there is a facilities spending plan for the next six years, and that plan is reflected in the capacities for 2027. I agree that DCPS needs to add capacity, the problem is that the current plan isn't to do that.

You're being tendentious in refusing to consider these obvious options, and I think you're doing it because you want to believe that Ward 3's problems are shared by the rest of the city, but it just isn't true. DCPS and the Mayor do things that aren't on the plan whenever they feel like it, and there's plenty of time for them to figure out years 7-10.

You still haven't answered the question of why an all-lottery system is inevitable even though people dislike it and it increased segregation in San Francisco. How can something unpopular and problematic be inevitable, yet kicking schools out of the Wilson group is impossible because it's also unpopular?

So basically DCPS can 1) Fill out the remaining 4 years of a 10-year plan, or 2) Deprive everyone of in-boundary rights, despite widespread opposition and bad outcomes in other cities. And you think #2 is inevitable because #1 hasn't been done yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nick since you’re reading and responding here rather than at ggwash, why do you believe we should expand WOTP when student growth is from families living EOTP?

Nick here. Better commenters here than at GGWash.

Where do I say we should expand WOTP?

My understanding is that student growth is coming from the entire city. I don't have access to the raw projections from the Office of Planning that the DME used, but you can see some older projections here:

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Presentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf


Look at the map on page 22. Pretty much every part of the city is going to experience significant growth (although the presentation they use is kind of confusing.) Heaviest growth is in the middle of the city -- Columbia Heights up through Petworth -- which I highlight in my article. Also in the southern tip of Ward 8, which I don't highlight, because the projection is that part of the city will still have ample capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick since you’re reading and responding here rather than at ggwash, why do you believe we should expand WOTP when student growth is from families living EOTP?

Nick here. Better commenters here than at GGWash.

Where do I say we should expand WOTP?

My understanding is that student growth is coming from the entire city. I don't have access to the raw projections from the Office of Planning that the DME used, but you can see some older projections here:

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Presentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf


Look at the map on page 22. Pretty much every part of the city is going to experience significant growth (although the presentation they use is kind of confusing.) Heaviest growth is in the middle of the city -- Columbia Heights up through Petworth -- which I highlight in my article. Also in the southern tip of Ward 8, which I don't highlight, because the projection is that part of the city will still have ample capacity.

There is student growth throughout the city, but there is additional capacity throughout the city. (The sites you're declining to consider because they don't support your conclusion). It's only in Ward 3 and, I guess, Ward 2, that there aren't any more buildings available.

Isn't BASIS basically in an office building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, the MFP says there are 26 buildings that are District-owned. Yes, some need to stay swing space, but some could be used. I don't even know the names of them all, but re-run the numbers with the following buildings added and I think you will find a lot of problems solved.

Emery
Spingarn
Meyer
Bruce (Chavez)
Fletcher-Johnson
Marshall
Old Miner
Old Randle Highlands
Winston
1325 S St NW (small but perfect for preschool?)
Current Banneker site
Garnett-Patterson
Any others?

Nick here.

I made a conscious effort just to write about what the DME provided. In the Master Facilities Plan there is a facilities spending plan for the next six years, and that plan is reflected in the capacities for 2027. I agree that DCPS needs to add capacity, the problem is that the current plan isn't to do that.

You're being tendentious in refusing to consider these obvious options, and I think you're doing it because you want to believe that Ward 3's problems are shared by the rest of the city, but it just isn't true. DCPS and the Mayor do things that aren't on the plan whenever they feel like it, and there's plenty of time for them to figure out years 7-10.

You still haven't answered the question of why an all-lottery system is inevitable even though people dislike it and it increased segregation in San Francisco. How can something unpopular and problematic be inevitable, yet kicking schools out of the Wilson group is impossible because it's also unpopular?

Not Nick but a random poster here.

I don’t think DC will go all-lottery; it would work worse here than the other cities where it has failed.

However, there is a key reason that the likelihood of going all-lottery is greater than it should be: it’s politically easier than redrawing boundaries.

In the boundary change process, the ‘losers’ organize and fight back. Were the city to go all-lottery, then the losers wouldn’t be known until the system were codified and the lottery happened; the losers would be too geographically dispersed to organize well and it would be too late anyway.

A great solution for feckless officials!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick, the MFP says there are 26 buildings that are District-owned. Yes, some need to stay swing space, but some could be used. I don't even know the names of them all, but re-run the numbers with the following buildings added and I think you will find a lot of problems solved.

Emery
Spingarn
Meyer
Bruce (Chavez)
Fletcher-Johnson
Marshall
Old Miner
Old Randle Highlands
Winston
1325 S St NW (small but perfect for preschool?)
Current Banneker site
Garnett-Patterson
Any others?

Nick here.

I made a conscious effort just to write about what the DME provided. In the Master Facilities Plan there is a facilities spending plan for the next six years, and that plan is reflected in the capacities for 2027. I agree that DCPS needs to add capacity, the problem is that the current plan isn't to do that.

You're being tendentious in refusing to consider these obvious options, and I think you're doing it because you want to believe that Ward 3's problems are shared by the rest of the city, but it just isn't true. DCPS and the Mayor do things that aren't on the plan whenever they feel like it, and there's plenty of time for them to figure out years 7-10.

You still haven't answered the question of why an all-lottery system is inevitable even though people dislike it and it increased segregation in San Francisco. How can something unpopular and problematic be inevitable, yet kicking schools out of the Wilson group is impossible because it's also unpopular?

Not Nick but a random poster here.

I don’t think DC will go all-lottery; it would work worse here than the other cities where it has failed.

However, there is a key reason that the likelihood of going all-lottery is greater than it should be: it’s politically easier than redrawing boundaries.

In the boundary change process, the ‘losers’ organize and fight back. Were the city to go all-lottery, then the losers wouldn’t be known until the system were codified and the lottery happened; the losers would be too geographically dispersed to organize well and it would be too late anyway.

A great solution for feckless officials!

No way. Everyone is potentially a loser in an all-lottery system. Even those of us in one-star schools run the risk of being forced into a different one-star school that is less convenient, and that would really suck. I'm a charter parent, even, and I'm dead set against this.

The city just redrew a bunch of boundaries and yes, there was some difficulty, but the end result was they managed to do it. So they can do it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where does the Chancellor send his kid(s)? Not sure I remember hearing.

Washington International School - See last sentence of WaPo story posted at 13:01.

We replaced someone who jumped the line to get his daughter into Wilson for someone with 2 kids who opts out of DC schools (charter or public) altogether.

Ahh this make me so mad! Bring back the old Chancellor he suddenly looks a lot better!!!