Which jklmm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Murch accept any OOB if it is so overcrowded?

Mann keeps its class sizes small by not taking lots of OOB. I Think this is a reasonable question. Janney is huge with IB kids - Murch doesn't face that issue.

Yes, it does. Murch would still be way overcrowded with just IB kids. The school's cpacity is 450, but it's enrollment is 650. Only about 65 kids are OOB.

Hearst is a better example. They're something like over 80% OOB (!) yet expanding classroom space (in addition to adding a multipurpose room and library which are needed no matter the student body size).

Here we go again. Almost everything tells me not to take the bait. But I can't help myself. Are any of these anti-Hearst people actually from our school or are they just people who don't like the school's makeup? Ok. I won't take the bait. I will drink coffee instead. Hearst is a great school.

It's telling that you call the PP "anti-Hearst" but fail to address the writer's point about expanding classroom space in a school that is over 4/5 OOB. How does that make sense?

[Anonymous]

NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

No because that is eventually where the Murch and Janney overflow will land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

No because that is eventually where the Murch and Janney overflow will land.

I don't necessarily see IB enrollment at the JKLM schools continuing to increase at recent rates. This may seem anecdotal, but neighborhood housing turnover seems to go in cycles rather than at a steady rate. Look, for example, at how little inventory there is in AU Park of houses for sale. Once kids get through Janney, those kids will go on to Deal, Wilson or somewhere else, and it's likely that their parents may stay as empty nesters for some years after that. So there may be fewer young families with young kids moving into the area in the foreseeable future. The result may be that the schools are overbuilding for what their neighborhood school populations may be in 8 or 10 years and the schools will therefore become more city-wide rather than local in orientation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

Murch is not 80% OOB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

Murch is not 80% OOB

So, are posters saying that having a school have enough space for two classes per grade is too much to ask? It should be kept a tiny boundary and have one class per grade? That makes no sense.

They can roll back OOB enrollment, but the school should have two classes per grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

No because that is eventually where the Murch and Janney overflow will land.

I don't necessarily see IB enrollment at the JKLM schools continuing to increase at recent rates. This may seem anecdotal, but neighborhood housing turnover seems to go in cycles rather than at a steady rate. Look, for example, at how little inventory there is in AU Park of houses for sale. Once kids get through Janney, those kids will go on to Deal, Wilson or somewhere else, and it's likely that their parents may stay as empty nesters for some years after that. So there may be fewer young families with young kids moving into the area in the foreseeable future. The result may be that the schools are overbuilding for what their neighborhood school populations may be in 8 or 10 years and the schools will therefore become more city-wide rather than local in orientation.

I disagree, more young families are staying in the city every single year and I think each year more young families will move into the NW school zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

Murch is not 80% OOB

So, are posters saying that having a school have enough space for two classes per grade is too much to ask? It should be kept a tiny boundary and have one class per grade? That makes no sense.

They can roll back OOB enrollment, but the school should have two classes per grade.

Why is that? I can't even fathom what would motivate someone to make such a normative statement like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

The portable classrooms were added pre-renovation when the school was converted from a pre-k through 3 early learning school back to a full elementary school. DCPS also added an expanded autism program which also required more classroom space. Other than upgrading things like electrical/HVAC and plumbing, not much had been done to the building, including the number of classroom spaces, since it opened in the later part of the 1920s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't necessarily see IB enrollment at the JKLM schools continuing to increase at recent rates. This may seem anecdotal, but neighborhood housing turnover seems to go in cycles rather than at a steady rate. Look, for example, at how little inventory there is in AU Park of houses for sale. Once kids get through Janney, those kids will go on to Deal, Wilson or somewhere else, and it's likely that their parents may stay as empty nesters for some years after that. So there may be fewer young families with young kids moving into the area in the foreseeable future. The result may be that the schools are overbuilding for what their neighborhood school populations may be in 8 or 10 years and the schools will therefore become more city-wide rather than local in orientation.

As an observer who lives in AU Park I can tell you that pretty much every house that goes on the market is bought quickly by a couple with two young kids, or one, and one on the way. There are also still in the neighborhood plenty of mid-aged to elderly folks that are still in their houses. At least from what I can see there is room for a steady influx of new families in the current Janney zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't necessarily see IB enrollment at the JKLM schools continuing to increase at recent rates. This may seem anecdotal, but neighborhood housing turnover seems to go in cycles rather than at a steady rate. Look, for example, at how little inventory there is in AU Park of houses for sale. Once kids get through Janney, those kids will go on to Deal, Wilson or somewhere else, and it's likely that their parents may stay as empty nesters for some years after that. So there may be fewer young families with young kids moving into the area in the foreseeable future. The result may be that the schools are overbuilding for what their neighborhood school populations may be in 8 or 10 years and the schools will therefore become more city-wide rather than local in orientation.

As an observer who lives in AU Park I can tell you that pretty much every house that goes on the market is bought quickly by a couple with two young kids, or one, and one on the way. There are also still in the neighborhood plenty of mid-aged to elderly folks that are still in their houses. At least from what I can see there is room for a steady influx of new families in the current Janney zone.

yes, AU park is still 50% retirees. I live in the neighborhood and am always struck by this when we go trick-or-treating.
There are a lot of houses that have yet to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

Murch is not 80% OOB

So, are posters saying that having a school have enough space for two classes per grade is too much to ask? It should be kept a tiny boundary and have one class per grade? That makes no sense.

They can roll back OOB enrollment, but the school should have two classes per grade.

Perhaps they are suggesting Hearst should eliminate its autism classes, which are expanding next year, and squeeze typical kids back into those spaces? The haters just have no idea what amazing services the school provides and what a good neighbor it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here, they did NOT expand classroom space. There will only be two classes per grade now as before. It was like Murch in that full buildings were temporary buildings.

This is a distinction without a difference. While technically it may be true that simply converting today's portable classroom space into brick and mortar classrooms is not expanding current instructional space, it ignores the fact that trailers were added pre-renovation to address an enlarged student body that exceeded the capacity of the old building. Wouldn't the prudent thing have been to ratchet back the OOB enrollment as IB enrollment climbed, rather than build such a large addition to accommodate a "new normal" school population that is still above 80% OOB?

Murch is not 80% OOB

So, are posters saying that having a school have enough space for two classes per grade is too much to ask? It should be kept a tiny boundary and have one class per grade? That makes no sense.

They can roll back OOB enrollment, but the school should have two classes per grade.

Perhaps they are suggesting Hearst should eliminate its autism classes, which are expanding next year, and squeeze typical kids back into those spaces? The haters just have no idea what amazing services the school provides and what a good neighbor it is.

Darn phone. The point is, the classrooms are needed. They have two per grade plus the autism classes and everyone attending deserves modern facilities. No one should be squeezed and learning in antiquated facilities. If you want the school to go back to prek-3, then first figure out how you're going to accommodate all the IB families (> 50 percent in Pre-K) in Janny and Murch and Eaton in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Back to the original question, they are all good - with minor differences between them. And that strange lady who thinks Murch is lesser and not a part of the acronym is great: go away and don't buy in-bounds for Murch so that the school doesn't have to grow in size any more. So to Janney, so that my kid can have fewer kids in the classroom than yours!