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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 1 - reduce PreK to 2 classes as it was a few years ago. Free up a few classrooms and reconfigure them to support smaller class size in 2nd and 3rd grade.

Option 2 - Conduct a full audit of enrollment. You either live IB now or you got in through OOB lottery. This will reduce each grade by 10% making class size more manageable.

Option 1: makes sense, except the number will still go up for K, so you only decrease the number of kids in the building, but not the class size.

Option 2: sounds like a good idea. Such a good idea that I'll bet it's been tried before. Probably a hard one to enforce, though. Takes a lot of nerve to do that, and I just don't see a Principal doing that if s/he expects to stay beyond his/her one year contract.

Who is her allegiance to? Children who live IB? Families who lived IB and no longer do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would an OOB audit actually look like? Looking at the paperwork wouldn't tell you anything. Is it a good use or resources to drive to everyone's house?

~ 10% of current students are enrolled b/c of Principal discretion. If you lived IB and moved OOB it was up to the Principal to determine if you could stay OR if you needed to move to your new IB school. The old Principal was very loose with this and anyone - no matter how long they lived IB's were granted rights to say. I know a family that rented IB for 3 months and stayed.

Next year as a part of re-enrollment, you provide evidence that you currently live IB per the guidelines of DCPS. Anyone who does not currently live IB would need to secure a spot through the lottery.


Regarding children who parent's are using a fake address, have an anonymous reporting system. Send a piece of certified mail to the family. If they do not pic up the mail, request that they provide evidence of residency.

A few years ago the old Hardy Principal made families provide evidence - this is not unprecedented.

[Anonymous]

Children should not learn from parents that it's OK to cheat. Instead of preparing future leaders of america, Janney would be providing an excellent education to the Future Crooks of America, if IB cheating is allowed to continue.

If even 10% of the enrollment at Janney is due to cheaters, then they need to be swept out. The bloated class sizes are hurting all of the other students who have a right to be there.

[Anonymous]

Once Murch and Lafayette have renovated buildings I think some of the pressure on Janney / AU Park will be taken off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Children should not learn from parents that it's OK to cheat. Instead of preparing future leaders of america, Janney would be providing an excellent education to the Future Crooks of America, if IB cheating is allowed to continue.

If even 10% of the enrollment at Janney is due to cheaters, then they need to be swept out. The bloated class sizes are hurting all of the other students who have a right to be there.

No one is cheating. All were at one town IB and got permission to stay.

If new principal wants to exercise discretion differently - a la Oyster - that would need to be decided and communicated soon.

2016 lottery opens in December.

[Anonymous]

PP you cannot assume no one is cheating. There will always be cheaters until it is cracked down upon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once Murch and Lafayette have renovated buildings I think some of the pressure on Janney / AU Park will be taken off.

how so? Janney is already overcrowded, and Murch will start off full. Lafayette too. This won't matter to Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once Murch and Lafayette have renovated buildings I think some of the pressure on Janney / AU Park will be taken off.

how so? Janney is already overcrowded, and Murch will start off full. Lafayette too. This won't matter to Janney.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why not make Janney the lower school, then all kids feed to Hardy?

I'm a Janney parent with a PK and 1st grader.

Part of me thinks this might be a great idea - the Janney parents are SO motivated and SO involved and I think that if we were going to Hardy along with Key, Mann, Stoddert... that maybe Hardy would become an "acceptable" school in the eyes of the WOTP people. I grew up in CCDC, and have seen the schools evolve. Eventually, this will happen to Hardy. Is it sooner, or is it later?

On the other hand, much of the Janney zone is so close to Deal that this might happen to another school. Maybe Layfayette to Unicorn Middle School (see DCUM lore) or Hearst?

Either way, I think something has got to give. You can't keep cramming more and more kids into "desirable" elementary and middle schools. It wasn't so long ago that these schools were not so desirable. It's not out of the question that there is more positive change on the horizon. I think Hearst is a great example of that.

And before you get on me, positive change doesn't mean EOTP vs WOTP, it means families who are really involved in the school and who are dedicated to their kid's educations.

EOTP
A tempting thought, but read the Hardy threads sometime. It's complicated. DCPS wants more IB kids there, but there are other views that are wary of IB newcomers wanting to change Hardy too much, or changing Hardy more to attract more Ward 3 kids. Hardy has been a safety valve for kids EOTP whose regular middle school options are not great. Not only do parents of these kids (who view Hardy as being a quite "good enough" school) get annoyed at Ward 3 parents who discount Hardy as being unequal to Deal's quality, but they fear that if too many IB kids enroll, it will effectively cut off access to Hardy for families like them. This tension makes me skeptical that change at Hardy will be anything other than very incremental.

I'm not a Hardy parent, but I don't think they're afraid of being cut off by an influx of IB - the school has capacity for a couple hundred more kids. What's annoying is the way people on DCUM want to cut off access to OOB kids. They will only find Hardy acceptable once OOB students have been diminished, even though there aren't enough IB kids to even get close to filling the school.

Expanding Hardy by another 200+ kids would be a dumb move by DCPS because thst would erode Hardy's only demonstrable advantage over Deal -- its small size.

[Anonymous]

To think this can be solved without redistricting is denial. The alternative is as a PP observes that Janney will get more and more crowded until it becomes unattractive to new families.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why it's hard to enforce in-bounds enrollment. Just require all families to provide two forms proving residence -- two utility bills to your name at an in-bounds address, for example. That's what DC requires for car registration and parking permits, so why not the same requirement for school enrollment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why it's hard to enforce in-bounds enrollment. Just require all families to provide two forms proving residence -- two utility bills to your name at an in-bounds address, for example. That's what DC requires for car registration and parking permits, so why not the same requirement for school enrollment?

It seems you have never enrolled in a DC public school - DCPS or charter - or it has been a while. There is a list of specific documents you can produce to prove residency.
See this link http://osse.dc.gov/service/enrollment-and-residency-verification

[Anonymous]

It is not about enforcing in-bounds enrollment. There was a loop hole that the previous Principal allowed a truck through. If you were IB and moved OOB it was up to the principal to decide if you stayed. The previous Principal allowed everyone to stay - if you lived IB for 3 months or 3 years she opened the doors to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once Murch and Lafayette have renovated buildings I think some of the pressure on Janney / AU Park will be taken off.

how so? Janney is already overcrowded, and Murch will start off full. Lafayette too. This won't matter to Janney.

+1

It matters to the 31-yr-old couple with 2 preschoolers who are currently living in Trinidad/ petworth/ "hill east" / eckington and have to move because their IB school is a non-starter; they didn't get into MV; and their 2.5 bedroom rowhome with no backyard is too small.

These people have a choice of where to move when they cash out of their generic rowhome. If the choice is ward3, it won't reflexively be a move to AU park once Murch and Lafayette look like sparkly Janney in 3 years. A lot of people equate shiny new with excellence (see eg Stoddert)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once Murch and Lafayette have renovated buildings I think some of the pressure on Janney / AU Park will be taken off.

how so? Janney is already overcrowded, and Murch will start off full. Lafayette too. This won't matter to Janney.

+1

It matters to the 31-yr-old couple with 2 preschoolers who are currently living in Trinidad/ petworth/ "hill east" / eckington and have to move because their IB school is a non-starter; they didn't get into MV; and their 2.5 bedroom rowhome with no backyard is too small.

These people have a choice of where to move when they cash out of their generic rowhome. If the choice is ward3, it won't reflexively be a move to AU park once Murch and Lafayette look like sparkly Janney in 3 years. A lot of people equate shiny new with excellence (see eg Stoddert)

Yes, thank you. I am the quoted PP. People flock to AU park for the sparkling new Janney over Lafayette and Murch. Once those schools also have new buildings, people will consider those neighborhoods more. Will it help my PK and 1st grader's class sizes? Maybe by a small amount. But, going forward, it will relieve pressure off the school in general. Big picture, people. Big picture.