does anyone else find the social scene at Janney hard to take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^but isn't that true, in terms of geography and school overcrowding?

+1

[Anonymous]

I think all current areas of the boundary should be retained to the extent possible and I do not actually think there is overcrowding. I also think some things were said in the heat of the moment on both sides of Wisconsin that turned the other side off. East of Wisconsin the argument was made that they were more entitled to Janney than families farther west because families east of Wisconsin walk to school and those that already drive can just drive farther. West of Wisconsin the argument was made that the area east of Wisconsin has long been the target for redistricting and everyone knew that. It is an anomaly area that is walking distance to multiple schools because the schools are clustered together.

IMHO, the reality is that Janney has enough space for the foreseeable future and we should not be redistributing students to make space for set asides that likely won't even be used to help at risk kids because of the logistics involved. Frankly, I have no interest in moving any current families out to make room for kids from high SES families EOTP that wanted a bigger house so chose not to buy where they want to send their kids to school. I also think that this has damaged the relationships within the Janney community. I hope it will settle down.

Janney is a great community, this thread has done nothing to change my perspective but the boundary debate was not pretty and I can see how it caused a rift.

[Anonymous]

So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

Not if they are at the expense of in boundary students, meaning they are a reason to shrink the boundary AND there is no requirement they are actually used by at risk students. It has been presented as a lottery preference. Exactly how are kids that fit the parameters for at risk actually going to get to WOTP schools every day? I am happy to have at risk kids and OOB kids at the school, I am not supportive of reducing the boundary to make room for kids of parents that have actual other choices, meaning kids that are not at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with previous posters: there are almost zero stay-at-home moms in the younger (PK, K) grades at Janney.

My son did a PK year at St. Columba's this past year (because we didn't get a spot at Janney) and I believe I was the only SAHM in his class. So I'm pretty sure when we get to Janney this fall there will be similar stats - as many of the families are heading there.

[Anonymous]

I took the liberty of googling every parent in the Janney system, finding their linkedin, looking up average salary on glass door (or actual salary if a fed) and putting it all in excel. Took forever but it was interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

Not if they are at the expense of in boundary students, meaning they are a reason to shrink the boundary AND there is no requirement they are actually used by at risk students. It has been presented as a lottery preference. Exactly how are kids that fit the parameters for at risk actually going to get to WOTP schools every day? I am happy to have at risk kids and OOB kids at the school, I am not supportive of reducing the boundary to make room for kids of parents that have actual other choices, meaning kids that are not at risk.

I agree with this. No child or family should be told they can't go to a school in their neighborhood because of some ideological bureaucrat's social engineering notion du jour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^but isn't that true, in terms of geography and school overcrowding?

On some level, if they need to reduce the size of the Janney area, either for over-crowding or to have room for the OOB quota, then it's logical to change the boundaries to the east and the south. The only way to re-zone homes to the north and west of Janney is to put them in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

Not if they are at the expense of in boundary students, meaning they are a reason to shrink the boundary AND there is no requirement they are actually used by at risk students. It has been presented as a lottery preference. Exactly how are kids that fit the parameters for at risk actually going to get to WOTP schools every day? I am happy to have at risk kids and OOB kids at the school, I am not supportive of reducing the boundary to make room for kids of parents that have actual other choices, meaning kids that are not at risk.

I agree with this. No child or family should be told they can't go to a school in their neighborhood because of some ideological bureaucrat's social engineering notion du jour.

+1000
Janney was built to serve the area East of Wisconsin, and it seems ridiculous to even consider removing the students living closest to the school. DCPS needs to think seriously about proximity for elementary schools. Kids living close to schools shouldn't be removed to satisfy a lame duck DC bureaurocrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^but isn't that true, in terms of geography and school overcrowding?

On some level, if they need to reduce the size of the Janney area, either for over-crowding or to have room for the OOB quota, then it's logical to change the boundaries to the east and the south. The only way to re-zone homes to the north and west of Janney is to put them in Montgomery County.

DCPS can build a new school in the Northern part of the boundary so that kids in your neighborhood can also walk to school and not drive or bus/Metro to school.

What DCPS lacks is an ability to plan. I hope the new mayor has a keen focus on planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

Not if they are at the expense of in boundary students, meaning they are a reason to shrink the boundary AND there is no requirement they are actually used by at risk students. It has been presented as a lottery preference. Exactly how are kids that fit the parameters for at risk actually going to get to WOTP schools every day? I am happy to have at risk kids and OOB kids at the school, I am not supportive of reducing the boundary to make room for kids of parents that have actual other choices, meaning kids that are not at risk.

I agree with this. No child or family should be told they can't go to a school in their neighborhood because of some ideological bureaucrat's social engineering notion du jour.

+1000
Janney was built to serve the area East of Wisconsin, and it seems ridiculous to even consider removing the students living closest to the school. DCPS needs to think seriously about proximity for elementary schools. Kids living close to schools shouldn't be removed to satisfy a lame duck DC bureaurocrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

Not if they are at the expense of in boundary students, meaning they are a reason to shrink the boundary AND there is no requirement they are actually used by at risk students. It has been presented as a lottery preference. Exactly how are kids that fit the parameters for at risk actually going to get to WOTP schools every day? I am happy to have at risk kids and OOB kids at the school, I am not supportive of reducing the boundary to make room for kids of parents that have actual other choices, meaning kids that are not at risk.

I agree with this. No child or family should be told they can't go to a school in their neighborhood because of some ideological bureaucrat's social engineering notion du jour.

+1000
Janney was built to serve the area East of Wisconsin, and it seems ridiculous to even consider removing the students living closest to the school. DCPS needs to think seriously about proximity for elementary schools. Kids living close to schools shouldn't be removed to satisfy a lame duck DC bureaurocrat.

Not sure what I did to repost this.

Anyway, this (and the post that follows it) is the kind is statement that is causing the rift within the boundary. I would appreciate people thinking before they write. Dcps does not need to build another elementary school in AU park so that a few homes (no current students were ever proposed to be moved) east of Wisconsin do not get moved out of the current boundary to a perfectly good and modernized elementary school. That is silly. I am sick of hearing about how walkability trumps all other factors, it does not. Dcps is in a crisis in many schools, but not wotp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

Not if they are at the expense of in boundary students, meaning they are a reason to shrink the boundary AND there is no requirement they are actually used by at risk students. It has been presented as a lottery preference. Exactly how are kids that fit the parameters for at risk actually going to get to WOTP schools every day? I am happy to have at risk kids and OOB kids at the school, I am not supportive of reducing the boundary to make room for kids of parents that have actual other choices, meaning kids that are not at risk.

I agree with this. No child or family should be told they can't go to a school in their neighborhood because of some ideological bureaucrat's social engineering notion du jour.

+1000
Janney was built to serve the area East of Wisconsin, and it seems ridiculous to even consider removing the students living closest to the school. DCPS needs to think seriously about proximity for elementary schools. Kids living close to schools shouldn't be removed to satisfy a lame duck DC bureaurocrat.

While I certainly appreciate and agree with the sentiment that proximity should be a highly prioritized factor in school boundaries, the reality of the current situation in upper northwest is we have 3 public elementary schools which are very, very close to each other. We already have a situation where some families live closer to one school but are zoned for another but the difference in distances we're talking about for a number of homes (not all certainly) are really quite marginal.

But back to the issue of 3 very closely positioned schools - Two of those schools - Janney, Murch - have geographically large boundaries and a high participation rate by neighborhood students. One - Hearst - has a relatively very small geographic boundary and low participation rate by neighborhood students. It simply seems illogical to me NOT to adjust the boundaries to more evenly distribute neighborhood kids among the 3 schools in the neighborhood. I truly don't understand how anyone can provide a rational argument not to support greater neighborhood participation at Hearst when you consider the neighborhood/system as a whole and not just on a school by school basis.

I could NEVER support a proposal for DCPS to spend another cent on a new school building in upper NW DC until all existing schools in upper NW DC including Hearst see equivalent neighborhood participation.

As a note in response to the PP comment about 'how at-risk kids will get to WOTP schools', I'd offer in general "where there's a will there's a way', and more specifically that Janney in particular is about 100 yards from a public bus stop and perhaps more relevantly the metro. Of all Ward 3 schools it is arguably the best logistically suited for OOB at risk students to get to given WMATA's provision for kids to ride free to school.

[Anonymous]

^^Agree with PP that the bed use of resources for the school system should be taken into account for school boundary decisions, and not just catering to a few families who are not yet enrolled in school. I guess we will see what the final boundary proposal suggests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you are arguing there should be no set asides?

Not if they are at the expense of in boundary students, meaning they are a reason to shrink the boundary AND there is no requirement they are actually used by at risk students. It has been presented as a lottery preference. Exactly how are kids that fit the parameters for at risk actually going to get to WOTP schools every day? I am happy to have at risk kids and OOB kids at the school, I am not supportive of reducing the boundary to make room for kids of parents that have actual other choices, meaning kids that are not at risk.

I agree with this. No child or family should be told they can't go to a school in their neighborhood because of some ideological bureaucrat's social engineering notion du jour.

+1000
Janney was built to serve the area East of Wisconsin, and it seems ridiculous to even consider removing the students living closest to the school. DCPS needs to think seriously about proximity for elementary schools. Kids living close to schools shouldn't be removed to satisfy a lame duck DC bureaurocrat.

I never heard that Janney was built to serve the area east of Wisconsin. It's the last elementary school before you get to Maryland and therefore serves the area of DC that extends to Western Ave. The Janney district and AU Park are just so synonymous today, and there is probably no closer identification of school and neighborhood in DC. The real estate market certainly prices the school in. East of Wisconsin is a kind of up-for-grabs area (East Tenley - North Van Ness - West Chevy Chase DC?) which could go anywhere, although Murch and Hearst are the most logical schools.