DC council giving away DCPS property to Lab School

[Anonymous]

Council overrides Bowser veto:
http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/37031/B21-0991-SignedAct.pdf

Now it gets interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council overrides Bowser veto:
http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/37031/B21-0991-SignedAct.pdf

Now it gets interesting.

Yes, such an emergency the Council is resolving by leasing public property for pennies without a chance for public comment. Shame on them.

[Anonymous]

Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Presentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Presentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

OK, we get it. Please explain how page 22 shows a "sea of black" around old Hardy/Foxhall? None of the growth areas on pages 21 and 22 list Ward 3 neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Prehe msentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

OK, we get it. Please explain how page 22 shows a "sea of black" around old Hardy/Foxhall? None of the growth areas on pages 21 and 22 list Ward 3 neighborhoods.

It's really dark gray, not black.

The map on page 22 is shaded by cluster. White is no or negative growth (through 2022). Light gray is 575-1,771 additional kids, dark gray is 1,772-3,278, black is 3,279-5,281. (I have no idea how they picked those cutoffs). Old Hardy is on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between cluster 13 and 14. Cluster 14 is the one with the white circle punched into it (the VP's residence) at its eastern edge, 13 is the one immediately to its west. Both are dark gray -- 1,772-3,278 kids. Which means that the neighborhoods around the school are expecting a minimum of 3,544 additional kids in the next five years. The clusters to the north and south are also colored dark gray.

These are five year projections. The kids have already been born. The idea that crowding is going to fix itself flies in the face of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Presentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

I think you're the one in the alternate reality. The Old Hardy School is most certainly not in Columbia Heights!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Prehe msentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

OK, we get it. Please explain how page 22 shows a "sea of black" around old Hardy/Foxhall? None of the growth areas on pages 21 and 22 list Ward 3 neighborhoods.

It's really dark gray, not black.

The map on page 22 is shaded by cluster. White is no or negative growth (through 2022). Light gray is 575-1,771 additional kids, dark gray is 1,772-3,278, black is 3,279-5,281. (I have no idea how they picked those cutoffs). Old Hardy is on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between cluster 13 and 14. Cluster 14 is the one with the white circle punched into it (the VP's residence) at its eastern edge, 13 is the one immediately to its west. Both are dark gray -- 1,772-3,278 kids. Which means that the neighborhoods around the school are expecting a minimum of 3,544 additional kids in the next five years. The clusters to the north and south are also colored dark gray.

These are five year projections. The kids have already been born. The idea that crowding is going to fix itself flies in the face of reality.

Plus, Stoddert and Key -- which already both have trailers -- are going to have to absorb an additional half-day a week of programming next year when Filmore closes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Prehe msentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

OK, we get it. Please explain how page 22 shows a "sea of black" around old Hardy/Foxhall? None of the growth areas on pages 21 and 22 list Ward 3 neighborhoods.

It's really dark gray, not black.

The map on page 22 is shaded by cluster. White is no or negative growth (through 2022). Light gray is 575-1,771 additional kids, dark gray is 1,772-3,278, black is 3,279-5,281. (I have no idea how they picked those cutoffs). Old Hardy is on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between cluster 13 and 14. Cluster 14 is the one with the white circle punched into it (the VP's residence) at its eastern edge, 13 is the one immediately to its west. Both are dark gray -- 1,772-3,278 kids. Which means that the neighborhoods around the school are expecting a minimum of 3,544 additional kids in the next five years. The clusters to the north and south are also colored dark gray.

These are five year projections. The kids have already been born. The idea that crowding is going to fix itself flies in the face of reality.

Plus, Stoddert and Key -- which already both have trailers -- are going to have to absorb an additional half-day a week of programming next year when Filmore closes.

I don't think Filmore is closing next year... I thought funding was allocated for next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Prehe msentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

OK, we get it. Please explain how page 22 shows a "sea of black" around old Hardy/Foxhall? None of the growth areas on pages 21 and 22 list Ward 3 neighborhoods.

It's really dark gray, not black.

The map on page 22 is shaded by cluster. White is no or negative growth (through 2022). Light gray is 575-1,771 additional kids, dark gray is 1,772-3,278, black is 3,279-5,281. (I have no idea how they picked those cutoffs). Old Hardy is on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between cluster 13 and 14. Cluster 14 is the one with the white circle punched into it (the VP's residence) at its eastern edge, 13 is the one immediately to its west. Both are dark gray -- 1,772-3,278 kids. Which means that the neighborhoods around the school are expecting a minimum of 3,544 additional kids in the next five years. The clusters to the north and south are also colored dark gray.

These are five year projections. The kids have already been born. The idea that crowding is going to fix itself flies in the face of reality.

Plus, Stoddert and Key -- which already both have trailers -- are going to have to absorb an additional half-day a week of programming next year when Filmore closes.

I don't think Filmore is closing next year... I thought funding was allocated for next year?

It's closing in 2018, next calendar year. It will be around for next school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Prehe msentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

OK, we get it. Please explain how page 22 shows a "sea of black" around old Hardy/Foxhall? None of the growth areas on pages 21 and 22 list Ward 3 neighborhoods.

It's really dark gray, not black.

The map on page 22 is shaded by cluster. White is no or negative growth (through 2022). Light gray is 575-1,771 additional kids, dark gray is 1,772-3,278, black is 3,279-5,281. (I have no idea how they picked those cutoffs). Old Hardy is on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between cluster 13 and 14. Cluster 14 is the one with the white circle punched into it (the VP's residence) at its eastern edge, 13 is the one immediately to its west. Both are dark gray -- 1,772-3,278 kids. Which means that the neighborhoods around the school are expecting a minimum of 3,544 additional kids in the next five years. The clusters to the north and south are also colored dark gray.

These are five year projections. The kids have already been born. The idea that crowding is going to fix itself flies in the face of reality.

+1 As does the idea that all of a sudden education standards "throughout the city" are suddenly going to rise when sharp disparities have been present for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting front-page story in the Current today.

http://www.currentnewspapers.com/archiveweek.php?n=1&year=2017

+1 Interesting. So Bowser insists on public comment on the deal while Cheh, Grosso and Evans voted that no public comment is needed. Grosso sounds like he's living on another planet.

Grosso isn’t convinced, though. He believes city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn’t be useful for resolving school issues elsewhere, and that demand for Ward 3’s schools will ease in time. “If we do a good job improving the schools across the city and modernizing schools across the city and increasing the standard of education across the city, there would not be an overcrowding situation over in [Ward 3],”

Grosso is in an alternate reality.

Office of Planning just released new demographic projections. They're at: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Office%20of%20Planning%20Prehe msentation%20for%20CSCTF%204%2026%2016.pdf

Youth population is on page 22. There's a sea of black around the old Hardy school. There will be no "easing in time." The schools at the southern end of Ward 3 essentially have no out-of-boundary kids already, and are all packed.

It is just not true that "city agencies have already proved conclusively that the old Hardy building wouldn't be useful." The only entity that has made that determination is the Lab School! What derailed the 2013 disposal ultimately was that the DME had to certify that the building was unneeded, and was unwilling to do so.

It's embarrassing that this guy is the chair of the education committee. It's disturbing that advocating for the Lab School is so much more important to him than his actual constituents.

OK, we get it. Please explain how page 22 shows a "sea of black" around old Hardy/Foxhall? None of the growth areas on pages 21 and 22 list Ward 3 neighborhoods.

It's really dark gray, not black.

The map on page 22 is shaded by cluster. White is no or negative growth (through 2022). Light gray is 575-1,771 additional kids, dark gray is 1,772-3,278, black is 3,279-5,281. (I have no idea how they picked those cutoffs). Old Hardy is on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between cluster 13 and 14. Cluster 14 is the one with the white circle punched into it (the VP's residence) at its eastern edge, 13 is the one immediately to its west. Both are dark gray -- 1,772-3,278 kids. Which means that the neighborhoods around the school are expecting a minimum of 3,544 additional kids in the next five years. The clusters to the north and south are also colored dark gray.

These are five year projections. The kids have already been born. The idea that crowding is going to fix itself flies in the face of reality.

+1 As does the idea that all of a sudden education standards "throughout the city" are suddenly going to rise when sharp disparities have been present for decades.

Plus, the OOP is projecting that the city-wide under-18 population will grow by 28% from 2014 to 2020. That's almost 33,000 kids being added to the system. The west of the park clusters -- 10-15 -- are growing by 24%. There's no way that's not putting pressure on the WOTP schools.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/2014%20Population%20Projections%20and%20Growth%20(between%202014%20to%202020).pdf

[Anonymous]

The Lab School is a special ed school with half of its students coming from DCPS and DC Charters.... others are private pay... still not clear on what the problem is...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Lab School is a special ed school with half of its students coming from DCPS and DC Charters.... others are private pay... still not clear on what the problem is...

Its no where near half. More like 20%.