Shaw Middle School -- what's the plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was at a public meeting a while back with the temp. Chancellor, she was ask a few times about high school for kids in Logan and Dupont, her response was " we need to fix Cardozo".

So I am not confident that she will be supportive of a middle school in the area that is not Cardozo either. Whatever the plan was, it is over now. Someone should ask her.

But I also think this should not rest entirely in hands of DCPS, this is a bigger city planning issue.

And Grosso is holding a hearing. Have you signed up to testify?

What hearing when?

Sorry - it's a 'public roundtable' on Nov 15.

Here are the details. http://www.davidgrosso.org/events/2018/11/15/public-roundtable-on-the-district-of-columbia-public-schools-plans-for-shaw-junior-high-school-campus-and-benjamin-banneker-academic-high-school

[Anonymous]

Initial cost estimate (which you know will end up higher): $115 million. New building for 800 students. 164,000 square feet, which is a TON of space for 800 students.

https://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/event_content/attachments/DCAM-19-CS-RFI-0016%20-%20Banneker%20High%20School%20-%20RFI.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Initial cost estimate (which you know will end up higher): $115 million. New building for 800 students. 164,000 square feet, which is a TON of space for 800 students.

https://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/event_content/attachments/DCAM-19-CS-RFI-0016%20-%20Banneker%20High%20School%20-%20RFI.pdf

DC builds big high schools -- Dunbar is 280,000 sq ft for 1100 students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initial cost estimate (which you know will end up higher): $115 million. New building for 800 students. 164,000 square feet, which is a TON of space for 800 students.

https://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/event_content/attachments/DCAM-19-CS-RFI-0016%20-%20Banneker%20High%20School%20-%20RFI.pdf

DC builds big high schools -- Dunbar is 280,000 sq ft for 1100 students

True- this is one way in which charters have a significant disadvantage- the capital funds spent on DCPS renovation/new construction dwarfs what is available to charters through lending based on their facilities funding. As comparison, DCI has 170,000 square feet for a planned 1500 students, and Latin has 82,000 square feet for 700 students.

[Anonymous]

DCPS held a call this evening, did anyone dial in?

[Anonymous]

It looks like the “community meeting” Saturday was actually a rally against putting Banneker at this site.

https://thedcline.org/2018/11/07/community-rallies-against-use-of-shaw-site-for-new-banneker-high-school/

I did not attend because I got the feeling it wouldn’t be much of a discussion. At least be honest about what it is you are doing: fighting the relocation of Banneker.

[Anonymous]

Why fight against a relocation of Banneker, when the Shaw site isn't going to be a MS anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why fight against a relocation of Banneker, when the Shaw site isn't going to be a MS anyway?

They aren't willing to give up the Shaw MS dream / promise.

[Anonymous]

There is a big push to “pause” the process to allow community input and to explore alternatives. The decision making process that led them here was flawed, but even if there is a “pause”, the same conclusion could be ultimately reached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a big push to “pause” the process to allow community input and to explore alternatives. The decision making process that led them here was flawed, but even if there is a “pause”, the same conclusion could be ultimately reached.

I think they are a little late in organizing, but it does seem like the boundary process outcome was Shaw MS, and now that is being whisked away with very little parent input at all. Why have a formal process if the outcome can be waved away like that? The boundary documents should mean something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a big push to “pause” the process to allow community input and to explore alternatives. The decision making process that led them here was flawed, but even if there is a “pause”, the same conclusion could be ultimately reached.

I think they are a little late in organizing, but it does seem like the boundary process outcome was Shaw MS, and now that is being whisked away with very little parent input at all. Why have a formal process if the outcome can be waved away like that? The boundary documents should mean something.

How many DMEs ago was that? How many Chancellors? How many mayors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a big push to “pause” the process to allow community input and to explore alternatives. The decision making process that led them here was flawed, but even if there is a “pause”, the same conclusion could be ultimately reached.

I think they are a little late in organizing, but it does seem like the boundary process outcome was Shaw MS, and now that is being whisked away with very little parent input at all. Why have a formal process if the outcome can be waved away like that? The boundary documents should mean something.

How many DMEs ago was that? How many Chancellors? How many mayors?

I don't think that should matter. And I think they should be called out for not engaging parents in this decision even if there had been no prior commitment whatsoever. Their parent engagement is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a big push to “pause” the process to allow community input and to explore alternatives. The decision making process that led them here was flawed, but even if there is a “pause”, the same conclusion could be ultimately reached.

I think they are a little late in organizing, but it does seem like the boundary process outcome was Shaw MS, and now that is being whisked away with very little parent input at all. Why have a formal process if the outcome can be waved away like that? The boundary documents should mean something.

How many DMEs ago was that? How many Chancellors? How many mayors?

I don't think that should matter. And I think they should be called out for not engaging parents in this decision even if there had been no prior commitment whatsoever. Their parent engagement is a joke.

This was a 2014 commitment made as part of the DCPS school boundary realignment process. Not ancient history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a big push to “pause” the process to allow community input and to explore alternatives. The decision making process that led them here was flawed, but even if there is a “pause”, the same conclusion could be ultimately reached.

I think they are a little late in organizing, but it does seem like the boundary process outcome was Shaw MS, and now that is being whisked away with very little parent input at all. Why have a formal process if the outcome can be waved away like that? The boundary documents should mean something.

How many DMEs ago was that? How many Chancellors? How many mayors?

So what? Commitments should mean something and last beyond a mayoral term. Otherwise how can we do long-term plans at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why fight against a relocation of Banneker, when the Shaw site isn't going to be a MS anyway?

Ding! Ding! Ding! These people who are up in arms will be waiting another 10 years for this “promised” middle school, by which time their kids will have aged out/they’ve have lotteried out/they’ll have moved away.

And even if they build it, these people will still go elsewhere because: Cardozo.

Can our neighborhood have something nice? Let Banneker move in and get rid of the rat hole empty school: