Which would lose their Deal feed first: Shepherd, Bancroft, or Lafayette?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a strange dynamic. Janney being overcrowded is somehow good (don't change the boundary) while Deal being overcrowded is a problem that needs to be solved (remove school x from the feeder pattern).

Good point. And it doesn't look good.

I believe there have been many threads about the overcrowding of Janney. There is probably a relatively small group of Janney parents who are vocal about keeping the boundary as it is, as they live at its periphery are afraid of being rezoned elsewhere. The vast majority of Janney parents, while still possibly concerned about the overcrowding of Deal, would be fine with tightening Janney's boundaries. Understandably nobody wants to be zoned out of Janney, just like nobody wants to be zoned out of Deal. It has nothing to do with racism or EOTP vs. WOTP animosity as you are implying, people are just trying to protect the status quo if it benefits them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney baiting. Again.

You have to admit it's a legitimate question. Why no 20 page thread about how to solve Janney's problem?

Here you go:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/533480.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal is over capacity by what 15-20%? Aren't Janney, Lafayette and Murch over capacity by about the same amount? Why no outcry to address that issue? Redistrict those schools?

Are you new here? That is an old debate. DCPS's response was the shuffle kids between the schools and increase the capacity of Murch and Lafayette each by 100 over current enrollment.

Not new at all. If memory serves me correctly, it was Janney families that fought tooth and nail against any redistricting.

It doesn't. It was people in all 8 Wards who fought against random, bureaucratic, top-down social reengineering/ redistricting.

True, Janney families were no exception.

They wanted JKLM to fight. But, DCPS was willing to lose the neighborhood ES school battle in order to win the war of set asides for Deal and Wilson. Its all DCSP has left to stay relevant for education in this city after having being gutted by the charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney baiting. Again.

You have to admit it's a legitimate question. Why no 20 page thread about how to solve Janney's problem?

Here you go:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/533480.page

It was argued at the time, but there was a plan in place to address overcrowding there. Here is DCPS's decision at the time - http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Janney%20ES.pdf

No changes are proposed. Janney is over capacity but six additional classrooms are being added in 2014 which should help alleviate over-crowding. Due to the location of the school within it’s boundary it is difficult to relieve pressure without compromising walkability

[Anonymous]

The growth in student populations which are leading to overcrowding just a few years after DCPS realigned was actually anticipated long ago ... http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/392947.page

... rough math, taking into account the variables people have cited, seems to strongly suggest that the current proposal will just barely keep Deal and Wilson close to their rated capacity, and may well result in those schools being over-capacity despite the boundary changes that have been proposed.

I suppose different people could read that different ways: some might think the whole proposal needs to be reworked, others might think OOB set asides should be reduced, others might want to shrink boundaries further, and still others might want to build new schools. But for me at least, it suggests we should build into the plan some contingency terms for what will happen when Deal and Wilson are again exceeding capacity in the next 2-4 years.

I spoke with someone from DME's office, and that person agreed my rough calculation of overcapacity is likely correct. The person pointed out that the projected continued overcapacity is exactly why DME proposed predetermined "triggers" for future readjustment of boundaries in event of continued overcrowding.