School Boundary Issue - How will NW elementary schools be affected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't many, many Oyster students cross Conn? God forbid I think some even cross the Calvert St bridge!

Again, the point is "should they, in an ideal world?" We don't live in an ideal world, but if we're going to rewrite boundaries, we might as well ask "what should be" instead of tying our hands to "what is."

[Anonymous]

Normative, positive, whatever PP. If the major arterials were effectively boundaries for ALL neighborhood schools, then yes, you have a point. But my kids' neighborhood school is on the other side of a major arterial as are many Hearsters, Murchers, and bet many others schools in the District. This may fly in a large suburban district, but much less so in a quasi urban area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Normative, positive, whatever PP. If the major arterials were effectively boundaries for ALL neighborhood schools, then yes, you have a point. But my kids' neighborhood school is on the other side of a major arterial as are many Hearsters, Murchers, and bet many others schools in the District. This may fly in a large suburban district, but much less so in a quasi urban area.

And, there are crosswalks to aid in crossing these roads. I think it is okay.

[Anonymous]

I guess the normative/ positive PP uses bubble wrap? Not sure how their kids get around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Normative, positive, whatever PP. If the major arterials were effectively boundaries for ALL neighborhood schools, then yes, you have a point. But my kids' neighborhood school is on the other side of a major arterial as are many Hearsters, Murchers, and bet many others schools in the District. This may fly in a large suburban district, but much less so in a quasi urban area.

Look, my children have to cross an arterial (state-named) for elementary school too. I get it. But we should aim for situations in which this isn't the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:whatever.

That suggests you don't understand what the terms mean. The fault is on me.

Normative is "what should be." Positive is "what is." When talking about making new boundaries, it's clearly normative considerations that matter.

WOW.

I understand you are not very nice. That I get. Thanks for making that crystal clear.

Am I supposed to recognize "whatever" as an attempt at serious dialogue?

Do you understand that I'm not very nice? Really, you managed to get that from a few posts in an online forum? Then you truly are a better person than me. I try (not always successfully) withhold judgement about people's character and intent until I have a more intimate relationship with them. I also value serious, engaged, intellectual discourse regardless of whether I "win" the argument. I don't just put my hands over my ears.

NP here. Sorry, but it's hard to take your "serious, engaged, intellectual discourse" seriously when you're talking about Wisconsin Avenue like it's a freeway. Insulting other people's intelligence doesn't help much either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normative, positive, whatever PP. If the major arterials were effectively boundaries for ALL neighborhood schools, then yes, you have a point. But my kids' neighborhood school is on the other side of a major arterial as are many Hearsters, Murchers, and bet many others schools in the District. This may fly in a large suburban district, but much less so in a quasi urban area.

And, there are crosswalks to aid in crossing these roads. I think it is okay.

We live across a major arterial from our school and haven't found it a significant hindrance. If we were zoned to either of the next two closest elem schools, we'd still have to cross Reno, Nebraska or Connecticut. We are an island!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:whatever.

That suggests you don't understand what the terms mean. The fault is on me.

Normative is "what should be." Positive is "what is." When talking about making new boundaries, it's clearly normative considerations that matter.

WOW.

I understand you are not very nice. That I get. Thanks for making that crystal clear.

Am I supposed to recognize "whatever" as an attempt at serious dialogue?

Do you understand that I'm not very nice? Really, you managed to get that from a few posts in an online forum? Then you truly are a better person than me. I try (not always successfully) withhold judgement about people's character and intent until I have a more intimate relationship with them. I also value serious, engaged, intellectual discourse regardless of whether I "win" the argument. I don't just put my hands over my ears.

NP here. Sorry, but it's hard to take your "serious, engaged, intellectual discourse" seriously when you're talking about Wisconsin Avenue like it's a freeway.

Maybe PP is from Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Many children live east of Wisconsin and go to Janney. I know at least three families off the top of my head. Crossing a large, busy street (esp during morning rush hour) is not ideal but many people do it every day. That said, it does make more sense to have Wisconsin be the Janney/Murch boundary than 41st Street. That would shrink Janney's boundaries but increase those for Murch. The Murch boundaries would have to shrink in another area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normative, positive, whatever PP. If the major arterials were effectively boundaries for ALL neighborhood schools, then yes, you have a point. But my kids' neighborhood school is on the other side of a major arterial as are many Hearsters, Murchers, and bet many others schools in the District. This may fly in a large suburban district, but much less so in a quasi urban area.

Look, my children have to cross an arterial (state-named) for elementary school too. I get it. But we should aim for situations in which this isn't the case.

Then you are going to have to build a lot more school buildings to get what you want -- kids in Wards 3 and 4 cross Reno, Conn., Wisc., Nebraska, Military, Nevada, River, Mass., etc. to get to elementary schools. We live in a city (a fairly tame one, but still it is a city). Where would the kids in Forrest Hills or those north of Nebraska between Wisconsin and Connecticut go to school if they didn't cross a major road? Murch is squeezed into the tip of a triangle bordered by major roads, so almost no one can get there without crossing a major road except for the families everyone says should be rezoned to Hearst. So the major artery argument seems like a nonstarter.

[Anonymous]

BTW, Wisconsin and Connecticut are not freeways but the way people drive them (esp, as I mentioned, during the morning rush - hello, Marylanders!), they are not safe for younger children to cross on their own. Fortunately, mine can get to school without having to cross them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many children live east of Wisconsin and go to Janney. I know at least three families off the top of my head. Crossing a large, busy street (esp during morning rush hour) is not ideal but many people do it every day. That said, it does make more sense to have Wisconsin be the Janney/Murch boundary than 41st Street. That would shrink Janney's boundaries but increase those for Murch. The Murch boundaries would have to shrink in another area.

This is my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, Wisconsin and Connecticut are not freeways but the way people drive them (esp, as I mentioned, during the morning rush - hello, Marylanders!), they are not safe for younger children to cross on their own. Fortunately, mine can get to school without having to cross them.

Even in Maryland (Chevy Chase) children cross the street over Connecticut. They have a crossing guard!

[Anonymous]

Regardless, it is high time to adjust the boundaries given overcrowding.

OP, I think you will land in a good school in NW no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many children live east of Wisconsin and go to Janney. I know at least three families off the top of my head. Crossing a large, busy street (esp during morning rush hour) is not ideal but many people do it every day. That said, it does make more sense to have Wisconsin be the Janney/Murch boundary than 41st Street. That would shrink Janney's boundaries but increase those for Murch. The Murch boundaries would have to shrink in another area.

at least a few streets of the southern murch border would likely have to move to hearst in order for murch to accomodate any former janney families from east of wisconsin north of +/- nebraska. really both janney and murch could stand to reduce their populations by 50 - 60 kids. An add'l 120 IB kids for Hearst on top of the 50 - 60 that already attend could still leave a decent number of OOB spots at Hearst assuming total school population still capped at just under 300.

of course none of these numbers are exact in any way because any change will be phased in / kids and sibs will be grandfathered etc but in general this seems like a logical direction....