Couldn't you just build a strong proximity preference to get the advantages of choice sets?

[Anonymous]

Would all of these schools still feed into Deal? Isn't that one of the problems -- the feeder schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget there is a rezoning going on as well. In the popular school neighborhood of Murch and Janney the school zone borders will change. This concerns a significant group of parents / families. These people are the among the closest to Murch or Janney respectively, like literally 2- 3 blocks away. Their newly assigned school would be Hearst, which is one mile away. Say goodbye to walkability

In the choice set their schools would be: Hearst (at 1 mile), Eaton (at 1.4 miles) and Oyster (at 2.7 miles)!!!! what on earth can this mean in terms of proximity, walkability, neighborhood preference??

Furthermore, these families are a stone's throw away from Deal as middle school. Because of the rezoning to Hearst at one block away, their middle school would be Hardy at 2.7 miles!!

What kind of urban planning disaster is this?

Also, I agree this is very upsetting for these families (and the schools whom these families are a part of) and, at least at Janney, the school is not currently overcrowded with the renovation that is happening and the DME paperwork acknowledged that. That said, there are many, many houses within the Hearst boundary that are very close to Janney, walkable to Janney and much farther away to Hearst. That is the nature of how the schools were placed. They are in a cluster with houses moving outward from them. The families in the middle are closer to all three than the families on the outer edges of the boundaries. There is, however, no way to move the schools or assign the families farther away to Hearst without having those families pass Janney on their way to Hearst, which is even more ridiculous. And those families moved to Hearst are no farther than many families within the boundaries. Given that the DME states in its paperwork that it is trying to further walkability with the changes it needs to acknowledge that it is actually taking walkable homes within boundaries and making them unwalkable.

I agree that change and potential change is upsetting. and agree with your comment that because all 3 of hearst, janney and murch are actually quite close together the blocks around where the 3 boundaries meet are in a tricky spot. However the comment about ALL potential janney homes who could be rezoned to hearst would have to pass janney, i think it overstates -

the small group of houses between nebraska on the west and wisconsin on the east from Yuma to van ness are already south of janney, they would just keep going south to van ness and then head a couple blocks east - would not pass Janney

the blocks west of wisconsin avenue to 38th street between yuma and chesapeake could walk south on 38th until Upton and then head 1 block west to 37th. so sure on south/north axis they go further south than Janney is located but they would not actually pass janney on their walk

So, yes for the 'furthest' murch houses it is a potential 12 block max walk vs what is currently 4 or 5 , yes it is further but still walkable or bikeable. and if grandfathering is set up for all existing families - or geez - even all existing homeowners - why not make the change to end up with another strong neighborhood school in the N Cleveland Park/Tenley/AU area? our neighborhood has plenty of kids to fill 3 great elementary schools and if we can agree to this in exchange for tossing out the choice set concept or the crazy lottery ideas for MS and HS well that's a bargain I'd be willing to agree too.

This is what we would need - we bought a few years ago - we live 3 blocks from Murch. Our children are not enrolled there yet as they are too young but we paid close attention to school choice and walkability when buying our house. I really never thought that we would get rezoned out of a school so close to our house. Our neighbors are at the school, we have been to events there, Murch is already part of our lives and our community. If this thing goes through before the 2015/2016 school year - when we would enroll our youngest then we are out of luck. Should we just sell and move now while interest rates are still low? I feel that all of a sudden my child's education and my financial future are at risk (and before the Hearst families react - yes, I know the school is improving, attracting more neighborhood kids, etc. but if these lotteries go ahead, I think we will quickly find that schools currently improving will stop improving and will regress and that is good for no one.) We could have bought a house in the Hearst boundary and we opted for a school with a longer proven track record; we could have bought a house where we had to drive to school and we did not, we wanted to walk to school. We also wanted a house that was metro accessible and it took a long time to find everything we wanted in our home. I know my statement about finances and schools at risk sounds very, even overly, dramatic, but I suddenly have no plan for schools for my kids. (I don't drive.....) and if there are choice sets and we come out of the draw for Oyster - a good school but so incredibly far from our house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's why choice sets are a solution in search of a problem:

There are 139 schools in DCPS. At 127 (give or take) of them, every student who wishes to attend may attend. Boundaries don't matter. There are 12 schools that don't take every student that applies. Of those, seven take no students at all in the OOB lottery.

"Choice sets" are only about divvying up seats at those 12 schools. At every other school, everyone who wants to can go.

If the problem were that seats were currently allocated inefficiently, then choice sets would be a good solution. It's always a good strategy to get people to make their own choices to get higher utilization of assets. But seats aren't allocated inefficiently now. At those 12 schools, every seat is full.

The proximity preference you propose is one way to make it easier to create the 13th school, and 14th, etc.

On Capitol Hill there are now schools that are perceived as such high quality that they get all the students they need from IB and no longer have space for OOB applicants. Brent and Maury are two. But there are a number of not-as-strong schools that might be able to take OOB students. A proximity preference could accelerate the collection of the herd of high-SES parents to select ONE school to "improve" by selecting it as a destination for their high-scoring students. If the high-SES population is concentrated it can flip a school to high-performing and become a desirable IB choice. If the high-SES population is diluted or dispersed among all the schools in a choice set then there some possibility of "improving" all the schools in the choice set, but more likely, none of them improve enough to attract high-SES IB students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget there is a rezoning going on as well. In the popular school neighborhood of Murch and Janney the school zone borders will change. This concerns a significant group of parents / families. These people are the among the closest to Murch or Janney respectively, like literally 2- 3 blocks away. Their newly assigned school would be Hearst, which is one mile away. Say goodbye to walkability

In the choice set their schools would be: Hearst (at 1 mile), Eaton (at 1.4 miles) and Oyster (at 2.7 miles)!!!! what on earth can this mean in terms of proximity, walkability, neighborhood preference??

Furthermore, these families are a stone's throw away from Deal as middle school. Because of the rezoning to Hearst at one block away, their middle school would be Hardy at 2.7 miles!!

What kind of urban planning disaster is this?

Also, I agree this is very upsetting for these families (and the schools whom these families are a part of) and, at least at Janney, the school is not currently overcrowded with the renovation that is happening and the DME paperwork acknowledged that. That said, there are many, many houses within the Hearst boundary that are very close to Janney, walkable to Janney and much farther away to Hearst. That is the nature of how the schools were placed. They are in a cluster with houses moving outward from them. The families in the middle are closer to all three than the families on the outer edges of the boundaries. There is, however, no way to move the schools or assign the families farther away to Hearst without having those families pass Janney on their way to Hearst, which is even more ridiculous. And those families moved to Hearst are no farther than many families within the boundaries. Given that the DME states in its paperwork that it is trying to further walkability with the changes it needs to acknowledge that it is actually taking walkable homes within boundaries and making them unwalkable.

I agree that change and potential change is upsetting. and agree with your comment that because all 3 of hearst, janney and murch are actually quite close together the blocks around where the 3 boundaries meet are in a tricky spot. However the comment about ALL potential janney homes who could be rezoned to hearst would have to pass janney, i think it overstates -

the small group of houses between nebraska on the west and wisconsin on the east from Yuma to van ness are already south of janney, they would just keep going south to van ness and then head a couple blocks east - would not pass Janney

the blocks west of wisconsin avenue to 38th street between yuma and chesapeake could walk south on 38th until Upton and then head 1 block west to 37th. so sure on south/north axis they go further south than Janney is located but they would not actually pass janney on their walk

So, yes for the 'furthest' murch houses it is a potential 12 block max walk vs what is currently 4 or 5 , yes it is further but still walkable or bikeable. and if grandfathering is set up for all existing families - or geez - even all existing homeowners - why not make the change to end up with another strong neighborhood school in the N Cleveland Park/Tenley/AU area? our neighborhood has plenty of kids to fill 3 great elementary schools and if we can agree to this in exchange for tossing out the choice set concept or the crazy lottery ideas for MS and HS well that's a bargain I'd be willing to agree too.

This is what we would need - we bought a few years ago - we live 3 blocks from Murch. Our children are not enrolled there yet as they are too young but we paid close attention to school choice and walkability when buying our house. I really never thought that we would get rezoned out of a school so close to our house. Our neighbors are at the school, we have been to events there, Murch is already part of our lives and our community. If this thing goes through before the 2015/2016 school year - when we would enroll our youngest then we are out of luck. Should we just sell and move now while interest rates are still low? I feel that all of a sudden my child's education and my financial future are at risk (and before the Hearst families react - yes, I know the school is improving, attracting more neighborhood kids, etc. but if these lotteries go ahead, I think we will quickly find that schools currently improving will stop improving and will regress and that is good for no one.) We could have bought a house in the Hearst boundary and we opted for a school with a longer proven track record; we could have bought a house where we had to drive to school and we did not, we wanted to walk to school. We also wanted a house that was metro accessible and it took a long time to find everything we wanted in our home. I know my statement about finances and schools at risk sounds very, even overly, dramatic, but I suddenly have no plan for schools for my kids. (I don't drive.....) and if there are choice sets and we come out of the draw for Oyster - a good school but so incredibly far from our house.

There are currently many families zoned for Murch or Hearst that could walk to Janney, for example, so I don't really see how this argument about walkability is the end of the discussion. But we all know they are not increasing Janney's zone to allow everyone who could walk to Janney into that school district. That is not how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget there is a rezoning going on as well. In the popular school neighborhood of Murch and Janney the school zone borders will change. This concerns a significant group of parents / families. These people are the among the closest to Murch or Janney respectively, like literally 2- 3 blocks away. Their newly assigned school would be Hearst, which is one mile away. Say goodbye to walkability

In the choice set their schools would be: Hearst (at 1 mile), Eaton (at 1.4 miles) and Oyster (at 2.7 miles)!!!! what on earth can this mean in terms of proximity, walkability, neighborhood preference??

Furthermore, these families are a stone's throw away from Deal as middle school. Because of the rezoning to Hearst at one block away, their middle school would be Hardy at 2.7 miles!!

What kind of urban planning disaster is this?

Also, I agree this is very upsetting for these families (and the schools whom these families are a part of) and, at least at Janney, the school is not currently overcrowded with the renovation that is happening and the DME paperwork acknowledged that. That said, there are many, many houses within the Hearst boundary that are very close to Janney, walkable to Janney and much farther away to Hearst. That is the nature of how the schools were placed. They are in a cluster with houses moving outward from them. The families in the middle are closer to all three than the families on the outer edges of the boundaries. There is, however, no way to move the schools or assign the families farther away to Hearst without having those families pass Janney on their way to Hearst, which is even more ridiculous. And those families moved to Hearst are no farther than many families within the boundaries. Given that the DME states in its paperwork that it is trying to further walkability with the changes it needs to acknowledge that it is actually taking walkable homes within boundaries and making them unwalkable.

I agree that change and potential change is upsetting. and agree with your comment that because all 3 of hearst, janney and murch are actually quite close together the blocks around where the 3 boundaries meet are in a tricky spot. However the comment about ALL potential janney homes who could be rezoned to hearst would have to pass janney, i think it overstates -

the small group of houses between nebraska on the west and wisconsin on the east from Yuma to van ness are already south of janney, they would just keep going south to van ness and then head a couple blocks east - would not pass Janney

the blocks west of wisconsin avenue to 38th street between yuma and chesapeake could walk south on 38th until Upton and then head 1 block west to 37th. so sure on south/north axis they go further south than Janney is located but they would not actually pass janney on their walk

So, yes for the 'furthest' murch houses it is a potential 12 block max walk vs what is currently 4 or 5 , yes it is further but still walkable or bikeable. and if grandfathering is set up for all existing families - or geez - even all existing homeowners - why not make the change to end up with another strong neighborhood school in the N Cleveland Park/Tenley/AU area? our neighborhood has plenty of kids to fill 3 great elementary schools and if we can agree to this in exchange for tossing out the choice set concept or the crazy lottery ideas for MS and HS well that's a bargain I'd be willing to agree too.

This is what we would need - we bought a few years ago - we live 3 blocks from Murch. Our children are not enrolled there yet as they are too young but we paid close attention to school choice and walkability when buying our house. I really never thought that we would get rezoned out of a school so close to our house. Our neighbors are at the school, we have been to events there, Murch is already part of our lives and our community. If this thing goes through before the 2015/2016 school year - when we would enroll our youngest then we are out of luck. Should we just sell and move now while interest rates are still low? I feel that all of a sudden my child's education and my financial future are at risk (and before the Hearst families react - yes, I know the school is improving, attracting more neighborhood kids, etc. but if these lotteries go ahead, I think we will quickly find that schools currently improving will stop improving and will regress and that is good for no one.) We could have bought a house in the Hearst boundary and we opted for a school with a longer proven track record; we could have bought a house where we had to drive to school and we did not, we wanted to walk to school. We also wanted a house that was metro accessible and it took a long time to find everything we wanted in our home. I know my statement about finances and schools at risk sounds very, even overly, dramatic, but I suddenly have no plan for schools for my kids. (I don't drive.....) and if there are choice sets and we come out of the draw for Oyster - a good school but so incredibly far from our house.

There are currently many families zoned for Murch or Hearst that could walk to Janney, for example, so I don't really see how this argument about walkability is the end of the discussion. But we all know they are not increasing Janney's zone to allow everyone who could walk to Janney into that school district. That is not how this works.[/quo

But that is not the point. The point is that these families have been in the Murch zone since the school was founded in the 1930s! This is also about predictability and making economic and social choices based on that information. The currently IB Hearst families at walking distance to Janney were never in the Janney zone to start with. Their 'predictable' choice is that they are in Hearst and will remain there.
The current Murch / Janney families who would need to change to Hearst are at the heart of the original school zones, and there was no way they could predict this.

[Anonymous]

I thought that little triangle of Janney homes that is proposed for move to Hearst was actually a relatively recent zoning adjustment and used to be part of the Hearst boundary. I think historically Hearst did not go to 5th, it only went to second or third and the kids all then went to Janney for upper elementary.

My only point is that this has not actually been completely static for the past 80 years.

[Anonymous]

Going back to what I think is OP's suggestion about expanding proximity (perhaps giving it a bit more weight) but not eliminate in-bound school of right (correct me if I'm wrong OP), I would totally welcome this option. Our IB is not desirable. We get proximity preference for a school that is only slightly better than IB. But if the proximity boundary were opened a little wider, there would be better options for us, and I would totally stick with DCPS rather than flee for the suburbs or turn to private. I recognize however, that it would do little for families that are near multiple undesireable schools and would not necessarily fill seats for the most undesireable schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought that little triangle of Janney homes that is proposed for move to Hearst was actually a relatively recent zoning adjustment and used to be part of the Hearst boundary. I think historically Hearst did not go to 5th, it only went to second or third and the kids all then went to Janney for upper elementary.

My only point is that this has not actually been completely static for the past 80 years.

This is incorrect, the houses proposed from Janney to Hearst have been in the Janney district since Janney was built in some cases and since the house were built 80 years ago in other cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget there is a rezoning going on as well. In the popular school neighborhood of Murch and Janney the school zone borders will change. This concerns a significant group of parents / families. These people are the among the closest to Murch or Janney respectively, like literally 2- 3 blocks away. Their newly assigned school would be Hearst, which is one mile away. Say goodbye to walkability

In the choice set their schools would be: Hearst (at 1 mile), Eaton (at 1.4 miles) and Oyster (at 2.7 miles)!!!! what on earth can this mean in terms of proximity, walkability, neighborhood preference??

Furthermore, these families are a stone's throw away from Deal as middle school. Because of the rezoning to Hearst at one block away, their middle school would be Hardy at 2.7 miles!!

What kind of urban planning disaster is this?

Also, I agree this is very upsetting for these families (and the schools whom these families are a part of) and, at least at Janney, the school is not currently overcrowded with the renovation that is happening and the DME paperwork acknowledged that. That said, there are many, many houses within the Hearst boundary that are very close to Janney, walkable to Janney and much farther away to Hearst. That is the nature of how the schools were placed. They are in a cluster with houses moving outward from them. The families in the middle are closer to all three than the families on the outer edges of the boundaries. There is, however, no way to move the schools or assign the families farther away to Hearst without having those families pass Janney on their way to Hearst, which is even more ridiculous. And those families moved to Hearst are no farther than many families within the boundaries. Given that the DME states in its paperwork that it is trying to further walkability with the changes it needs to acknowledge that it is actually taking walkable homes within boundaries and making them unwalkable.

I agree that change and potential change is upsetting. and agree with your comment that because all 3 of hearst, janney and murch are actually quite close together the blocks around where the 3 boundaries meet are in a tricky spot. However the comment about ALL potential janney homes who could be rezoned to hearst would have to pass janney, i think it overstates -

the small group of houses between nebraska on the west and wisconsin on the east from Yuma to van ness are already south of janney, they would just keep going south to van ness and then head a couple blocks east - would not pass Janney

the blocks west of wisconsin avenue to 38th street between yuma and chesapeake could walk south on 38th until Upton and then head 1 block west to 37th. so sure on south/north axis they go further south than Janney is located but they would not actually pass janney on their walk

So, yes for the 'furthest' murch houses it is a potential 12 block max walk vs what is currently 4 or 5 , yes it is further but still walkable or bikeable. and if grandfathering is set up for all existing families - or geez - even all existing homeowners - why not make the change to end up with another strong neighborhood school in the N Cleveland Park/Tenley/AU area? our neighborhood has plenty of kids to fill 3 great elementary schools and if we can agree to this in exchange for tossing out the choice set concept or the crazy lottery ideas for MS and HS well that's a bargain I'd be willing to agree too.

This is what we would need - we bought a few years ago - we live 3 blocks from Murch. Our children are not enrolled there yet as they are too young but we paid close attention to school choice and walkability when buying our house. I really never thought that we would get rezoned out of a school so close to our house. Our neighbors are at the school, we have been to events there, Murch is already part of our lives and our community. If this thing goes through before the 2015/2016 school year - when we would enroll our youngest then we are out of luck. Should we just sell and move now while interest rates are still low? I feel that all of a sudden my child's education and my financial future are at risk (and before the Hearst families react - yes, I know the school is improving, attracting more neighborhood kids, etc. but if these lotteries go ahead, I think we will quickly find that schools currently improving will stop improving and will regress and that is good for no one.) We could have bought a house in the Hearst boundary and we opted for a school with a longer proven track record; we could have bought a house where we had to drive to school and we did not, we wanted to walk to school. We also wanted a house that was metro accessible and it took a long time to find everything we wanted in our home. I know my statement about finances and schools at risk sounds very, even overly, dramatic, but I suddenly have no plan for schools for my kids. (I don't drive.....) and if there are choice sets and we come out of the draw for Oyster - a good school but so incredibly far from our house.

There are currently many families zoned for Murch or Hearst that could walk to Janney, for example, so I don't really see how this argument about walkability is the end of the discussion. But we all know they are not increasing Janney's zone to allow everyone who could walk to Janney into that school district. That is not how this works.

The poster above has it wrong. If areas in Janney or Murch need to be rezoned it shouldn't be the ones where people are already walking but the ones where people are already driving. If you drive 1.1 miles to J/M now from a city planning point of view it shouldn't matter at all if you keep going and drop off at Hearst at the 2 mile mark and then continue on downtown to work. You aren't in J's or M's neighborhood to start with. What does matter is if you take people that are walking and using metro out of mass transportation and put them in cars instead. The city shouldn't bus/drive kids into the J/M neighborhoods for school and at the same time take the kids that are already in those neighborhoods and bus/drive them out every day. It puts more cars on the street, take riders off metro, and it makes no sense at all and doesn't support the claim that a focus is walkability. The "passing" the school argument doesn't seem at all relevant to walkability or neighborhoods. Who cares what you pass. Besides, its not even accurate. In J there are families north of the school that are proposed for rezoning and they would actually "pass" J to get to H. So the premise isn't even right. And for these kids H would be the 3rd closest school. So the poster with the argument about "passing" has an absolute right to his closest school so he doesn't pass something, but these kids that are actually proximate to these places should only have a right to their 3rd closest choice. That doesn't make sense. Importantly, its abundantly clear that this argument is only offered in order to ensure that its proponent's own block is kept out of the conversation. Once you have allowed the city to establish the precedent that the very closest students to a school dont have the right to go to them your argument that you have a right to go to J or M or Deal doesn't work anymore. The fact that there are currently students in the H district that are closer to J or M also doesn't matter - that is a settled boundary in place for more then a generation and no one is arguing to expand it so its just irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Even if nothing changes, all of this uncertainty, inefficiency, and lack of practical thinking has spooked us, and we will go private after one year of K in DCPS. Our family is African-American and high SES, and we moved WOTP three years ago to be IB for better schools. We have an older DS who is now in private after going K-8 at Oyster/Deal. We cannot take a risk with our (younger) DD's education. Whose to say that these fools might not decide to tinker with the boundaries and feeder patterns down the road. In the words of Sweet Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"

+1 also AA in Ward 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget there is a rezoning going on as well. In the popular school neighborhood of Murch and Janney the school zone borders will change. This concerns a significant group of parents / families. These people are the among the closest to Murch or Janney respectively, like literally 2- 3 blocks away. Their newly assigned school would be Hearst, which is one mile away. Say goodbye to walkability

In the choice set their schools would be: Hearst (at 1 mile), Eaton (at 1.4 miles) and Oyster (at 2.7 miles)!!!! what on earth can this mean in terms of proximity, walkability, neighborhood preference??

Furthermore, these families are a stone's throw away from Deal as middle school. Because of the rezoning to Hearst at one block away, their middle school would be Hardy at 2.7 miles!!

What kind of urban planning disaster is this?

+ 1000


Also, I agree this is very upsetting for these families (and the schools whom these families are a part of) and, at least at Janney, the school is not currently overcrowded with the renovation that is happening and the DME paperwork acknowledged that. That said, there are many, many houses within the Hearst boundary that are very close to Janney, walkable to Janney and much farther away to Hearst. That is the nature of how the schools were placed. They are in a cluster with houses moving outward from them. The families in the middle are closer to all three than the families on the outer edges of the boundaries. There is, however, no way to move the schools or assign the families farther away to Hearst without having those families pass Janney on their way to Hearst, which is even more ridiculous. And those families moved to Hearst are no farther than many families within the boundaries. Given that the DME states in its paperwork that it is trying to further walkability with the changes it needs to acknowledge that it is actually taking walkable homes within boundaries and making them unwalkable.

I agree that change and potential change is upsetting. and agree with your comment that because all 3 of hearst, janney and murch are actually quite close together the blocks around where the 3 boundaries meet are in a tricky spot. However the comment about ALL potential janney homes who could be rezoned to hearst would have to pass janney, i think it overstates -

the small group of houses between nebraska on the west and wisconsin on the east from Yuma to van ness are already south of janney, they would just keep going south to van ness and then head a couple blocks east - would not pass Janney

the blocks west of wisconsin avenue to 38th street between yuma and chesapeake could walk south on 38th until Upton and then head 1 block west to 37th. so sure on south/north axis they go further south than Janney is located but they would not actually pass janney on their walk

So, yes for the 'furthest' murch houses it is a potential 12 block max walk vs what is currently 4 or 5 , yes it is further but still walkable or bikeable. and if grandfathering is set up for all existing families - or geez - even all existing homeowners - why not make the change to end up with another strong neighborhood school in the N Cleveland Park/Tenley/AU area? our neighborhood has plenty of kids to fill 3 great elementary schools and if we can agree to this in exchange for tossing out the choice set concept or the crazy lottery ideas for MS and HS well that's a bargain I'd be willing to agree too.

This is what we would need - we bought a few years ago - we live 3 blocks from Murch. Our children are not enrolled there yet as they are too young but we paid close attention to school choice and walkability when buying our house. I really never thought that we would get rezoned out of a school so close to our house. Our neighbors are at the school, we have been to events there, Murch is already part of our lives and our community. If this thing goes through before the 2015/2016 school year - when we would enroll our youngest then we are out of luck. Should we just sell and move now while interest rates are still low? I feel that all of a sudden my child's education and my financial future are at risk (and before the Hearst families react - yes, I know the school is improving, attracting more neighborhood kids, etc. but if these lotteries go ahead, I think we will quickly find that schools currently improving will stop improving and will regress and that is good for no one.) We could have bought a house in the Hearst boundary and we opted for a school with a longer proven track record; we could have bought a house where we had to drive to school and we did not, we wanted to walk to school. We also wanted a house that was metro accessible and it took a long time to find everything we wanted in our home. I know my statement about finances and schools at risk sounds very, even overly, dramatic, but I suddenly have no plan for schools for my kids. (I don't drive.....) and if there are choice sets and we come out of the draw for Oyster - a good school but so incredibly far from our house.

There are currently many families zoned for Murch or Hearst that could walk to Janney, for example, so I don't really see how this argument about walkability is the end of the discussion. But we all know they are not increasing Janney's zone to allow everyone who could walk to Janney into that school district. That is not how this works.

The poster above has it wrong. If areas in Janney or Murch need to be rezoned it shouldn't be the ones where people are already walking but the ones where people are already driving. If you drive 1.1 miles to J/M now from a city planning point of view it shouldn't matter at all if you keep going and drop off at Hearst at the 2 mile mark and then continue on downtown to work. You aren't in J's or M's neighborhood to start with. What does matter is if you take people that are walking and using metro out of mass transportation and put them in cars instead. The city shouldn't bus/drive kids into the J/M neighborhoods for school and at the same time take the kids that are already in those neighborhoods and bus/drive them out every day. It puts more cars on the street, take riders off metro, and it makes no sense at all and doesn't support the claim that a focus is walkability. The "passing" the school argument doesn't seem at all relevant to walkability or neighborhoods. Who cares what you pass. Besides, its not even accurate. In J there are families north of the school that are proposed for rezoning and they would actually "pass" J to get to H. So the premise isn't even right. And for these kids H would be the 3rd closest school. So the poster with the argument about "passing" has an absolute right to his closest school so he doesn't pass something, but these kids that are actually proximate to these places should only have a right to their 3rd closest choice. That doesn't make sense. Importantly, its abundantly clear that this argument is only offered in order to ensure that its proponent's own block is kept out of the conversation. Once you have allowed the city to establish the precedent that the very closest students to a school dont have the right to go to them your argument that you have a right to go to J or M or Deal doesn't work anymore. The fact that there are currently students in the H district that are closer to J or M also doesn't matter - that is a settled boundary in place for more then a generation and no one is arguing to expand it so its just irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree. Even if nothing changes, all of this uncertainty, inefficiency, and lack of practical thinking has spooked us, and we will go private after one year of K in DCPS. Our family is African-American and high SES, and we moved WOTP three years ago to be IB for better schools. We have an older DS who is now in private after going K-8 at Oyster/Deal. We cannot take a risk with our (younger) DD's education. Whose to say that these fools might not decide to tinker with the boundaries and feeder patterns down the road. In the words of Sweet Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"

+1 also AA in Ward 3

You went deep into the archives and revived a three week old thread to make that contribution?

[Anonymous]

And you complained about it at 1230am?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget there is a rezoning going on as well. In the popular school neighborhood of Murch and Janney the school zone borders will change. This concerns a significant group of parents / families. These people are the among the closest to Murch or Janney respectively, like literally 2- 3 blocks away. Their newly assigned school would be Hearst, which is one mile away. Say goodbye to walkability

In the choice set their schools would be: Hearst (at 1 mile), Eaton (at 1.4 miles) and Oyster (at 2.7 miles)!!!! what on earth can this mean in terms of proximity, walkability, neighborhood preference??

Furthermore, these families are a stone's throw away from Deal as middle school. Because of the rezoning to Hearst at one block away, their middle school would be Hardy at 2.7 miles!!

What kind of urban planning disaster is this?

Also, I agree this is very upsetting for these families (and the schools whom these families are a part of) and, at least at Janney, the school is not currently overcrowded with the renovation that is happening and the DME paperwork acknowledged that. That said, there are many, many houses within the Hearst boundary that are very close to Janney, walkable to Janney and much farther away to Hearst. That is the nature of how the schools were placed. They are in a cluster with houses moving outward from them. The families in the middle are closer to all three than the families on the outer edges of the boundaries. There is, however, no way to move the schools or assign the families farther away to Hearst without having those families pass Janney on their way to Hearst, which is even more ridiculous. And those families moved to Hearst are no farther than many families within the boundaries. Given that the DME states in its paperwork that it is trying to further walkability with the changes it needs to acknowledge that it is actually taking walkable homes within boundaries and making them unwalkable.

I agree that change and potential change is upsetting. and agree with your comment that because all 3 of hearst, janney and murch are actually quite close together the blocks around where the 3 boundaries meet are in a tricky spot. However the comment about ALL potential janney homes who could be rezoned to hearst would have to pass janney, i think it overstates -

the small group of houses between nebraska on the west and wisconsin on the east from Yuma to van ness are already south of janney, they would just keep going south to van ness and then head a couple blocks east - would not pass Janney

the blocks west of wisconsin avenue to 38th street between yuma and chesapeake could walk south on 38th until Upton and then head 1 block west to 37th. so sure on south/north axis they go further south than Janney is located but they would not actually pass janney on their walk

So, yes for the 'furthest' murch houses it is a potential 12 block max walk vs what is currently 4 or 5 , yes it is further but still walkable or bikeable. and if grandfathering is set up for all existing families - or geez - even all existing homeowners - why not make the change to end up with another strong neighborhood school in the N Cleveland Park/Tenley/AU area? our neighborhood has plenty of kids to fill 3 great elementary schools and if we can agree to this in exchange for tossing out the choice set concept or the crazy lottery ideas for MS and HS well that's a bargain I'd be willing to agree too.

This is what we would need - we bought a few years ago - we live 3 blocks from Murch. Our children are not enrolled there yet as they are too young but we paid close attention to school choice and walkability when buying our house. I really never thought that we would get rezoned out of a school so close to our house. Our neighbors are at the school, we have been to events there, Murch is already part of our lives and our community. If this thing goes through before the 2015/2016 school year - when we would enroll our youngest then we are out of luck. Should we just sell and move now while interest rates are still low? I feel that all of a sudden my child's education and my financial future are at risk (and before the Hearst families react - yes, I know the school is improving, attracting more neighborhood kids, etc. but if these lotteries go ahead, I think we will quickly find that schools currently improving will stop improving and will regress and that is good for no one.) We could have bought a house in the Hearst boundary and we opted for a school with a longer proven track record; we could have bought a house where we had to drive to school and we did not, we wanted to walk to school. We also wanted a house that was metro accessible and it took a long time to find everything we wanted in our home. I know my statement about finances and schools at risk sounds very, even overly, dramatic, but I suddenly have no plan for schools for my kids. (I don't drive.....) and if there are choice sets and we come out of the draw for Oyster - a good school but so incredibly far from our house.

There are currently many families zoned for Murch or Hearst that could walk to Janney, for example, so I don't really see how this argument about walkability is the end of the discussion. But we all know they are not increasing Janney's zone to allow everyone who could walk to Janney into that school district. That is not how this works.

The poster above has it wrong. If areas in Janney or Murch need to be rezoned it shouldn't be the ones where people are already walking but the ones where people are already driving. If you drive 1.1 miles to J/M now from a city planning point of view it shouldn't matter at all if you keep going and drop off at Hearst at the 2 mile mark and then continue on downtown to work. You aren't in J's or M's neighborhood to start with. What does matter is if you take people that are walking and using metro out of mass transportation and put them in cars instead. The city shouldn't bus/drive kids into the J/M neighborhoods for school and at the same time take the kids that are already in those neighborhoods and bus/drive them out every day. It puts more cars on the street, take riders off metro, and it makes no sense at all and doesn't support the claim that a focus is walkability. The "passing" the school argument doesn't seem at all relevant to walkability or neighborhoods. Who cares what you pass. Besides, its not even accurate. In J there are families north of the school that are proposed for rezoning and they would actually "pass" J to get to H. So the premise isn't even right. And for these kids H would be the 3rd closest school. So the poster with the argument about "passing" has an absolute right to his closest school so he doesn't pass something, but these kids that are actually proximate to these places should only have a right to their 3rd closest choice. That doesn't make sense. Importantly, its abundantly clear that this argument is only offered in order to ensure that its proponent's own block is kept out of the conversation. Once you have allowed the city to establish the precedent that the very closest students to a school dont have the right to go to them your argument that you have a right to go to J or M or Deal doesn't work anymore. The fact that there are currently students in the H district that are closer to J or M also doesn't matter - that is a settled boundary in place for more then a generation and no one is arguing to expand it so its just irrelevant.

I live near the edge of the Janney boundary, 1 mile from the school, a 3 min drive or a 15 min walk, there is no other elementary school I could reasonable walk to. You are trying to make a justification why you are more entitled than others. You are losing ward 3 support for not making boundary adjustments at all. Try to listen to what you say from the point of view of your community, not just the few blocks on the table.