Overcrowded Schools

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, so add Capitol Hill then. But also add Hardy among the schools that will benefit from relieving Deal/Wilson -- demonstrating the DME's problem was not just "overcrowding" albeit you've decided to narrowly define the topic that way. Also add population growth across gentrifying areas, which gave rise to the promise of new schools to represent and serve the future of the growing city, including Unicorn.

Can't add Capital Hill because the recommendations don't appear to resolve over-crowding issues there. I defined the topic as overcrowding because that is the issue that I was always told this was supposed to resolve. To your point about creating Deal@Unicorn, we were specifically told these recommendations were not about improving schools. But, if you want to create a topic about that, feel free.

The main point is that you've decided to narrowly define the topic to be "current overcrowding," which is your right, but I believe the proposals were also designed to address "future overcrowding," which might be included in your thread order to create a fair understanding of the issue as you've worded it. If you look at the problem as including "future overcrowding" especially in light of real student population growth in gentrifying areas, the DME review should have considered those areas as well, even if they are not "currently overcrowded." Plus, there's the effect of changing ANY of the boundaries in order to address current overcrowding, which of course creates ripple effects throughout the city, which must fairly be considered anytime it's suggested that any change should be made: if you recommend making any change, how does it affect everything else? The ripples create the need for more changes. So looking even looking at the problem just as "current overcrowding" doesn't explain very much unless you allow an expanded scope of analysis.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:It seems that a number of boundary changes that were included in the Advisory Committee recommendations were not included in the final recommendations. Yet, no complaining about wealthy whiners. It's starting to look to me as if the entire city is getting new boundary maps because of Deal and Wilson overcrowding.

3 problems with this oversimplistic interpretation:
- look at the actual numbers, close to all Ward 3 schools are overcrowded by common standards today
- look at the projected numbers, this is only getting worse given trends
- the DME.report explicitly identified many other problems, such as overlapping boundaries, areas with no assigned school, too much commuting time and lack of walk ability...

Right or wrong, the DME did try its best at planning how to improve THE SYSTEM for everyone. It is predictable that some special interests dont like the results.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah, so add Capitol Hill then. But also add Hardy among the schools that will benefit from relieving Deal/Wilson -- demonstrating the DME's problem was not just "overcrowding" albeit you've decided to narrowly define the topic that way. Also add population growth across gentrifying areas, which gave rise to the promise of new schools to represent and serve the future of the growing city, including Unicorn.

Can't add Capital Hill because the recommendations don't appear to resolve over-crowding issues there. I defined the topic as overcrowding because that is the issue that I was always told this was supposed to resolve. To your point about creating Deal@Unicorn, we were specifically told these recommendations were not about improving schools. But, if you want to create a topic about that, feel free.

The main point is that you've decided to narrowly define the topic to be "current overcrowding," which is your right, but I believe the proposals were also designed to address "future overcrowding," which might be included in your thread order to create a fair understanding of the issue as you've worded it. If you look at the problem as including "future overcrowding" especially in light of real student population growth in gentrifying areas, the DME review should have considered those areas as well, even if they are not "currently overcrowded." Plus, there's the effect of changing ANY of the boundaries in order to address current overcrowding, which of course creates ripple effects throughout the city, which must fairly be considered anytime it's suggested that any change should be made: if you recommend making any change, how does it affect everything else? The ripples create the need for more changes. So looking even looking at the problem just as "current overcrowding" doesn't explain very much unless you allow an expanded scope of analysis.

You missed the most obvious point. If boundaries didn't change at all such in the cases of Janney, Mann, and Key, or actually got larger such at Lafayette and Eaton, it doesn't address current or future overcrowding. If you think a boundary change that I have not listed was meant to address future overcrowding, please point it out. As for gentrifying areas, Petworth, for instance, was never included in Deal or Wilson's boundaries. Therefore, a reduction of Deal and Wilson boundaries would have no impact as far as Petworth is concerned. Crestwood, which was included previously within Deal and Wilson, is not gentrifying. So, I don't get what gentrification even has to do with the discussion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It seems that a number of boundary changes that were included in the Advisory Committee recommendations were not included in the final recommendations. Yet, no complaining about wealthy whiners. It's starting to look to me as if the entire city is getting new boundary maps because of Deal and Wilson overcrowding.

3 problems with this oversimplistic interpretation:
- look at the actual numbers, close to all Ward 3 schools are overcrowded by common standards today
- look at the projected numbers, this is only getting worse given trends
- the DME.report explicitly identified many other problems, such as overlapping boundaries, areas with no assigned school, too much commuting time and lack of walk ability...

Right or wrong, the DME did try its best at planning how to improve THE SYSTEM for everyone. It is predictable that some special interests dont like the results.

Just like the previous post, you prefer to ignore facts and concentrate on simply arguing with me. Let's take the first and second of your listed "problems". What difference do the current and projected numbers make if the boundaries did not change? I asked to list schools that had over-crowding problems that were fixed by the final recommendations. Several schools that are commonly said to be filled to the brim or overcrowded had no changes to their boundaries at all. Others actually had their boundaries enlarged. All I asked for was a list of schools whose overcrowding problems were resolved by the recommendations. If you have a candidate for the list, please offer it. Obviously, I know about Deal and Wilson.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It seems that a number of boundary changes that were included in the Advisory Committee recommendations were not included in the final recommendations. Yet, no complaining about wealthy whiners. It's starting to look to me as if the entire city is getting new boundary maps because of Deal and Wilson overcrowding.

3 problems with this oversimplistic interpretation:
- look at the actual numbers, close to all Ward 3 schools are overcrowded by common standards today
- look at the projected numbers, this is only getting worse given trends
- the DME.report explicitly identified many other problems, such as overlapping boundaries, areas with no assigned school, too much commuting time and lack of walk ability...

Right or wrong, the DME did try its best at planning how to improve THE SYSTEM for everyone. It is predictable that some special interests dont like the results.

Just like the previous post, you prefer to ignore facts and concentrate on simply arguing with me. Let's take the first and second of your listed "problems". What difference do the current and projected numbers make if the boundaries did not change? I asked to list schools that had over-crowding problems that were fixed by the final recommendations. Several schools that are commonly said to be filled to the brim or overcrowded had no changes to their boundaries at all. Others actually had their boundaries enlarged. All I asked for was a list of schools whose overcrowding problems were resolved by the recommendations. If you have a candidate for the list, please offer it. Obviously, I know about Deal and Wilson.

It's interesting that the ones who push the argument that Deal and Wilson are so overcrowded are those who, through accident of geography, basically can't be rezoned to any other school (AU Park, Chevy Chase DC). The only place they could be rezoned to is across the MoCo line! From their perspective, smaller is better because there's no practical way they'll lose access to the best public schools.

[Anonymous]

PP, why couldn't the parents you mentioned be rezoned to Hearst?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, why couldn't the parents you mentioned be rezoned to Hearst?

I was speaking of middle/high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch is overcrowded. Three new class sections were added this year in order to avoid having class sizes exceeding 30 students per room. New trailers were brought onto the property and placed on the bluetop and in the staff parking. Staff parking went from 45 parking spaces to 15. Arrangements are still being made to find parking in the neighborhood for the staff.

The Murch property is one small block with no room to expand into additional parcels. Part of that block is actually National Park Service land and so building on it may be problematic. Expanding beyond the current footprint would necessarily take away staff parking and/or playground space. So, more students, more staff, less parking and smaller playground.

Murch is overcrowded.

But why? Why continue to admit so many oob students? It seems to defy logic for a school to accept more students (that don't have a "right" to attend) than there is space for.

This is not an argument to keep out oob kids. It's a logic argument. People complain about the trailers but they are not there because of an overcrowding of IB students.

Murch doesn't have many OOB students which were admitted from lottery. Many are bussed in under the old regime. In addition they have an autistic classroom which is city wide. As has been stated before here the 66% number on the DCPS website was wrong all last year. The current number us up around 90% IB. The additional 5th grade class is because of IB students sticking around for Deal. They aren't taking kids off the lottery to fill seats even in 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch is overcrowded. Three new class sections were added this year in order to avoid having class sizes exceeding 30 students per room. New trailers were brought onto the property and placed on the bluetop and in the staff parking. Staff parking went from 45 parking spaces to 15. Arrangements are still being made to find parking in the neighborhood for the staff.

The Murch property is one small block with no room to expand into additional parcels. Part of that block is actually National Park Service land and so building on it may be problematic. Expanding beyond the current footprint would necessarily take away staff parking and/or playground space. So, more students, more staff, less parking and smaller playground.

Murch is overcrowded.

But why? Why continue to admit so many oob students? It seems to defy logic for a school to accept more students (that don't have a "right" to attend) than there is space for.

This is not an argument to keep out oob kids. It's a logic argument. People complain about the trailers but they are not there because of an overcrowding of IB students.

Murch doesn't have many OOB students which were admitted from lottery. Many are bussed in under the old regime. In addition they have an autistic classroom which is city wide. As has been stated before here the 66% number on the DCPS website was wrong all last year. The current number us up around 90% IB. The additional 5th grade class is because of IB students sticking around for Deal. They aren't taking kids off the lottery to fill seats even in 5th grade.

What does "bussed in under the old regime' mean? And isn't time to phase out old or legacy OOB arrangements before fiddling with local school boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Murch has children who are still bussed from their underperforming school. There is only a handful left but Murch used to be a "receiving" school. Once the kids are in they became part of the community and continued through 5th grade. That system has changed and isn't done any longer.

If you follow the lottery you will see that Murch hasn't had seats open in the lottery for a number of years. Some kids do get in off waitlist in pre-k but typically less than 5. The few OOB kids account for very few of the 200+ kids over capacity the school is. Capacity is 488 and Murch is close to 700 (680 or so).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murch has children who are still bussed from their underperforming school. There is only a handful left but Murch used to be a "receiving" school. Once the kids are in they became part of the community and continued through 5th grade. That system has changed and isn't done any longer.

If you follow the lottery you will see that Murch hasn't had seats open in the lottery for a number of years. Some kids do get in off waitlist in pre-k but typically less than 5. The few OOB kids account for very few of the 200+ kids over capacity the school is. Capacity is 488 and Murch is close to 700 (680 or so).

Just to put those numbers in perspective, almost half of the learning space is outside of the main building (the 488 includes the 1980 temporary space holding 5 classrooms). Now, 17 or 18 rooms are in trailers (including admin space). That's the size of an entire elementary school. If I'm not mistaken, Murch's trailer space is larger than the entire capacity of Ross or Hearst. The feasibility study will tell us whether or not a new building can accommodate the current population, let alone the projected growth; and if not, more adjustments will have to be made, which was noted in the second proposal. A lot is still up in the air. But that doesn't change the fact that all of those kids, whether some are rezoned to Lafayette or Hearst or a new elementary school in Ward 3 the size of Murch's trailers, will feed to Deal and Wilson. The current second grades at Murch, Janney, and Lafayette alone will send 15 6th grade classes to Deal in 2017.

[Anonymous]

The boundary redrawing was supposed to deal with overcrowding, but it was also supposed to redraw boundaries that had become meaningless due to school closures. Most of the schools in the city had a nearby or adjacent school close, so one would expect that most school catchments would experience some tweaks around the edges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murch is overcrowded. Three new class sections were added this year in order to avoid having class sizes exceeding 30 students per room. New trailers were brought onto the property and placed on the bluetop and in the staff parking. Staff parking went from 45 parking spaces to 15. Arrangements are still being made to find parking in the neighborhood for the staff.

The Murch property is one small block with no room to expand into additional parcels. Part of that block is actually National Park Service land and so building on it may be problematic. Expanding beyond the current footprint would necessarily take away staff parking and/or playground space. So, more students, more staff, less parking and smaller playground.

Murch is overcrowded.

Can you clarify in which grades? The lowest grades seem to be in much better shape, however I am not fully aware of the situation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can't add Capital Hill because the recommendations don't appear to resolve over-crowding issues there. I defined the topic as overcrowding because that is the issue that I was always told this was supposed to resolve. To your point about creating Deal@Unicorn, we were specifically told these recommendations were not about improving schools. But, if you want to create a topic about that, feel free.

The recommendations will help resolve stirrings of over-crowding on the Hill in a roundabout way. Because the Brent and Maury IB parents are effectively being told that they will not have viable by-right middle schools, or a high school either, for at least 15 years, the recommendations are already serving to dampen demand somewhat.

Hill parents know that demand at Washington Latin and BASIS,where there is no longer room for all comers, will increase steadily over the years. Moreover, some aren't thrilled about what the charters offer anyway (no MS tracking at LATIN, where around one-third of 5th and 6th grade arrivals lack basic skills, and weak facilities at BASIS outside science labs). Hardly anbody sounds excited about the prospect of a test-in option in Ward 7.

In my own little sphere of activity, the recommendations have helped convinced several IB families we know--those with early childhood program age kids looking for bigger homes to accomodate a new baby, or different sex siblings sharing a bedroom--to give up on the Hill. These families recently bought in the burbs or Upper NW because it wasn't worth sacrificing to afford a bigger home locally.

You're going to see a few more peel off from Brent and Maury earlier, including to privates with intake years at 3rd, 4th and 5th grades. This trend, combined with rising housing prices, will probably keep the schools from becoming crowded, although Watkins' slow decline (motivating some families to move within the Hill, or to engage in localized address cheating) will provide a small influx of new families.

The Hill needs a test-in middle school option that won't be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch is overcrowded. Three new class sections were added this year in order to avoid having class sizes exceeding 30 students per room. New trailers were brought onto the property and placed on the bluetop and in the staff parking. Staff parking went from 45 parking spaces to 15. Arrangements are still being made to find parking in the neighborhood for the staff.

The Murch property is one small block with no room to expand into additional parcels. Part of that block is actually National Park Service land and so building on it may be problematic. Expanding beyond the current footprint would necessarily take away staff parking and/or playground space. So, more students, more staff, less parking and smaller playground.

Murch is overcrowded.

Can you clarify in which grades? The lowest grades seem to be in much better shape, however I am not fully aware of the situation.

This year, there are 3 PK classes, 5 classes each of K, 1st, and 2nd, and 4 classes each of 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The three new classes are one each of K, 1, and 2.

As mentioned before, Murch also has a city-wide autism program, and I believe we have also added a new autism PK class this year.

The school feels so much more crowded compared to last year, with the new trailers (there were already quite a few, but the new ones take up most of the parking lot and part of the play area). I believe the entire 4th and 5th grades are now in trailers. We got an email from the school asking people not to drive to school if at all possible, because parking will be tighter in the neighborhood due to the loss of the staff parking lot.

As a PP mentioned, there are almost no OOB students in the lower grades. The growth in enrollment, and the addition of new classes, is because of growth of IB demand.

A 5th grade parent last year told me more than 90% of the 5th grade was going on to Deal.