Constructive ways to decrease Janney class size

[Anonymous]

Saying that the proposed changes didn't do enough is like saying, why save any money if we can't have a perfect budget. There are steps you can take to alleviate an obviously overcrowded school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying that the proposed changes didn't do enough is like saying, why save any money if we can't have a perfect budget. There are steps you can take to alleviate an obviously overcrowded school.

Let me be more clear. It is not that the proposed changes would not have done enough; it is that they would have had ZERO impact on the current kindergarten class. There is not a single K student whose attendance at Janney would have been effected by the proposed changes. We are trying to have a constructive discussion here and to keep bringing it back to the boundaries indicates that you don't have a real understanding of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying that the proposed changes didn't do enough is like saying, why save any money if we can't have a perfect budget. There are steps you can take to alleviate an obviously overcrowded school.

I particularly like the comments about small changes when that was what was made to the numbers coming from Eaton to Deal since many OOB Eaton students have independent Deal feeder rights, yet we are collateral damage according to one of your own. If your school was unwilling to have any boundary change your numbers will never decrease. Parents could have lobbied for more substantial changes to Janney's boundaries to right size the boundary population and alleviate overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying that the proposed changes didn't do enough is like saying, why save any money if we can't have a perfect budget. There are steps you can take to alleviate an obviously overcrowded school.

Let me be more clear. It is not that the proposed changes would not have done enough; it is that they would have had ZERO impact on the current kindergarten class. There is not a single K student whose attendance at Janney would have been effected by the proposed changes. We are trying to have a constructive discussion here and to keep bringing it back to the boundaries indicates that you don't have a real understanding of the problem.

So we are only allowed to suggest ideas that have a huge impact on the kindergarten class? I don't remember that being part of the original post.

I just have no idea how you think you can alleviate overcrowding without adjusting the boundaries. I think it is you that does not have a real understanding of the problem. You have a building. It doesn't fit all of the students in your current boundary. There are areas within your boundaries, where many kids live, that can just as easily go to a different school, that just happens to have space for more IB kids, is newly renovated, and feeds to Deal. Yes, this might not make an immediate change to the size of your current classes, but it would make a big impact for the future. Why shouldn't this be on the table for discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that most MoCo elementary schools are even larger than this and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with 01:48 above.

With that in mind I have two proposed options if you disagree with me and would like smaller class sizes.

First, I have always thought that a new elementary school closer to the Northern most boundaries of Janney makes sense so that families can walk to school. If you are taking a bus, and then Metro to get to your neighborhood school it seems like it is too far away. The next response frequently is that there is no land in this area. However, perhaps a swap for a mixed use space with DC Parks and Recreation makes sense, or conversion of other available land in the area. In the worst case scenario shared DCPS/DCPR space with some additional land added through imminent domain could be an option if it really is a priority.

Second, the conversion of Hearst to a regional Early Child Development Center seems very aligned with the history of the school (NAEYC certified for example). I also understand that the school was originally designed for ECD. A pre-K 4 to 2nd grade option could relieve potential overcrowding at Janney, Murch and even Eaton. If pre-k 3 were offered you would see high enrollment rates from Ward 3, it would be the only pre-k 3 in the Ward. The prospect of pre-k 3 at Hearst created significant buzz and would be a huge incentive to boost enrollment. Given the relatively small number of Janney IB kids that are accepted into Pre-k 4, many families are sending their children elsewhere for pre-k 4 anyway -- particularly if you do not have sibling preference for Janney. Hearst is one of the schools of choice for pre-k 4 for Janney parents who do not use a private daycare option.

I also think that a school for very young children makes sense. My child frequently tells me he is a little scared of the "big kids at school." To me it is very logical. He is only four and they are in fifth grade --to him they are giants!

The best thing would be to twin Hearst and Janney with one being the lower and the other the upper elementary school. Run a shuttle school bus between the two to facilitate dropping off and picking up siblings. You could cut class size, right-size the program to the boundary area and have a common curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying that the proposed changes didn't do enough is like saying, why save any money if we can't have a perfect budget. There are steps you can take to alleviate an obviously overcrowded school.

I particularly like the comments about small changes when that was what was made to the numbers coming from Eaton to Deal since many OOB Eaton students have independent Deal feeder rights, yet we are collateral damage according to one of your own. If your school was unwilling to have any boundary change your numbers will never decrease. Parents could have lobbied for more substantial changes to Janney's boundaries to right size the boundary population and alleviate overcrowding.

When it came to Deal, Eaton got "Frumined."

[Anonymous]

Do you have any idea how many OOB children are at Janney?

How many children are there under false pretense? (parents own the property but rent it out so they do not really live there, family somehow provided fradulent information to register?)

Come on - everyone knows a family who used to live there but moved and stuck around in the best interest of their child.

Are you reporting them? Because it is not in the best interest of your child if you think it would be a better learning environment to have a smaller class size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying that the proposed changes didn't do enough is like saying, why save any money if we can't have a perfect budget. There are steps you can take to alleviate an obviously overcrowded school.

Let me be more clear. It is not that the proposed changes would not have done enough; it is that they would have had ZERO impact on the current kindergarten class. There is not a single K student whose attendance at Janney would have been effected by the proposed changes. We are trying to have a constructive discussion here and to keep bringing it back to the boundaries indicates that you don't have a real understanding of the problem.

You are talking multiple people here. I did not do the other posts, and others have responded afterwards.

Anything constructive counts in the discussion. Please keep this civil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have any idea how many OOB children are at Janney?

How many children are there under false pretense? (parents own the property but rent it out so they do not really live there, family somehow provided fradulent information to register?)

Come on - everyone knows a family who used to live there but moved and stuck around in the best interest of their child.

Are you reporting them? Because it is not in the best interest of your child if you think it would be a better learning environment to have a smaller class size.

There are several kids who are zoned for nearby schools who go to Janney. So maybe figure out how/why the principal keeps letting kids like that in when the class sizes are already too big with IB kids.

[Anonymous]

but the ones who keep saying that Janney community needs to live with its decision to reject the recent boundary proposals is not being constructive and also demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how minimal those proposed changes were.

I am not a PP who has said exactly "you made your bed so lay in it."

I am posting again to say that there are absolutely workable, practical, boundary changes that COULD meaningfully reduce the overall enrollment at Janney for years to come. I am not stuck on a proposal in the past that would have shifted 3 kindergartners on one block or whatever you're getting at.

I am saying that looking at the gestalt view, going forward[i], a cooly detached outside expert not named Matt Frumin could come in and lop off logical blocks to the west, south and east.

Would households in those block embrace that action with a ticker tape parade? Probably not. But that is not the question, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that most MoCo elementary schools are even larger than this and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with 01:48 above.

With that in mind I have two proposed options if you disagree with me and would like smaller class sizes.

First, I have always thought that a new elementary school closer to the Northern most boundaries of Janney makes sense so that families can walk to school. If you are taking a bus, and then Metro to get to your neighborhood school it seems like it is too far away. The next response frequently is that there is no land in this area. However, perhaps a swap for a mixed use space with DC Parks and Recreation makes sense, or conversion of other available land in the area. In the worst case scenario shared DCPS/DCPR space with some additional land added through imminent domain could be an option if it really is a priority.

Second, the conversion of Hearst to a regional Early Child Development Center seems very aligned with the history of the school (NAEYC certified for example). I also understand that the school was originally designed for ECD. A pre-K 4 to 2nd grade option could relieve potential overcrowding at Janney, Murch and even Eaton. If pre-k 3 were offered you would see high enrollment rates from Ward 3, it would be the only pre-k 3 in the Ward. The prospect of pre-k 3 at Hearst created significant buzz and would be a huge incentive to boost enrollment. Given the relatively small number of Janney IB kids that are accepted into Pre-k 4, many families are sending their children elsewhere for pre-k 4 anyway -- particularly if you do not have sibling preference for Janney. Hearst is one of the schools of choice for pre-k 4 for Janney parents who do not use a private daycare option.

I also think that a school for very young children makes sense. My child frequently tells me he is a little scared of the "big kids at school." To me it is very logical. He is only four and they are in fifth grade --to him they are giants!

The best thing would be to twin Hearst and Janney with one being the lower and the other the upper elementary school. Run a shuttle school bus between the two to facilitate dropping off and picking up siblings. You could cut class size, right-size the program to the boundary area and have a common curriculum.

You already have a common curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Hearst has a fantastic curriculum. Come to an open house to learn more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that most MoCo elementary schools are even larger than this and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with 01:48 above.

With that in mind I have two proposed options if you disagree with me and would like smaller class sizes.

First, I have always thought that a new elementary school closer to the Northern most boundaries of Janney makes sense so that families can walk to school. If you are taking a bus, and then Metro to get to your neighborhood school it seems like it is too far away. The next response frequently is that there is no land in this area. However, perhaps a swap for a mixed use space with DC Parks and Recreation makes sense, or conversion of other available land in the area. In the worst case scenario shared DCPS/DCPR space with some additional land added through imminent domain could be an option if it really is a priority.

Second, the conversion of Hearst to a regional Early Child Development Center seems very aligned with the history of the school (NAEYC certified for example). I also understand that the school was originally designed for ECD. A pre-K 4 to 2nd grade option could relieve potential overcrowding at Janney, Murch and even Eaton. If pre-k 3 were offered you would see high enrollment rates from Ward 3, it would be the only pre-k 3 in the Ward. The prospect of pre-k 3 at Hearst created significant buzz and would be a huge incentive to boost enrollment. Given the relatively small number of Janney IB kids that are accepted into Pre-k 4, many families are sending their children elsewhere for pre-k 4 anyway -- particularly if you do not have sibling preference for Janney. Hearst is one of the schools of choice for pre-k 4 for Janney parents who do not use a private daycare option.

I also think that a school for very young children makes sense. My child frequently tells me he is a little scared of the "big kids at school." To me it is very logical. He is only four and they are in fifth grade --to him they are giants!

The best thing would be to twin Hearst and Janney with one being the lower and the other the upper elementary school. Run a shuttle school bus between the two to facilitate dropping off and picking up siblings. You could cut class size, right-size the program to the boundary area and have a common curriculum.

You already have a common curriculum.

Common in the sense that they both follow the general DCPS curriculum. But by pairing the schools (Janney-Hearst) you would take the best practices from both and have them at the same high performing, rigorous level. It would also strengthen the neighborhood school system by realigning Hearst pretty quickly as a neighborhood school hosting some of the grades drawn from the combined Janney and Hearst boundary area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that most MoCo elementary schools are even larger than this and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with 01:48 above.

With that in mind I have two proposed options if you disagree with me and would like smaller class sizes.

First, I have always thought that a new elementary school closer to the Northern most boundaries of Janney makes sense so that families can walk to school. If you are taking a bus, and then Metro to get to your neighborhood school it seems like it is too far away. The next response frequently is that there is no land in this area. However, perhaps a swap for a mixed use space with DC Parks and Recreation makes sense, or conversion of other available land in the area. In the worst case scenario shared DCPS/DCPR space with some additional land added through imminent domain could be an option if it really is a priority.

Second, the conversion of Hearst to a regional Early Child Development Center seems very aligned with the history of the school (NAEYC certified for example). I also understand that the school was originally designed for ECD. A pre-K 4 to 2nd grade option could relieve potential overcrowding at Janney, Murch and even Eaton. If pre-k 3 were offered you would see high enrollment rates from Ward 3, it would be the only pre-k 3 in the Ward. The prospect of pre-k 3 at Hearst created significant buzz and would be a huge incentive to boost enrollment. Given the relatively small number of Janney IB kids that are accepted into Pre-k 4, many families are sending their children elsewhere for pre-k 4 anyway -- particularly if you do not have sibling preference for Janney. Hearst is one of the schools of choice for pre-k 4 for Janney parents who do not use a private daycare option.

I also think that a school for very young children makes sense. My child frequently tells me he is a little scared of the "big kids at school." To me it is very logical. He is only four and they are in fifth grade --to him they are giants!

The best thing would be to twin Hearst and Janney with one being the lower and the other the upper elementary school. Run a shuttle school bus between the two to facilitate dropping off and picking up siblings. You could cut class size, right-size the program to the boundary area and have a common curriculum.

You already have a common curriculum.

Common in the sense that they both follow the general DCPS curriculum. But by pairing the schools (Janney-Hearst) you would take the best practices from both and have them at the same high performing, rigorous level. It would also strengthen the neighborhood school system by realigning Hearst pretty quickly as a neighborhood school hosting some of the grades drawn from the combined Janney and Hearst boundary area.

Janney parent here and I do not think this is necessarily a bad long term plan, but it would take significant planning. The biggest problem I see is making the two feel like a cohesive community and making the families in both communities feel like it will be a net positive by keeping what is valued by both. What is the split, pk3 to 1st at Hearst and then 2nd through 5th at Janney? I have to admit the idea of it makes me sad because my children continue to maintain their relationships with their early childhood teachers over the years and you would lose that in part.

[Anonymous]

This is funny. You guys are wanting so, so hard not be be rezoned out of Janney forever, inclusive of preK through 5th.

Somehow, it's ok to lose that "walkability" during preK-2 (by being shunted to Hearst), so long as the Janney carrot remains for 3-5th. And the addresses north of Janney who aren't anywhere near Hearst? Get in the car, folks!

But back in the day (last fall 2014), it was NOT ok for any family equidistant btwn Janney & Hearst to lose their precious walkability to Janney. Thus, these addresses could not be rezoned.


Remember that one?