Who will replace Mary Cheh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets work backward. First, when is she up for reelection?

2018

Democratic primary will be on June 12, 2018. It's not that far off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Frumin ran unsuccessfully for the Council several years ago and might try to run again. But after his performance on the school boundary committee (he dismissed John Eaton as 'collateral damage' when it got booted out as a longtime feeder to Deal), he'd face an uphill race.

I know the Eaton folks are mad about that, but my understanding is there just aren't that many Eaton parents who live in Ward 3. It's not an issue that grabs the rest of the ward, because for the most part the feeling is better them than us. Ever watch a nature documentary when the cheetah takes a gazelle? The other gazelles relax, knowing they're safe for another day.

Eaton is now 50% IB. With shy of 500 kids enrolled. 470/2= 235 kids of IB families. No idea how many are siblings to venture a guess at how many total families/voters that is, but regardless, I feel the need to keep saying this since people on many threads keep saying Eaton is majority OOB. It's not and if this year's PK is any indication (all IB families with 22 on the wait list initially, which would fill next year's K class with mostly IB given there are 75 K seats, and 36 PK seats that 58 families initially wanted along with another group of families that didn't apply for PK but intend to come for K as always happens - they stayed at NCRC or Aidan or Franklin or the Gan at Adas Israel or wherever to finish out the last year in those programs) that percentage will continue to rise.

At the time of boundary changes, Eaton was in the 30% range for IB.

I'm not sure what it was then has to do with what it is now? As I said, I'm trying to correct the continued misinformation spread about Eaton's state today. Which is a school that continues to increase its IB percentage and is no longer majority OOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Frumin ran unsuccessfully for the Council several years ago and might try to run again. But after his performance on the school boundary committee (he dismissed John Eaton as 'collateral damage' when it got booted out as a longtime feeder to Deal), he'd face an uphill race.

I know the Eaton folks are mad about that, but my understanding is there just aren't that many Eaton parents who live in Ward 3. It's not an issue that grabs the rest of the ward, because for the most part the feeling is better them than us. Ever watch a nature documentary when the cheetah takes a gazelle? The other gazelles relax, knowing they're safe for another day.

Eaton is now 50% IB. With shy of 500 kids enrolled. 470/2= 235 kids of IB families. No idea how many are siblings to venture a guess at how many total families/voters that is, but regardless, I feel the need to keep saying this since people on many threads keep saying Eaton is majority OOB. It's not and if this year's PK is any indication (all IB families with 22 on the wait list initially, which would fill next year's K class with mostly IB given there are 75 K seats, and 36 PK seats that 58 families initially wanted along with another group of families that didn't apply for PK but intend to come for K as always happens - they stayed at NCRC or Aidan or Franklin or the Gan at Adas Israel or wherever to finish out the last year in those programs) that percentage will continue to rise.

At the time of boundary changes, Eaton was in the 30% range for IB.

I'm not sure what it was then has to do with what it is now? As I said, I'm trying to correct the continued misinformation spread about Eaton's state today. Which is a school that continues to increase its IB percentage and is no longer majority OOB.

I think the point that the poster was trying to make is that switching to Hardy doesn't seem to have harmed Eaton's enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Frumin ran unsuccessfully for the Council several years ago and might try to run again. But after his performance on the school boundary committee (he dismissed John Eaton as 'collateral damage' when it got booted out as a longtime feeder to Deal), he'd face an uphill race.

I know the Eaton folks are mad about that, but my understanding is there just aren't that many Eaton parents who live in Ward 3. It's not an issue that grabs the rest of the ward, because for the most part the feeling is better them than us. Ever watch a nature documentary when the cheetah takes a gazelle? The other gazelles relax, knowing they're safe for another day.

Eaton is now 50% IB. With shy of 500 kids enrolled. 470/2= 235 kids of IB families. No idea how many are siblings to venture a guess at how many total families/voters that is, but regardless, I feel the need to keep saying this since people on many threads keep saying Eaton is majority OOB. It's not and if this year's PK is any indication (all IB families with 22 on the wait list initially, which would fill next year's K class with mostly IB given there are 75 K seats, and 36 PK seats that 58 families initially wanted along with another group of families that didn't apply for PK but intend to come for K as always happens - they stayed at NCRC or Aidan or Franklin or the Gan at Adas Israel or wherever to finish out the last year in those programs) that percentage will continue to rise.

At the time of boundary changes, Eaton was in the 30% range for IB.

I'm not sure what it was then has to do with what it is now? As I said, I'm trying to correct the continued misinformation spread about Eaton's state today. Which is a school that continues to increase its IB percentage and is no longer majority OOB.

Can you cite reported statistics for this? The last DCPS report I saw still showed Eaton as decidedly majority OOB. In any event, the fact that OOB enrollment remains so high is puzzling, because I did read that Eaton is now enrolled over its physical capacity. It's hard to understand why DCPS can't -- or doesn't want to -- dial back OOB numbers as IB enrollment rises to avoid the overcrowding problem. The only explanation is that cutting OOB slots in schools west of Rock Creek Park imay be for DC government the proverbial political 'third rail.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Frumin ran unsuccessfully for the Council several years ago and might try to run again. But after his performance on the school boundary committee (he dismissed John Eaton as 'collateral damage' when it got booted out as a longtime feeder to Deal), he'd face an uphill race.

I know the Eaton folks are mad about that, but my understanding is there just aren't that many Eaton parents who live in Ward 3. It's not an issue that grabs the rest of the ward, because for the most part the feeling is better them than us. Ever watch a nature documentary when the cheetah takes a gazelle? The other gazelles relax, knowing they're safe for another day.

Eaton is now 50% IB. With shy of 500 kids enrolled. 470/2= 235 kids of IB families. No idea how many are siblings to venture a guess at how many total families/voters that is, but regardless, I feel the need to keep saying this since people on many threads keep saying Eaton is majority OOB. It's not and if this year's PK is any indication (all IB families with 22 on the wait list initially, which would fill next year's K class with mostly IB given there are 75 K seats, and 36 PK seats that 58 families initially wanted along with another group of families that didn't apply for PK but intend to come for K as always happens - they stayed at NCRC or Aidan or Franklin or the Gan at Adas Israel or wherever to finish out the last year in those programs) that percentage will continue to rise.

At the time of boundary changes, Eaton was in the 30% range for IB.

I'm not sure what it was then has to do with what it is now? As I said, I'm trying to correct the continued misinformation spread about Eaton's state today. Which is a school that continues to increase its IB percentage and is no longer majority OOB.

I think the point that the poster was trying to make is that switching to Hardy doesn't seem to have harmed Eaton's enrollment.

And it generally won't. Why? Because some OOB students at Eaton actually have IB rights in their neighborhood for Deal, so the switch is, uh, no big deal. For other OOB students, Hardy is still way better than their home zone middle school, so the fact that Hardy is not Deal's peer matters not. The real question is whether the loss of Deal will impact IB enrollment, particularly at the upper grades or will more kids leave regular DCPS for charters and privates at the end of 5th grade (or even earlier to secure a good spot at a Hardy alternative).

[Anonymous]

It's the pissed off IB Eaton parents that Cheh needs to worry about. The OOB parents can't vote for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets work backward. First, when is she up for reelection?

2018

Democratic primary will be on June 12, 2018. It's not that far off.

Great! Is there a Republican or non extreme socialist anc rep in ward 3???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Frumin ran unsuccessfully for the Council several years ago and might try to run again. But after his performance on the school boundary committee (he dismissed John Eaton as 'collateral damage' when it got booted out as a longtime feeder to Deal), he'd face an uphill race.

I know the Eaton folks are mad about that, but my understanding is there just aren't that many Eaton parents who live in Ward 3. It's not an issue that grabs the rest of the ward, because for the most part the feeling is better them than us. Ever watch a nature documentary when the cheetah takes a gazelle? The other gazelles relax, knowing they're safe for another day.

Eaton is now 50% IB. With shy of 500 kids enrolled. 470/2= 235 kids of IB families. No idea how many are siblings to venture a guess at how many total families/voters that is, but regardless, I feel the need to keep saying this since people on many threads keep saying Eaton is majority OOB. It's not and if this year's PK is any indication (all IB families with 22 on the wait list initially, which would fill next year's K class with mostly IB given there are 75 K seats, and 36 PK seats that 58 families initially wanted along with another group of families that didn't apply for PK but intend to come for K as always happens - they stayed at NCRC or Aidan or Franklin or the Gan at Adas Israel or wherever to finish out the last year in those programs) that percentage will continue to rise.

At the time of boundary changes, Eaton was in the 30% range for IB.

I'm not sure what it was then has to do with what it is now? As I said, I'm trying to correct the continued misinformation spread about Eaton's state today. Which is a school that continues to increase its IB percentage and is no longer majority OOB.

Can you cite reported statistics for this? The last DCPS report I saw still showed Eaton as decidedly majority OOB. In any event, the fact that OOB enrollment remains so high is puzzling, because I did read that Eaton is now enrolled over its physical capacity. It's hard to understand why DCPS can't -- or doesn't want to -- dial back OOB numbers as IB enrollment rises to avoid the overcrowding problem. The only explanation is that cutting OOB slots in schools west of Rock Creek Park imay be for DC government the proverbial political 'third rail.'

Yes, hope this link works. The DCPS profile for Eaton shows 50% IB last year. I have a child there and am well aware of the status of the PK and K classes, leading to my belief that the school will be even more IB in the next statistics. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Eaton+Elementary+School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matt Frumin ran unsuccessfully for the Council several years ago and might try to run again. But after his performance on the school boundary committee (he dismissed John Eaton as 'collateral damage' when it got booted out as a longtime feeder to Deal), he'd face an uphill race.

I know the Eaton folks are mad about that, but my understanding is there just aren't that many Eaton parents who live in Ward 3. It's not an issue that grabs the rest of the ward, because for the most part the feeling is better them than us. Ever watch a nature documentary when the cheetah takes a gazelle? The other gazelles relax, knowing they're safe for another day.

Eaton is now 50% IB. With shy of 500 kids enrolled. 470/2= 235 kids of IB families. No idea how many are siblings to venture a guess at how many total families/voters that is, but regardless, I feel the need to keep saying this since people on many threads keep saying Eaton is majority OOB. It's not and if this year's PK is any indication (all IB families with 22 on the wait list initially, which would fill next year's K class with mostly IB given there are 75 K seats, and 36 PK seats that 58 families initially wanted along with another group of families that didn't apply for PK but intend to come for K as always happens - they stayed at NCRC or Aidan or Franklin or the Gan at Adas Israel or wherever to finish out the last year in those programs) that percentage will continue to rise.

At the time of boundary changes, Eaton was in the 30% range for IB.

Why does DCPS just cram more kids into John Eaton rather than cutting back OOB enrollment more of less equal to the IB student increase?

I'm not sure what it was then has to do with what it is now? As I said, I'm trying to correct the continued misinformation spread about Eaton's state today. Which is a school that continues to increase its IB percentage and is no longer majority OOB.

Can you cite reported statistics for this? The last DCPS report I saw still showed Eaton as decidedly majority OOB. In any event, the fact that OOB enrollment remains so high is puzzling, because I did read that Eaton is now enrolled over its physical capacity. It's hard to understand why DCPS can't -- or doesn't want to -- dial back OOB numbers as IB enrollment rises to avoid the overcrowding problem. The only explanation is that cutting OOB slots in schools west of Rock Creek Park imay be for DC government the proverbial political 'third rail.'

Yes, hope this link works. The DCPS profile for Eaton shows 50% IB last year. I have a child there and am well aware of the status of the PK and K classes, leading to my belief that the school will be even more IB in the next statistics. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Eaton+Elementary+School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets work backward. First, when is she up for reelection?

2018

Democratic primary will be on June 12, 2018. It's not that far off.

Great! Is there a Republican or non extreme socialist anc rep in ward 3???

Do you really think, in the current environment, any republican, even if they disavow the President, would stand a chance in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets work backward. First, when is she up for reelection?

2018

Democratic primary will be on June 12, 2018. It's not that far off.

Great! Is there a Republican or non extreme socialist anc rep in ward 3???

I don't have a dog in this fight. I live in Ward 4 and have my own dumb councilmember. It is possible for Dems to be innovative and forward thinking. It's not just Rs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets work backward. First, when is she up for reelection?

2018

Democratic primary will be on June 12, 2018. It's not that far off.

Great! Is there a Republican or non extreme socialist anc rep in ward 3???

I don't have a dog in this fight. I live in Ward 4 and have my own dumb councilmember. It is possible for Dems to be innovative and forward thinking. It's not just Rs.

Very true, but not very likely in DC, where Dems have held a monopoly for over 50 years.

You need a start-up to challenge a monopoly.

[Anonymous]

I will never vote for Cheh again- anybody but

[Anonymous]

So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support it.

For the 140 people who oppose the homeless shelter at McLean Gardens, there are 140 at Observatory Circle who supported the switch.

For the 50 inbound Eaton families who are bummed about lack of Deal, there are 1,000 Janney and Murch families who are happy with the status quo.

Get real, Cheh is making decisions that are in net balance a positive for her support.

[Anonymous]

"So for the 40 people who oppose the Hearst pool, there are 3,000 who support....."

I don't know what you know about politics, but people who are anti anything are much, much more motivated than those who are content.