DC council giving away DCPS property to Lab School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing will satisfy the give-away-birthers. The claims of corruption and conspiracy are nearing Pizzagate levels. There is no evidence of "cronies" enriching themselves on the backs of students.

Google "Ben Soto."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give away?

It's a lease at market rate
False, Lab is paying only 80,000/year ($6666/month) to rent a building on a 50,000 square foot lot. There are houses on 7,000 square foot lots that go for a similar amount of rent per year in the private market. Lab gets to deduct rent for each dollar they pay in renovations, so they'll likely never pay DC a dime.
DC retains ownership and can revoke for lease violations
Lab School will pay for safety repairs and renovation (1935 boiler, fire sprinklers)
I would assume anyone who rented the building would have to do that. It's called basic safety for your students.
Lab School will pay for 2 new DC kids a year to attend (DCPS has drastically cut placements, that's why more DC residents don't go)
DC residents "don't go" to Lab because it's a very expensive school ($45K/year) so DCPS in a cost-cutting measure, has tried to reduce the amount of placements. Perhaps leasing this building at market rent could pay for an improved special ed budget for DC public school students.
DCPS doesn't want the building, no budget to repair, let alone expand
What's the proof of that? Has this property been offered publicly for bid recently?
The immediate neighbors wants it to stay a small school, positive relationships with Lab
If they put this property out to bid publicly, DCPS could choose the characteristics of the tenant it wanted, including an acceptable size of school.
All the students have disabilities, it's not a regular private school
DCPS has students with disabilities too. It would be nice if they could go to schools without trailers, or if DC had more funding (via market based rents) for their special ed kids.
If there is a viable alternative to Lab lease somewhere in this nearly decade-long soap opera, I'd love to see it. If not, please, let's just move on to the big problems.
DC could put the property out to bid, and Lab could be the winning bidder by paying the highest rent. It's not DC's job to give sweetheart deals to a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Or, DC could, you know, follow the law on disposal of surplus property: offer it to a charter first, then consider other public purposes, then put it out to bid.

To add to that, if this really were a market-rate deal no council action would be needed. The reason they can't follow the existing process is that it's a sole-source give-away.

This. Lab should buy the GDS space and not seek a subsidy from DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing will satisfy the give-away-birthers. The claims of corruption and conspiracy are nearing Pizzagate levels. There is no evidence of "cronies" enriching themselves on the backs of students.

Google "Ben Soto."

His kid goes to the school. And? Is he personally profiting? Prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DCPS has drastically cut placements, that's why more DC residents don't go

This is one of the things that's puzzling. Since the beginning of the Gray administration DCPS has had a stated goal of cutting private placements, and they have largely been successful, overall cutting them by more than half. If that's your strategy, why subsidize the private schools? And why a 50 year commitment? It just makes zero sense.

Fun fact: the typical DCPS school has a higher percentage of DCPS special needs kids (15-20%) than the Lab School (less than 10%).

The private placements were reduced because DCPS stopped paying when it felt like it and threatened parents who pushed back with litigation. DCPS did not magically start educating special education students better.

There’s nothing "fun" about special education. Lab is 100% special education students. Key 7%, Stoddert 4%, Janney 6%, Eaton 7%, Murch 6%, Hyde-Addison 3%. Hearst has 13% because of an autism program. Deal 9% Hardy 12%.

Fun fact: not all kids with disabilities are on the autism spectrum.

I don't know how they came up with the terms. But placing students outside of DCPS is not a subsidy or a voucher . It's legally required for some students.

What's puzzling is why people think there's some nefarious motive behind Lab’s attempts to secure stable facilities for a nonprofit special education school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DCPS has drastically cut placements, that's why more DC residents don't go

This is one of the things that's puzzling. Since the beginning of the Gray administration DCPS has had a stated goal of cutting private placements, and they have largely been successful, overall cutting them by more than half. If that's your strategy, why subsidize the private schools? And why a 50 year commitment? It just makes zero sense.

Fun fact: the typical DCPS school has a higher percentage of DCPS special needs kids (15-20%) than the Lab School (less than 10%).

The private placements were reduced because DCPS stopped paying when it felt like it and threatened parents who pushed back with litigation. DCPS did not magically start educating special education students better.

There’s nothing "fun" about special education. Lab is 100% special education students. Key 7%, Stoddert 4%, Janney 6%, Eaton 7%, Murch 6%, Hyde-Addison 3%. Hearst has 13% because of an autism program. Deal 9% Hardy 12%.

Fun fact: not all kids with disabilities are on the autism spectrum.

I don't know how they came up with the terms. But placing students outside of DCPS is not a subsidy or a voucher . It's legally required for some students.

What's puzzling is why people think there's some nefarious motive behind Lab’s attempts to secure stable facilities for a nonprofit special education school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What's puzzling is why people think there's some nefarious motive behind Lab’s attempts to secure stable facilities for a nonprofit special education school.

I won't ascribe motives to anyone. But there has been some suspect conduct.

Let's see:

Lab has now tried three times to get the old Hardy School. Each time, the attempt was made in secrecy. When news came out, the public outcry caused it to be pulled back. The last time -- the one in December, the one that started this thread -- was a bill that was introduced on a Monday and voted on a Tuesday.

These attempts are like an orphan born of virgin birth, no one seems to want to be associated with them. The Mayor blamed the council, Mary Cheh blamed Grosso.

The terms of the deal are economically indistinguishable from a give-away, and do nothing to protect or advance the interest of the citizens of DC.

Ben Soto was treasurer of Muriel Bowser's mayoral campaign and a major fundraiser. His wife sits on the board of the Lab School.

No, nothing fishy here at all.

[Anonymous]

I love LAB. It's great school and a boon to our vibrant city that its located in DC. HOWEVER, it's a private entity. It charges 40,000 a year. It fundraises. I am positive that DC school children placed in LAB bring DC taxpayer funding with them. There are properties for sale--why didn't they jump on St. Anne's? Fannie Mae?
When I read other threads about overcrowding at Janney, Murch, Eaton etc. it is clear DC should hang on to this property for an elementary, middle, or high school. Or for a charter of any stripe. it is outrageous when DC public school children are learning in overcrowded conditions to give away potential school real estate.
NO sweetheart deal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What's puzzling is why people think there's some nefarious motive behind Lab’s attempts to secure stable facilities for a nonprofit special education school.

I won't ascribe motives to anyone. But there has been some suspect conduct.

Let's see:

Lab has now tried three times to get the old Hardy School. Each time, the attempt was made in secrecy. When news came out, the public outcry caused it to be pulled back. The last time -- the one in December, the one that started this thread -- was a bill that was introduced on a Monday and voted on a Tuesday.

These attempts are like an orphan born of virgin birth, no one seems to want to be associated with them. The Mayor blamed the council, Mary Cheh blamed Grosso.

The terms of the deal are economically indistinguishable from a give-away, and do nothing to protect or advance the interest of the citizens of DC.

Ben Soto was treasurer of Muriel Bowser's mayoral campaign and a major fundraiser. His wife sits on the board of the Lab School.

No, nothing fishy here at all.

If it were just a back-room deal it wouldn't be nearly the issue, that's just life in the big city.

The real problem is that DCPS obviously needs the space, it's irreplaceable, and it's gone for the rest of the natural life of anyone reading this. Even if it were truly a market-rate deal that would still be a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love LAB. It's great school and a boon to our vibrant city that its located in DC. HOWEVER, it's a private entity. It charges 40,000 a year. It fundraises. I am positive that DC school children placed in LAB bring DC taxpayer funding with them. There are properties for sale--why didn't they jump on St. Anne's? Fannie Mae?
When I read other threads about overcrowding at Janney, Murch, Eaton etc. it is clear DC should hang on to this property for an elementary, middle, or high school. Or for a charter of any stripe. it is outrageous when DC public school children are learning in overcrowded conditions to give away potential school real estate.
NO sweetheart deal!

No they should give it to the lab school. Even if that area gets crazy crowded(it will not because it is about maxed in term of families), the property is really limited. It is in a very low density area when compared to Key. You have Georgetown university, Georgetown student renters, the German embassy, the main Lab school, GDS, St pat, GW, Field School, etc taking up much if the land in the area. These places do not need an elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love LAB. It's great school and a boon to our vibrant city that its located in DC. HOWEVER, it's a private entity. It charges 40,000 a year. It fundraises. I am positive that DC school children placed in LAB bring DC taxpayer funding with them. There are properties for sale--why didn't they jump on St. Anne's? Fannie Mae?
When I read other threads about overcrowding at Janney, Murch, Eaton etc. it is clear DC should hang on to this property for an elementary, middle, or high school. Or for a charter of any stripe. it is outrageous when DC public school children are learning in overcrowded conditions to give away potential school real estate.
NO sweetheart deal!

No they should give it to the lab school. Even if that area gets crazy crowded(it will not because it is about maxed in term of families), the property is really limited. It is in a very low density area when compared to Key. You have Georgetown university, Georgetown student renters, the German embassy, the main Lab school, GDS, St pat, GW, Field School, etc taking up much if the land in the area. These places do not need an elementary school.

I'm going to assume you're a Lab parent, which means it's also safe to assume you live in the suburbs. And I'm sure when you drive into school on Clara Barton or over Chain Bridge, and come up Reservoir Road, it looks like nobody lives here. And I'm sure when you get together with other Lab parents for coffee in Bethesda or McLean it's easy to gripe about the mean locals in Palisades who won't let you have what you want -- what you deserve!

But it may surprise you to learn there is actually a whole city around the school, and people live there, and they have kids, and they want the same things for their kids that you do. You probably don't know much about how DC is run, but there is a city government, and it has departments and agencies. One agency is called the Office of Planning. It is responsible for trying to predict what the city is going to look like in the future. For the purpose of planning the city is divided into things called "clusters." Each cluster represents about 15,000 people, and there's 39 of them. The Hardy building sits on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between Cluster 13 and Cluster 14.

You can see the Office of Planning projections for years 2014-2020 here: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/2014%20Population%20Projections%20and%20Growth%20(between%202014%20to%202020).pdf

In 2014 there were 4750 kids under the age of 18 in the two clusters. OOP is projecting that by 2020 that will rise to 6350, an increase of 1600 kids and over 33%. The pre-school population of the two clusters -- the kids who will be tomorrow's students -- will increase from 1500 to 1950.

You can read about their methodology on the OOP website, but for the most part short-term projections are based on houses that have already been built and babies that have already been born.

In DC there is also an agency called DCPS, for DC Public Schools, which runs the public schools (Public schools are a little bit like the private schools that you're used to, except the parents don't have to pay for their kids to go there and the school doesn't get to choose who attends). DCPS schools are organized around neighborhoods. There is one school in Cluster 13, called Key Elementary, and two schools in Cluster 14, Stoddert and Mann. Right now all three schools are overcrowded, they have hundreds more students than they were built for. The idea that those three schools will have to absorb hundreds of kids in the next three years is very frightening to the people who live there.

The Office of Planning also does longer term projections. While they are less precise, they show hundreds of thousands of people moving into the city in the next 15 years. In the next ten years about 45,000 kids will move into the city. Each school in DCPS is going to have to take about 400 more kids. Nobody knows how they're going to do that.

So while from the safety of the suburbs it may look like DC giving away schools is a good idea, it really isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love LAB. It's great school and a boon to our vibrant city that its located in DC. HOWEVER, it's a private entity. It charges 40,000 a year. It fundraises. I am positive that DC school children placed in LAB bring DC taxpayer funding with them. There are properties for sale--why didn't they jump on St. Anne's? Fannie Mae?
When I read other threads about overcrowding at Janney, Murch, Eaton etc. it is clear DC should hang on to this property for an elementary, middle, or high school. Or for a charter of any stripe. it is outrageous when DC public school children are learning in overcrowded conditions to give away potential school real estate.
NO sweetheart deal!

No they should give it to the lab school. Even if that area gets crazy crowded(it will not because it is about maxed in term of families), the property is really limited. It is in a very low density area when compared to Key. You have Georgetown university, Georgetown student renters, the German embassy, the main Lab school, GDS, St pat, GW, Field School, etc taking up much if the land in the area. These places do not need an elementary school.

I'm going to assume you're a Lab parent, which means it's also safe to assume you live in the suburbs. And I'm sure when you drive into school on Clara Barton or over Chain Bridge, and come up Reservoir Road, it looks like nobody lives here. And I'm sure when you get together with other Lab parents for coffee in Bethesda or McLean it's easy to gripe about the mean locals in Palisades who won't let you have what you want -- what you deserve!

But it may surprise you to learn there is actually a whole city around the school, and people live there, and they have kids, and they want the same things for their kids that you do. You probably don't know much about how DC is run, but there is a city government, and it has departments and agencies. One agency is called the Office of Planning. It is responsible for trying to predict what the city is going to look like in the future. For the purpose of planning the city is divided into things called "clusters." Each cluster represents about 15,000 people, and there's 39 of them. The Hardy building sits on Foxhall Road, which is the boundary between Cluster 13 and Cluster 14.

You can see the Office of Planning projections for years 2014-2020 here: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/2014%20Population%20Projections%20and%20Growth%20(between%202014%20to%202020).pdf

In 2014 there were 4750 kids under the age of 18 in the two clusters. OOP is projecting that by 2020 that will rise to 6350, an increase of 1600 kids and over 33%. The pre-school population of the two clusters -- the kids who will be tomorrow's students -- will increase from 1500 to 1950.

You can read about their methodology on the OOP website, but for the most part short-term projections are based on houses that have already been built and babies that have already been born.

In DC there is also an agency called DCPS, for DC Public Schools, which runs the public schools (Public schools are a little bit like the private schools that you're used to, except the parents don't have to pay for their kids to go there and the school doesn't get to choose who attends). DCPS schools are organized around neighborhoods. There is one school in Cluster 13, called Key Elementary, and two schools in Cluster 14, Stoddert and Mann. Right now all three schools are overcrowded, they have hundreds more students than they were built for. The idea that those three schools will have to absorb hundreds of kids in the next three years is very frightening to the people who live there.

The Office of Planning also does longer term projections. While they are less precise, they show hundreds of thousands of people moving into the city in the next 15 years. In the next ten years about 45,000 kids will move into the city. Each school in DCPS is going to have to take about 400 more kids. Nobody knows how they're going to do that.

So while from the safety of the suburbs it may look like DC giving away schools is a good idea, it really isn't.

Very well written PP, except that we do pay for our public schools through our very high taxes.

[Anonymous]

DC Lab parent here. Our kids are IB for an overcrowded, high-performing Ward 3 school. One child does fine. The other got shafted by incompetent school staff, we were lied to by DCPS, got threats from DCPS lawyers, and got bumped around to a different school every year for 3 years.

We didn't want to go to Lab. Our child had to.

PP, who are you? Have you spent time in the school? Do you have any experience with students with learning disabilities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love LAB. It's great school and a boon to our vibrant city that its located in DC. HOWEVER, it's a private entity. It charges 40,000 a year. It fundraises. I am positive that DC school children placed in LAB bring DC taxpayer funding with them. There are properties for sale--why didn't they jump on St. Anne's? Fannie Mae?
When I read other threads about overcrowding at Janney, Murch, Eaton etc. it is clear DC should hang on to this property for an elementary, middle, or high school. Or for a charter of any stripe. it is outrageous when DC public school children are learning in overcrowded conditions to give away potential school real estate.
NO sweetheart deal!

No they should give it to the lab school. Even if that area gets crazy crowded(it will not because it is about maxed in term of families), the property is really limited. It is in a very low density area when compared to Key. You have Georgetown university, Georgetown student renters, the German embassy, the main Lab school, GDS, St pat, GW, Field School, etc taking up much if the land in the area. These places do not need an elementary school.

There should be a public process for the disposal of this public property. If Lab has the winning bid, great--but let's do it with a transparent process, no backroom sweetheart emergency deal stuff for a property that has been sitting around for a long time. No reason to "give it to the Lab school."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC Lab parent here. Our kids are IB for an overcrowded, high-performing Ward 3 school. One child does fine. The other got shafted by incompetent school staff, we were lied to by DCPS, got threats from DCPS lawyers, and got bumped around to a different school every year for 3 years.

We didn't want to go to Lab. Our child had to.

PP, who are you? Have you spent time in the school? Do you have any experience with students with learning disabilities?

Nobody is criticizing DC children attending LAB. People are critiquing D.C. residents essentially picking up the tab for non DC public school children to attend. At that point non DC taxpayer support should kick in proportionally. It has nothing to do with visiting the school (though I have, and was very impressed).