New DCPS school on former Georgetown Day site will be a high school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

I've known Matt for a long time and I love him to death as a person, but positions like this give me pause in supporting him. At a certain point you can be so nuanced as to be meaningless. Matt always wants to be the conciliator, which is great, but sometimes you need to actually stake out a position.

I'll give him credit for giving the matter some thought instead of robotically saying "we need to solve the overcrowding issue in Ward 3 schools," which seems to be the lazy default opinion of every other candidate. We all know Deal and Wilson are overcrowded, thanks for pandering.

But yeah, if he really thinks the Lab School is gonna do anything other than grift DC taxpayers, he's a cretin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

I've known Matt for a long time and I love him to death as a person, but positions like this give me pause in supporting him. At a certain point you can be so nuanced as to be meaningless. Matt always wants to be the conciliator, which is great, but sometimes you need to actually stake out a position.

I'll give him credit for giving the matter some thought instead of robotically saying "we need to solve the overcrowding issue in Ward 3 schools," which seems to be the lazy default opinion of every other candidate. We all know Deal and Wilson are overcrowded, thanks for pandering.

But yeah, if he really thinks the Lab School is gonna do anything other than grift DC taxpayers, he's a cretin.

Tricia took real heat from the FCCAs when PCA came out in favor of the two new schools. There was some savage stuff they slung her way, but she didn’t back down from it. The kind of crap that Matt puts out in his statements on the schools issue is in stark contrast to what she’s actually done. She’s not going to get many votes from the FCCAs, but parents who care about overcrowding in Ward 3 should do the benefit of hearing her out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

I've known Matt for a long time and I love him to death as a person, but positions like this give me pause in supporting him. At a certain point you can be so nuanced as to be meaningless. Matt always wants to be the conciliator, which is great, but sometimes you need to actually stake out a position.

I'll give him credit for giving the matter some thought instead of robotically saying "we need to solve the overcrowding issue in Ward 3 schools," which seems to be the lazy default opinion of every other candidate. We all know Deal and Wilson are overcrowded, thanks for pandering.

But yeah, if he really thinks the Lab School is gonna do anything other than grift DC taxpayers, he's a cretin.

Tricia took real heat from the FCCAs when PCA came out in favor of the two new schools. There was some savage stuff they slung her way, but she didn’t back down from it. The kind of crap that Matt puts out in his statements on the schools issue is in stark contrast to what she’s actually done. She’s not going to get many votes from the FCCAs, but parents who care about overcrowding in Ward 3 should do the benefit of hearing her out.

This alone makes me think that MF is a bit of a slimeball. Privately both seem to be for the school, but MF says one thing publicly and another privately since he want to win elections.

Side note, it seems that the 50/50 split for OOB students at this school is just BS for Bowser's PR. Looking at feeder/Hardy projections, it seems like the new school can get to 75% with just IB students within 2-3 years, many who can easily bike/walk there if the trolley trail + AZ ave bike lanes get built. I bet that 50/50 split gets axed the moment the school gets renovated. I'm willing to bet that the school with have a higher IB student ratio than Jackson-Reed/Wilson within a couple years and will look more like B-CC than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

I've known Matt for a long time and I love him to death as a person, but positions like this give me pause in supporting him. At a certain point you can be so nuanced as to be meaningless. Matt always wants to be the conciliator, which is great, but sometimes you need to actually stake out a position.

I'll give him credit for giving the matter some thought instead of robotically saying "we need to solve the overcrowding issue in Ward 3 schools," which seems to be the lazy default opinion of every other candidate. We all know Deal and Wilson are overcrowded, thanks for pandering.

But yeah, if he really thinks the Lab School is gonna do anything other than grift DC taxpayers, he's a cretin.

Tricia took real heat from the FCCAs when PCA came out in favor of the two new schools. There was some savage stuff they slung her way, but she didn’t back down from it. The kind of crap that Matt puts out in his statements on the schools issue is in stark contrast to what she’s actually done. She’s not going to get many votes from the FCCAs, but parents who care about overcrowding in Ward 3 should do the benefit of hearing her out.

This alone makes me think that MF is a bit of a slimeball. Privately both seem to be for the school, but MF says one thing publicly and another privately since he want to win elections.

Side note, it seems that the 50/50 split for OOB students at this school is just BS for Bowser's PR. Looking at feeder/Hardy projections, it seems like the new school can get to 75% with just IB students within 2-3 years, many who can easily bike/walk there if the trolley trail + AZ ave bike lanes get built. I bet that 50/50 split gets axed the moment the school gets renovated. I'm willing to bet that the school with have a higher IB student ratio than Jackson-Reed/Wilson within a couple years and will look more like B-CC than anything else.

Yup. This is going to end up being the best HS in DCPS. It will be deeply ironic to see CCDC and AU Park families clamoring to get into Hardy and MacArthur HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or the city could have bought the Washington Episcopal Center for Children in Chevy Chase, DC. That is a great site with big grounds. You could have a school + sports fields all in one place. Or Woodley Park where the massive hotel is being sold off.

Lafayette Karen has entered the chat.

The ECC building was never for sale.

Are you sure. The site looks deserted and the buildings are falling apart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

On the plus side, he's also talking himself out of the Mary Cheh endorsement that will probably be decisive.

Mary Cher’s endorsement won’t make a difference. The Washington Post endorsement is the only one that matters.

Mary Cheh wouldn’t endorse Matt. He ran against her for her seat several years ago. I’m betting she is still pissed about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or the city could have bought the Washington Episcopal Center for Children in Chevy Chase, DC. That is a great site with big grounds. You could have a school + sports fields all in one place. Or Woodley Park where the massive hotel is being sold off.

Lafayette Karen has entered the chat.

The ECC building was never for sale.

Are you sure. The site looks deserted and the buildings are falling apart

They had students there pre-pandemic. Not sure what’s happened during the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or the city could have bought the Washington Episcopal Center for Children in Chevy Chase, DC. That is a great site with big grounds. You could have a school + sports fields all in one place. Or Woodley Park where the massive hotel is being sold off.

Lafayette Karen has entered the chat.

The ECC building was never for sale.

Are you sure. The site looks deserted and the buildings are falling apart

Yes, this fact is not a secret (it's been brought up in numerous ANC meetings and whatnot, though that never stopped Lafayette parents from issuing their childish demands). When ECC announced its closure, it said it always planned to reopen in some form at some point, it just needed some time to change its mission into something sustainable. ECC then leased out its athletic fields to Maret, giving it the financial means to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Frumin is right. Terrible location and even the existing building on the site sucks. DCPS should not have bought the GDS school. All kinds of buildings are now opening up that could become schools. They could have built a school at FH - Lord & Taylor, Mazza Gallery or bus depot. And it could have been built from scratch. It is a good location accessible by metro, bus and car.

Any of those would surely have cost a lot more, no? Between the higher price of land on Wisconsin Avenue right near a Metro and the need to build from scratch, the GDS building probably looks like a bargain in comparison. I'd be perfectly happy to have a new school in Friendship Heights, since I live in Friendship Heights and it'd be super-convenient for me, but I don't think it was ever particularly realistic to think that was going to happen.

[Anonymous]

The proposed high school at the Georgetown Day School site seems more like a political statement than a serious proposal. The site was barely functional as a school for elementary and middle school kids, so it hardly seems suitable for a high school. And the site is not well-served by transit, which is even more of a problem because of the mayor's pledge that 50% of the seats will be "reserved" for students who do not reside in Ward 3. Clearly more high school capacity is needed west of Rock Creek Park, although more places might be found if DCPS got serious about discharging Maryland residents who Wilson. The smartest longer term solution is for DC to politely serve Duke Ellington with notice to vacate the former Western High School in a few years. In the meantime, a more central, transit-accessible site might be found for Ellington. A site that is not far from a performing arts venue like Arena would be ideal. DCPS owns the Western HS building and DC taxpayers funded 100% of the inflated renovation costs, so Ellington's tenancy should be subsetted for that the site can return to general public secondary school use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The proposed high school at the Georgetown Day School site seems more like a political statement than a serious proposal. The site was barely functional as a school for elementary and middle school kids, so it hardly seems suitable for a high school. And the site is not well-served by transit, which is even more of a problem because of the mayor's pledge that 50% of the seats will be "reserved" for students who do not reside in Ward 3. Clearly more high school capacity is needed west of Rock Creek Park, although more places might be found if DCPS got serious about discharging Maryland residents who Wilson. The smartest longer term solution is for DC to politely serve Duke Ellington with notice to vacate the former Western High School in a few years. In the meantime, a more central, transit-accessible site might be found for Ellington. A site that is not far from a performing arts venue like Arena would be ideal. DCPS owns the Western HS building and DC taxpayers funded 100% of the inflated renovation costs, so Ellington's tenancy should be subsetted for that the site can return to general public secondary school use.

Duke Ellington's tenancy should be sun-setted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

On the plus side, he's also talking himself out of the Mary Cheh endorsement that will probably be decisive.

Mary Cher’s endorsement won’t make a difference. The Washington Post endorsement is the only one that matters.

Mary Cheh wouldn’t endorse Matt. He ran against her for her seat several years ago. I’m betting she is still pissed about that.

He ran against Anita Bonds. Matt was Mary's campaign treasurer until she dropped out a few weeks ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

On the plus side, he's also talking himself out of the Mary Cheh endorsement that will probably be decisive.

Mary Cher’s endorsement won’t make a difference. The Washington Post endorsement is the only one that matters.

Mary Cheh wouldn’t endorse Matt. He ran against her for her seat several years ago. I’m betting she is still pissed about that.

Correct - Matt didn't run against Mary.

And he really didn't run against Anita as it was an open At-Large Seat that Anita eventually won.

He ran against Anita Bonds. Matt was Mary's campaign treasurer until she dropped out a few weeks ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

On the plus side, he's also talking himself out of the Mary Cheh endorsement that will probably be decisive.

Mary Cher’s endorsement won’t make a difference. The Washington Post endorsement is the only one that matters.

Mary Cheh wouldn’t endorse Matt. He ran against her for her seat several years ago. I’m betting she is still pissed about that.

He ran against Anita Bonds. Matt was Mary's campaign treasurer until she dropped out a few weeks ago.

What about Beau Finley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 candidates are starting to come out with positions on this. What are people's takes?

Here's Frumin on Foxhall and MacArthur:

https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/

He thinks we should pause planning for the Foxhall ES to see if that money might be better spent elsewhere in Ward 3 DCPS and says the idea of a 50/50 boundary/lottery HS for 1,000 kids on MacArthur is idealistically sound but logistically unsound because a.) the school is not in a central location, making it difficult to reach for many; and b.) building a new half-lottery school in Ward 3 will only draw kids away from already-underutilized high schools elsewhere in the city. He envisions a high school on the MacArthur site for 700, but doesn't say where those 700 should come from (Hardy plus kids moved from Wilson? Redrawn W3 boundaries? Hardy plus fewer lottery seats?)

He also says "the way to increase access to Ward 3 schools is to build more affordable housing in the area, a project to which I am deeply committed."

Well, good luck with that. Ward 3 is definitely getting more housing, but almost none of it will be affordable because developers can't make money off such housing.

Having read his page and being very familiar with this issue, the alternative options, and the arguments for and against the new schools, his position seems more nuanced than you are giving him credit for. But it is also a classic example of a candidate carefully crafting a position to be all things to all people (with special attention to the vocal NIMBYs in Foxhall) while putting forth ideas that are superficially appealing but completely unrealistic (buying back LAB's lease; asking them to move to the River School campus). It's taken so long to get movement on the school overcrowding problem in Ward 3 and finally we have traction. Any candidate who can say with a straight-face that they support public education and yet want to put a "pause" on that movement should be viewed with some suspicion.

On the plus side, he's also talking himself out of the Mary Cheh endorsement that will probably be decisive.

Mary Cher’s endorsement won’t make a difference. The Washington Post endorsement is the only one that matters.

She’s already endorsed another candidate… for what it’s worth … Duncan.

Frumin wasn’t so impressive when he jumped in trying to be a change agent on the last school boundary efforts

John Eaton families, now former Eaton families, are still smarting from when he called Eaton necessary "collateral damage" because one Ward 3 school had to be the sacrificial cut from Deal.