Low In Boundary at Hearst?

[Anonymous]

Any thoughts on why Hearst has such a low percentage of in-boundary students (18%).

I'm guessing a lot of kids in that area go to private school but even so 18% seems really low!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any thoughts on why Hearst has such a low percentage of in-boundary students (18%).

I'm guessing a lot of kids in that area go to private school but even so 18% seems really low!

People who can afford to buy multi-million dollar homes within spitting distance of St. Albans and Sidwell Friends aren't relying on DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Got it. But 18% is really low compared to the nearby schools (whose families also live in multi-million dollar homes). Eaton has 36%-- also low but double Hearst. And Janney 92%!

And I see from the new proposed borders that the boundary is not expanding that much for Hearst in the proposal. Just seems interesting and I was wondering if anyone had any insight.

[Anonymous]

Or I should say "whose families also MAY live in multi-million dollar homes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Got it. But 18% is really low compared to the nearby schools (whose families also live in multi-million dollar homes). Eaton has 36%-- also low but double Hearst. And Janney 92%!

And I see from the new proposed borders that the boundary is not expanding that much for Hearst in the proposal. Just seems interesting and I was wondering if anyone had any insight.

To be blunt, the IB homes for Janney do not rival the IB homes for Hearst. Between a map (location, location!) and even the most minimal appreciation of architecture, this should be obvious. Nobody moves to Janney because they love the beauty and history of the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

If you look at hearst boundary it includes a lot of institutions and businesses so there are not many private homes to begin with.

[Anonymous]

If they do shift Murch's boundary north, Hearst is likely to pick up more IB students.

[Anonymous]

A little history lesson....
CCPCS was formed by families from Hearst that were tired of Hearst always having a threat of being closed.

There are still a few families at CCPCS who are IB for Hearst.


Hearst has had a lot of transtion over the past few years. I believe they are on the 3rd Principal in the last 5 years.

For the families that live IB - and can afford other options - why would they select their "neighborhood school" when it is not really a neigborhood school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they do shift Murch's boundary north, Hearst is likely to pick up more IB students.

Perhaps but some families bought in the neighborhood were making sure they were inbounds for Murch and not Hearst so I would not expect some of these families to just say "oh well" and send their kids to Hearst. We bought our house to be able to walk to Murch a solid school with international diversity and a strong sense of community.

[Anonymous]

Janney and Murch drew higher and higher numbers of IB students because those schools had staff and active families that inspired greater confidence in DCPS. Hearst has not been able to pull it off, for whatever reason.
Hearst also includes some apartment buildings, by the way, not all million-dollar houses. Now, for some crazy reason, DCPS is renovating Hearst (and not Murch, which has many more students and is overdue) and also threatening choice sets that would put the Hearst neighborhood out of the Deal/Wilson feeder pattern. Then you are going to see a brand new Hearst building with ZERO IB families. The proposed boundary shift is yet another mindf**K from DC government: it rezones families who live only 2-3 blocks from Murch to Hearst which is a mile away. This looks like a plan to try and revive Hardy by forced rezoning to capture more IB, but it isn't going to fly because the IB families who came back to DCPS for Murch and Deal will not go for lower-quality schools that are further away (Hearst and Hardy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do shift Murch's boundary north, Hearst is likely to pick up more IB students.

Perhaps but some families bought in the neighborhood were making sure they were inbounds for Murch and not Hearst so I would not expect some of these families to just say "oh well" and send their kids to Hearst. We bought our house to be able to walk to Murch a solid school with international diversity and a strong sense of community.

This has to be the same poster from Murch. We get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do shift Murch's boundary north, Hearst is likely to pick up more IB students.

Perhaps but some families bought in the neighborhood were making sure they were inbounds for Murch and not Hearst so I would not expect some of these families to just say "oh well" and send their kids to Hearst. We bought our house to be able to walk to Murch a solid school with international diversity and a strong sense of community.

+1

[Anonymous]

Hearst has had the same principal for at least 3 years now and the incoming class is 50% IB. There are plenty of embassy kids at Hearst as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Janney and Murch drew higher and higher numbers of IB students because those schools had staff and active families that inspired greater confidence in DCPS. Hearst has not been able to pull it off, for whatever reason.
Hearst also includes some apartment buildings, by the way, not all million-dollar houses. Now, for some crazy reason, DCPS is renovating Hearst (and not Murch, which has many more students and is overdue) and also threatening choice sets that would put the Hearst neighborhood out of the Deal/Wilson feeder pattern. Then you are going to see a brand new Hearst building with ZERO IB families. The proposed boundary shift is yet another mindf**K from DC government: it rezones families who live only 2-3 blocks from Murch to Hearst which is a mile away. This looks like a plan to try and revive Hardy by forced rezoning to capture more IB, but it isn't going to fly because the IB families who came back to DCPS for Murch and Deal will not go for lower-quality schools that are further away (Hearst and Hardy).

Get over yourself. In no scenario does Hearst go to Hardy and the whole idea of choice sets is DOA, this post is a little over the top in its claims. Let's be honest in our discussions on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney and Murch drew higher and higher numbers of IB students because those schools had staff and active families that inspired greater confidence in DCPS. Hearst has not been able to pull it off, for whatever reason.
Hearst also includes some apartment buildings, by the way, not all million-dollar houses. Now, for some crazy reason, DCPS is renovating Hearst (and not Murch, which has many more students and is overdue) and also threatening choice sets that would put the Hearst neighborhood out of the Deal/Wilson feeder pattern. Then you are going to see a brand new Hearst building with ZERO IB families. The proposed boundary shift is yet another mindf**K from DC government: it rezones families who live only 2-3 blocks from Murch to Hearst which is a mile away. This looks like a plan to try and revive Hardy by forced rezoning to capture more IB, but it isn't going to fly because the IB families who came back to DCPS for Murch and Deal will not go for lower-quality schools that are further away (Hearst and Hardy).

Get over yourself. In no scenario does Hearst go to Hardy and the whole idea of choice sets is DOA, this post is a little over the top in its claims. Let's be honest in our discussions on this board.

"Honest" is what Abigail Smith and Kaya Henderson are not. Just a few weeks before the lottery idea was announced they were saying that Wilson would not go to a lottery. Now that is on the table. I'll believe that choice sets are "DOA" when they take it off the table. And now the choice set for a Hearst address includes Hardy. So YOU get over yourself and wake up to what is actually happening.