Janney third grade parents--what do you think of the giant class sizes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence Janney homes cost more than neighboring school zones like Murch and Hearst. It is an expensive area in general.

+1 If you look at house prices on the boundaries between schools, comparing virtually identical houses on opposite sides of the street, you find essentially zero difference. I fully agree that schools should drive property values -- it is a key attribute in the bundle of things you are buying in a home -- but it appears that the differences between Janney, Murch, and Hearst are so small that they do not matter for property values, at least where they are most directly comparable (with similar house type and location). Or that portion of economic theory is not working so well in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am on the boundary line between Murch and Janney (currently zoned for Janney). The only reason I don't want to be rezoned to Murch is because the building sucks. once it is renovated, what's the difference? All the Murch families I know are happy there except for size, which is an issue with J, L, and M schools. Likewise, there were families rezoned from Murch to Lafayette. Other than the fact that Lafayette was farther, not much noise about being moved from M to L.

I do think it's a valid concern to be rezoned to a school that has worse test-scores. I may not care about test scores personally, but it's not crazy.

There was just an article in the NYT about a similar fight happening in Brooklyn. One neighborhood has one overcrowded elementary school (so crowded that IB kids can't even get in, under the rules in NYC). So they want to redraw the lines to zone part of the neighborhood to another school (also in the same neighborhood) but also includes a housing project and (unsurprisingly) the test scores are much worse. Parents would rather their kids attend the overcrowded school than be zoned for a failing school.

I did not read the NYT article but if the schools being referenced is in Park Slope (PS 351), I will tell you that the fight is really about SES and to a lesser extent race. Frankly the same dynamics are present in DC only worse.

except none of the schools being discussed here are "failing" by any measure. You can talk pecking order, but even Hearst can objectively be labeled a "successful" school

In fact, as has been noted on prior threads, if you look at the Hearst test score data by ethnic/racial subgroup - you see the White kids - which often but not always correlates with high SES in DC - score in the same bracket - e.g., 90s - as the "JKLM" scores. Ergo - if the whole school at Hearst were IB (i.e., if parts of Murch and Janney were rzoned to Hearst) and Hearsts' demographics suddenly looked like Janneys and Murchs' - poof - test scores would in all likelihood look similar too. interesting to think about just how quickly that could happen from a numbers perspective - i.e., Hearst was +/- 30% IB. with capacity 300 kids, i.e., 210 kids at Hearst were OOB. IB numbers are expected to be higher this year - say it's up to 35% IB - then 225 OOB. Rezoning roughly 110 kids from both Murch and Janney would be about 15% of current Janney population (700) and 18% of current Murch population (620) - would alleviate their crowding issues some and would turn Hearst into nearly 100% IB school with - most likely - test scores that look like every other Ward 3 nearly 100% IB school... I'm not necessarily advocating for that - I'm just surprised that some folks seem to be unable to anticipate that as the likely result of resetting the boundaries....

I would advocate for that, because it would strengthen a system of neighborhood schools while alleviating overcrowding in some schools while other, modernized schools have small, antiquated boundary areas and still have so much excess capacity that they have to fill that capacity by transporting kids from across the city.

but Hearst does reasonably well with it's less affluent population as well. Its success is not predicated on its whiteness or affluence.

Note the qualifier: "reasonably' well. Hearst is just not top tier, sorry.

No it's not "top tier", but it has other advantages which offer greater promise than some of its nearby overcrowded peers. It can accommodate a more natural IB population growth within Ward 3 without being overwhelmed like all of the other Ward 3 Deal feeders. The tipping point to "top tier" is a pretty arbitrary designation and more perception than reality. For comparison, NW families were turning up their noses at Ross for years while it gradually become one of the top achieving elementary schools in the District, and was very good even before the test scores reflected it.

[Anonymous]

We are in the class -- there was no concussion. Yes one boy hit another boy. He was sent to the nurse out of an abundance of caution. If you talk to the teachers, the boy who did the hitting was actually jumping on the other boy to play -- not to pummel him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Written by a mom who lives in the area that would be re-zoned for Hearst. "See, the other parents want to be moved."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Janney parents were incensed for one reason: property values.
Their own kids and their siblings were going to be grandfathered in. They were just concerned about falling property values.

Not everyone, i would love to get re-zoned - being in Mann will lead to even higher property values. Think they will move the line between Spring Valley and AU Park to Yuma - its only one block.

Folks did not by rights to J K L or M - they bought rights to D C P and S. We're about the achievement gap these days ya know.

This is complete B and S. If one thinks that people who buy in DC (and are amenable to trying the public schools) are buying into DCPS generally (like buying into the Grenwhich CT public schools, for example), that is flatly nuts. Think what would happen if DCPS moved to a citywide system with random or lottery enrollment, the way San Francisco did it. There would be a riot, just this time all clad in Brooks Brothers.

[Anonymous]

Legally, you buy into the school district, not a zone, as exemplified by Eaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then shift Mann to Deal where it rightfully belongs.

And Key!!!!!

Certainly the top JKLM group schools deserves Deal. The rest can make do with Hardy.

Why not move Janney to Hardy? The Janney third grade is the same size as the Hardy sixth grade. You'd create a second Deal overnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Written by a mom who lives in the area that would be re-zoned for Hearst. "See, the other parents want to be moved."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Janney parents were incensed for one reason: property values.
Their own kids and their siblings were going to be grandfathered in. They were just concerned about falling property values.

Not everyone, i would love to get re-zoned - being in Mann will lead to even higher property values. Think they will move the line between Spring Valley and AU Park to Yuma - its only one block.

Folks did not by rights to J K L or M - they bought rights to D C P and S. We're about the achievement gap these days ya know.

This is complete B and S. If one thinks that people who buy in DC (and are amenable to trying the public schools) are buying into DCPS generally (like buying into the Grenwhich CT public schools, for example), that is flatly nuts. Think what would happen if DCPS moved to a citywide system with random or lottery enrollment, the way San Francisco did it. There would be a riot, just this time all clad in Brooks Brothers.

NP (at least to this point). I don't think the point is completely nuts (as I sit here in my Brooks Brothers suit). The sense in which it is not is that while folks certainly have strong preferences about which school their kids go to (perhaps extreme preferences), and likely bought in a certain neighborhood with the strong expectation they could send their children to that school, they do not in fact have a right. Municipalities can and do change boundaries, and folks should appreciate that when they buy a home anywhere. People can, do, and perhaps even should get very upset when boundaries and feeders change. But legally they do not have rights, and municipalities do have to change boundaries and feeder patterns from time to time.

As a related point, honestly I think a majority of Janney and Murch families would actually be happy if DC did shift some families out to neighboring schools to relieve overcrowding as long as they weren't the ones being moved. They just don't want to be the ones to speak up and say it because their friends and neighbors will hate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in the class -- there was no concussion. Yes one boy hit another boy. He was sent to the nurse out of an abundance of caution. If you talk to the teachers, the boy who did the hitting was actually jumping on the other boy to play -- not to pummel him.

Thank you for clarifying !

[Anonymous]

Actually "we" aren't in the class. Your CHILD is in the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am on the boundary line between Murch and Janney (currently zoned for Janney). The only reason I don't want to be rezoned to Murch is because the building sucks. once it is renovated, what's the difference? All the Murch families I know are happy there except for size, which is an issue with J, L, and M schools. Likewise, there were families rezoned from Murch to Lafayette. Other than the fact that Lafayette was farther, not much noise about being moved from M to L.

I do think it's a valid concern to be rezoned to a school that has worse test-scores. I may not care about test scores personally, but it's not crazy.

There was just an article in the NYT about a similar fight happening in Brooklyn. One neighborhood has one overcrowded elementary school (so crowded that IB kids can't even get in, under the rules in NYC). So they want to redraw the lines to zone part of the neighborhood to another school (also in the same neighborhood) but also includes a housing project and (unsurprisingly) the test scores are much worse. Parents would rather their kids attend the overcrowded school than be zoned for a failing school.

I did not read the NYT article but if the schools being referenced is in Park Slope (PS 351), I will tell you that the fight is really about SES and to a lesser extent race. Frankly the same dynamics are present in DC only worse.

except none of the schools being discussed here are "failing" by any measure. You can talk pecking order, but even Hearst can objectively be labeled a "successful" school

In fact, as has been noted on prior threads, if you look at the Hearst test score data by ethnic/racial subgroup - you see the White kids - which often but not always correlates with high SES in DC - score in the same bracket - e.g., 90s - as the "JKLM" scores. Ergo - if the whole school at Hearst were IB (i.e., if parts of Murch and Janney were rzoned to Hearst) and Hearsts' demographics suddenly looked like Janneys and Murchs' - poof - test scores would in all likelihood look similar too. interesting to think about just how quickly that could happen from a numbers perspective - i.e., Hearst was +/- 30% IB. with capacity 300 kids, i.e., 210 kids at Hearst were OOB. IB numbers are expected to be higher this year - say it's up to 35% IB - then 225 OOB. Rezoning roughly 110 kids from both Murch and Janney would be about 15% of current Janney population (700) and 18% of current Murch population (620) - would alleviate their crowding issues some and would turn Hearst into nearly 100% IB school with - most likely - test scores that look like every other Ward 3 nearly 100% IB school... I'm not necessarily advocating for that - I'm just surprised that some folks seem to be unable to anticipate that as the likely result of resetting the boundaries....

I would advocate for that, because it would strengthen a system of neighborhood schools while alleviating overcrowding in some schools while other, modernized schools have small, antiquated boundary areas and still have so much excess capacity that they have to fill that capacity by transporting kids from across the city.

but Hearst does reasonably well with it's less affluent population as well. Its success is not predicated on its whiteness or affluence.

Note the qualifier: "reasonably' well. Hearst is just not top tier, sorry.

No it's not "top tier", but it has other advantages which offer greater promise than some of its nearby overcrowded peers. It can accommodate a more natural IB population growth within Ward 3 without being overwhelmed like all of the other Ward 3 Deal feeders. The tipping point to "top tier" is a pretty arbitrary designation and more perception than reality. For comparison, NW families were turning up their noses at Ross for years while it gradually become one of the top achieving elementary schools in the District, and was very good even before the test scores reflected it.

It is very clear from reading this board that "top tier" means white to a lot of families. They will bounce around it with phrases like test scores and diversity and OOB and commutes and home prices, but they mean white. Hearst is an excellent school that is giving our kids an excellent, well-rounded education where they learn from their teachers and their classmates. Janney and Murch kids would be lucky to get into such a fantastic environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The former principal explained to parents that part of the reason for the 4 large classes vs. 5 smaller is that in 4th and 5th grades they go to 4 core subjects and rotate throughout the day. It was easier for them to get used to being in 4 classes now rather than next year.

You can rotate with 5 classes too. Murch does.

I am sure that works well for Murch and families are free to choose that model by choosing Murch. A lot of families have chosen the Janney model and like it, who are you to say this is not a valid choice when you do not know the details?

I think you missed the point. If the class is too big for only 4 sections, you can do "the Janney model" with 5 sections. It's just about the logistics of the rotation. Just saying you don't have to accept classes with 32 kids in order to rotate to 4 core subjects.

Please explain how you have all the children with a teacher that specializes in each of the 4 subjects at hand with 5 classes and 5 teachers. I realize that the science and social studies is switched every 6 weeks, but there also are specialists for those that are shared between the 4th and 5th grade. It is not the end of the world to have teachers that teach two subjects, but there is a strategy to how they have hired their teachers and structured the classes. I know it can be done differently but that does not mean this way is not a valid choice that has some value to be weighed. If you disagree, I am not saying you have to choose this way. But there are trade offs to going with 5 classes.

Also, despite the fact that people make statements all the time about the benefits of small classes, it is not the settled fact that you think it is. There is research going both ways. And the Janney results in terms of student achievement from the ultra large classroom 3 years ago were actually very good.

The scores may have been very good, but the experience was miserable. There is more at stake in learning than test scores. And, who is to say that the scores wouldn't have been better had the class been smaller?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am on the boundary line between Murch and Janney (currently zoned for Janney). The only reason I don't want to be rezoned to Murch is because the building sucks. once it is renovated, what's the difference? All the Murch families I know are happy there except for size, which is an issue with J, L, and M schools. Likewise, there were families rezoned from Murch to Lafayette. Other than the fact that Lafayette was farther, not much noise about being moved from M to L.

I do think it's a valid concern to be rezoned to a school that has worse test-scores. I may not care about test scores personally, but it's not crazy.

There was just an article in the NYT about a similar fight happening in Brooklyn. One neighborhood has one overcrowded elementary school (so crowded that IB kids can't even get in, under the rules in NYC). So they want to redraw the lines to zone part of the neighborhood to another school (also in the same neighborhood) but also includes a housing project and (unsurprisingly) the test scores are much worse. Parents would rather their kids attend the overcrowded school than be zoned for a failing school.

I did not read the NYT article but if the schools being referenced is in Park Slope (PS 351), I will tell you that the fight is really about SES and to a lesser extent race. Frankly the same dynamics are present in DC only worse.

except none of the schools being discussed here are "failing" by any measure. You can talk pecking order, but even Hearst can objectively be labeled a "successful" school

In fact, as has been noted on prior threads, if you look at the Hearst test score data by ethnic/racial subgroup - you see the White kids - which often but not always correlates with high SES in DC - score in the same bracket - e.g., 90s - as the "JKLM" scores. Ergo - if the whole school at Hearst were IB (i.e., if parts of Murch and Janney were rzoned to Hearst) and Hearsts' demographics suddenly looked like Janneys and Murchs' - poof - test scores would in all likelihood look similar too. interesting to think about just how quickly that could happen from a numbers perspective - i.e., Hearst was +/- 30% IB. with capacity 300 kids, i.e., 210 kids at Hearst were OOB. IB numbers are expected to be higher this year - say it's up to 35% IB - then 225 OOB. Rezoning roughly 110 kids from both Murch and Janney would be about 15% of current Janney population (700) and 18% of current Murch population (620) - would alleviate their crowding issues some and would turn Hearst into nearly 100% IB school with - most likely - test scores that look like every other Ward 3 nearly 100% IB school... I'm not necessarily advocating for that - I'm just surprised that some folks seem to be unable to anticipate that as the likely result of resetting the boundaries....

I would advocate for that, because it would strengthen a system of neighborhood schools while alleviating overcrowding in some schools while other, modernized schools have small, antiquated boundary areas and still have so much excess capacity that they have to fill that capacity by transporting kids from across the city.

but Hearst does reasonably well with it's less affluent population as well. Its success is not predicated on its whiteness or affluence.

Note the qualifier: "reasonably' well. Hearst is just not top tier, sorry.

And Dear PP - how do you define "top tier?" Test scores perhaps? If so please see prior post ...

And look at Eaton' s demographics & at its test scores, as well. It's possible for a school to have both diversity & top-tier academics!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Written by a mom who lives in the area that would be re-zoned for Hearst. "See, the other parents want to be moved."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Janney parents were incensed for one reason: property values.
Their own kids and their siblings were going to be grandfathered in. They were just concerned about falling property values.

Not everyone, i would love to get re-zoned - being in Mann will lead to even higher property values. Think they will move the line between Spring Valley and AU Park to Yuma - its only one block.

Folks did not by rights to J K L or M - they bought rights to D C P and S. We're about the achievement gap these days ya know.

This is complete B and S. If one thinks that people who buy in DC (and are amenable to trying the public schools) are buying into DCPS generally (like buying into the Grenwhich CT public schools, for example), that is flatly nuts. Think what would happen if DCPS moved to a citywide system with random or lottery enrollment, the way San Francisco did it. There would be a riot, just this time all clad in Brooks Brothers.

Correct, there is no right but that have something much more valuable - votes and money to make (or not make) political contributions.

NP (at least to this point). I don't think the point is completely nuts (as I sit here in my Brooks Brothers suit). The sense in which it is not is that while folks certainly have strong preferences about which school their kids go to (perhaps extreme preferences), and likely bought in a certain neighborhood with the strong expectation they could send their children to that school, they do not in fact have a right. Municipalities can and do change boundaries, and folks should appreciate that when they buy a home anywhere. People can, do, and perhaps even should get very upset when boundaries and feeders change. But legally they do not have rights, and municipalities do have to change boundaries and feeder patterns from time to time.

As a related point, honestly I think a majority of Janney and Murch families would actually be happy if DC did shift some families out to neighboring schools to relieve overcrowding as long as they weren't the ones being moved. They just don't want to be the ones to speak up and say it because their friends and neighbors will hate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Written by a mom who lives in the area that would be re-zoned for Hearst. "See, the other parents want to be moved."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Janney parents were incensed for one reason: property values.
Their own kids and their siblings were going to be grandfathered in. They were just concerned about falling property values.

Not everyone, i would love to get re-zoned - being in Mann will lead to even higher property values. Think they will move the line between Spring Valley and AU Park to Yuma - its only one block.

Folks did not by rights to J K L or M - they bought rights to D C P and S. We're about the achievement gap these days ya know.

This is complete B and S. If one thinks that people who buy in DC (and are amenable to trying the public schools) are buying into DCPS generally (like buying into the Grenwhich CT public schools, for example), that is flatly nuts. Think what would happen if DCPS moved to a citywide system with random or lottery enrollment, the way San Francisco did it. There would be a riot, just this time all clad in Brooks Brothers.

NP (at least to this point). I don't think the point is completely nuts (as I sit here in my Brooks Brothers suit). The sense in which it is not is that while folks certainly have strong preferences about which school their kids go to (perhaps extreme preferences), and likely bought in a certain neighborhood with the strong expectation they could send their children to that school, they do not in fact have a right. Municipalities can and do change boundaries, and folks should appreciate that when they buy a home anywhere. People can, do, and perhaps even should get very upset when boundaries and feeders change. But legally they do not have rights, and municipalities do have to change boundaries and feeder patterns from time to time.

As a related point, honestly I think a majority of Janney and Murch families would actually be happy if DC did shift some families out to neighboring schools to relieve overcrowding as long as they weren't the ones being moved. They just don't want to be the ones to speak up and say it because their friends and neighbors will hate them.

Correct, there is no right but that have something much more valuable - votes and money to make (or not make) political contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then shift Mann to Deal where it rightfully belongs.

And Key!!!!!

Certainly the top JKLM group schools deserves Deal. The rest can make do with Hardy.

Why not move Janney to Hardy? The Janney third grade is the same size as the Hardy sixth grade. You'd create a second Deal overnight.

You might see then a similar Brooks Brothers riot.