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

[Anonymous]

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.

Frumin has to know that there's no real available land to build more affordable housing that is convenient to MacArthur HS. That's why DCPS bought the site, despite its unfortunate location - beggars can't be choosers.

There's literally no land available for big affordable housing projects or new schools that is convenient to families, particularly low income ones.

I don't think he was talking about more affordable units in Palisades, but rather in the Ward in general.

[Anonymous]

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.

The elementary school being built next to old Hardy makes ZERO sense. They city should have taken back the Lab School lease and let Lab buy River or old GDS. It is a stupid waste of money to build a new DCPS next to an old DCPS.

[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.

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

Mary is going to be endorsing Tricia. The fix was in from the get go. Tricia has already shown with the redistricting process, her disdain for the voters of Ward 3, so we can expect 4 more years of Chey style aloofness and lack of engagement. Yay!

(sarcasm)

[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.

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY. Won't happen in our lifetime. There is a reason people choose to live in an area with zero affordable housing and minimal public transit.
Frumin has to know that there's no real available land to build more affordable housing that is convenient to MacArthur HS. That's why DCPS bought the site, despite its unfortunate location - beggars can't be choosers.

There's literally no land available for big affordable housing projects or new schools that is convenient to families, particularly low income ones.

All along MacArthur Blvd. is zoned for mid-rise residential. There could be a lot more housing there if it was all developed. It wouldn't be big projects, instead a lot of medium sized ones.

[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 think his position is pretty clear. The location for the high school for 1000 kids, where 500 of them would be coming from elsewhere, makes NO sense. And an elementary school buil right next door to an existing DCPS elementary school again, makes no sense.

[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.

Actually, it doesn't. Other than Green machine candidates, the Post endorsements have been meaningless the last 15 or so years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're an IB Hardy feeder family. We're excited about this, this site is a short 5-10 minute bike ride from our place. I hope they put in new bike lanes/trails though. The roads around there a bit mad-max at rush hour.

For inbound Hardy, it is fine. The issue that Frumin raised were the set-aside for OOB. How many kids are going to ride two buses for more than 90 minutes each way to get to this school from EOTR?

[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.

I am curious what he has said privately that is different from what he is saying publicly?

[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.

The problem is that these new schools are effectively like Mann - public schools that are on an island and are effectively private in-bound schools. That is fine, but let's be honest about what Tricia and Bowser are proposing. How does that solve the city wide issue? It doesn't.

[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.

False. He never has run for Ward 3 before. In fact, other than some GOP, Cheh has never had a serious opponent since she won her first race in 2006.

[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.

The time to do that was before the city spend $300 million renovating Ellington/Western. Frumin was leading the charge for just this solution, but the city ignored it. And now, we are approaching a half billion later and will not be in a better place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He apparently really lives in Maryland, if posters in another thread are to be believed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Palisades families have done the reverse for years - getting from palisades to Wilson (or SWW). But honestly only about 10-15 IB Key kids go to public for HS.

Palisades families chose to live in Palisades. They chose to be isolated.

[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.

I'd vote for a candidate who planned to put city money into affordable housing in Ward 3 (to get around the developer profit obstacle). But I also think it should be possible to open more access to excellent schools in D.C. without requiring people to move in-bounds for them. Frumin is right about the logistical problems with the citywide lottery plan for this MacArthur site, though; hard to think of a worse location for a citywide school from a public transit standpoint than the Palisades.

+1 - unless there is massive investment to get more Metro buses to Palisades, I don't see how this high school is going to be viable for kids from across the city.

The thing about buses is they don't require massive investment. Rerouting a bus costs essentially zero.

[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.

The elementary school being built next to old Hardy makes ZERO sense. They city should have taken back the Lab School lease and let Lab buy River or old GDS. It is a stupid waste of money to build a new DCPS next to an old DCPS.

That ship has sailed. It was stupid, but it's done.