Low In Boundary at Hearst?

[Anonymous]

Refers to the prior or quoted post. Shortcut way of saying I agree with this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess one of the things that I don't get is how is it in anyone's interest to have elementary schools as large as Murch and Janney are projected to be. Both schools are well over 600 this year, and likely to be close to 700 next year. And projections just go up from there for a little while. At what point is it just too much? Or physically impossible to fit in any more students? Who would want their 4 year old in a school with 800, 900, 1000 kids?

I don't think they are building Hearst that large to be a local school. Rather, it seems destined to be a super-sized version of its current role: serving a small IB population but principally being a WOTP school to accommodate OOB demand. It's one thing to have an use excess seat capacity for OOB enrollment. It's quite another to deliberately build it. No question that Hearst needs facilities like a lunch room and overall modernization. But it doesn't need such expansion.

[Anonymous]

Hearst's current capacity is about 300 (this years enrollment is 287) including the temporary space currently on site. The planned capacity after the renovation / construction is 300. The fact it is intended to remain an overall small community is one of the things we love about the school.

That being said there is certainly the opportunity to expand the boundary a bit, include some additional neighborhood kids and still maintain OOB spots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering about the comments re: Hardy. The only proposal I've seen that would have Hearst students going to Hardy is in the proposal in which students would enter a lottery to attend one of their 2 closest middle schools, thus Deal or Hardy. But this applies to all the elem schools in the area. Please let me know if I am missing some piece of the story.

Me too. As far as I can tell, there has been a troll on DCUM for MONTHS trying to push the idea of switching Hearst to Hardy. Hardy is a fine school and looks to be on an upward trajectory, but nothing in the proposals suggests that the DME or Committee is contemplating such a shift outside of scenarios where all schools in the area would have multiple options.

A council staffer told me that it is unlikely now that any school will be forced to switch from Deal to Hardy. What is likely is that Hardy will be an option along with Deal for more schools, as it currently is for John Eaton and perhaps others. The thought is that Hardy will have a chance to "sell" its program -- smaller enrollment, perhaps distinguishing curricular features,etc. -- but no one in a home currently zoned for Deal will be forced to take Hardy. It's more of a "free market competition" model than a "socialist planned economy' model. This seems to be a fair and sensible solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering about the comments re: Hardy. The only proposal I've seen that would have Hearst students going to Hardy is in the proposal in which students would enter a lottery to attend one of their 2 closest middle schools, thus Deal or Hardy. But this applies to all the elem schools in the area. Please let me know if I am missing some piece of the story.

Me too. As far as I can tell, there has been a troll on DCUM for MONTHS trying to push the idea of switching Hearst to Hardy. Hardy is a fine school and looks to be on an upward trajectory, but nothing in the proposals suggests that the DME or Committee is contemplating such a shift outside of scenarios where all schools in the area would have multiple options.

A council staffer told me that it is unlikely now that any school will be forced to switch from Deal to Hardy. What is likely is that Hardy will be an option along with Deal for more schools, as it currently is for John Eaton and perhaps others. The thought is that Hardy will have a chance to "sell" its program -- smaller enrollment, perhaps distinguishing curricular features,etc. -- but no one in a home currently zoned for Deal will be forced to take Hardy. It's more of a "free market competition" model than a "socialist planned economy' model. This seems to be a fair and sensible solution.

It is a little funny though in that very few Eaton families choose Hardy over Deal. I would think that such a solution wouldn't solve the overcrowding problem at Deal at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not sure what you mean by location but one of the reasons we bought into the Janney disctrict is location. Public transportation is great there and the school is located next to a metro stop which saves a lot of time.
As for the beauty, I often get compliments, from my friends who come visit us, about how beautiful my neighborhood is.

I live in AU Park and agree that it's beautiful here. What PP is trying to say, I think, is that the houses in Cleveland park are simply larger and more expensive. Houses in AU Park are generally smaller colonials - with some having additions on the back. The stock in AU Park is "more affordable" because of their sizes. This is one of the reasons we ended up here... we bought a very small fixer upper, and it was at the TOP of our price range. We couldn't afford a Cleveland Park sized home. FWIW I think many of the houses in Murch are also on the larger size - but all the apartments on Ct Ave tempter that in terms of what families can afford to live in that zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that the 103 number??

I'm the one who cited the 103, and the PP is correct. It is the number of school-aged children who attend *public* school, and so excludes private-school attending children. My understanding is that such studies (or rather a single study) have been done, but they are pretty rough, and suggest that kids in the Hearst boundary don't attend private school in greater numbers than in say Eaton or Janney, and maybe even at a lower rate. The boundary just doesn't contain a lot of school-aged kids.

From some of the posts here it seems like some folks are confusing the housing stock of Eaton with the housing stock of Hearst. Not too many multi-million dollar Victorians in the Hearst boundary; that's Eaton. Hearst does have Springland Farm, which are some very nice houses and wild speculation suggests that those families probably do send their kids to private school. But a lot of the boundary is duplexes, smaller single family homes, and apartments (the northern part of McLean Gardens and those along Connecticut). Sure some of those families send their kids to private (we know quite a number of them), and many of these duplexes are still very nice and not especially cheap, but they are more modest homes when compared to Cleveland Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering about the comments re: Hardy. The only proposal I've seen that would have Hearst students going to Hardy is in the proposal in which students would enter a lottery to attend one of their 2 closest middle schools, thus Deal or Hardy. But this applies to all the elem schools in the area. Please let me know if I am missing some piece of the story.

Me too. As far as I can tell, there has been a troll on DCUM for MONTHS trying to push the idea of switching Hearst to Hardy. Hardy is a fine school and looks to be on an upward trajectory, but nothing in the proposals suggests that the DME or Committee is contemplating such a shift outside of scenarios where all schools in the area would have multiple options.

A council staffer told me that it is unlikely now that any school will be forced to switch from Deal to Hardy. What is likely is that Hardy will be an option along with Deal for more schools, as it currently is for John Eaton and perhaps others. The thought is that Hardy will have a chance to "sell" its program -- smaller enrollment, perhaps distinguishing curricular features,etc. -- but no one in a home currently zoned for Deal will be forced to take Hardy. It's more of a "free market competition" model than a "socialist planned economy' model. This seems to be a fair and sensible solution.

It is a little funny though in that very few Eaton families choose Hardy over Deal. I would think that such a solution wouldn't solve the overcrowding problem at Deal at all.

You know, my family is IB for Deal and I could see us sending our oldest to Hardy if the programmatic changes have legs and it starts gaining momentum. I think Hardy is going to surprise a lot of people and I am pulling for it. Making it an option to more families seems like a good carrot instead of stick approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not sure what you mean by location but one of the reasons we bought into the Janney disctrict is location. Public transportation is great there and the school is located next to a metro stop which saves a lot of time.
As for the beauty, I often get compliments, from my friends who come visit us, about how beautiful my neighborhood is.

I live in AU Park and agree that it's beautiful here. What PP is trying to say, I think, is that the houses in Cleveland park are simply larger and more expensive. Houses in AU Park are generally smaller colonials - with some having additions on the back. The stock in AU Park is "more affordable" because of their sizes. This is one of the reasons we ended up here... we bought a very small fixer upper, and it was at the TOP of our price range. We couldn't afford a Cleveland Park sized home. FWIW I think many of the houses in Murch are also on the larger size - but all the apartments on Ct Ave tempter that in terms of what families can afford to live in that zone.

I agree with your statements on AU Park versus Cleveland Park. But *Eaton* is in Cleveland Park. Hearst is in as the real estate agents call it "North Cleveland Park". Not at all the same housing stock. More smaller single family homes like in AU Park and duplexes, and many more apartment buildings because of Connecticut Ave and McLean Gardens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am wondering about the comments re: Hardy. The only proposal I've seen that would have Hearst students going to Hardy is in the proposal in which students would enter a lottery to attend one of their 2 closest middle schools, thus Deal or Hardy. But this applies to all the elem schools in the area. Please let me know if I am missing some piece of the story.

Me too. As far as I can tell, there has been a troll on DCUM for MONTHS trying to push the idea of switching Hearst to Hardy. Hardy is a fine school and looks to be on an upward trajectory, but nothing in the proposals suggests that the DME or Committee is contemplating such a shift outside of scenarios where all schools in the area would have multiple options.

A council staffer told me that it is unlikely now that any school will be forced to switch from Deal to Hardy. What is likely is that Hardy will be an option along with Deal for more schools, as it currently is for John Eaton and perhaps others. The thought is that Hardy will have a chance to "sell" its program -- smaller enrollment, perhaps distinguishing curricular features,etc. -- but no one in a home currently zoned for Deal will be forced to take Hardy. It's more of a "free market competition" model than a "socialist planned economy' model. This seems to be a fair and sensible solution.

It is a little funny though in that very few Eaton families choose Hardy over Deal. I would think that such a solution wouldn't solve the overcrowding problem at Deal at all.

You know, my family is IB for Deal and I could see us sending our oldest to Hardy if the programmatic changes have legs and it starts gaining momentum. I think Hardy is going to surprise a lot of people and I am pulling for it. Making it an option to more families seems like a good carrot instead of stick approach.

I agree it has a lot of potential, and could become more attractive just based on size. A smaller and more nurturing program versus a very large middle school (that is still excellent). But making that shift will be hard work. The folks who are putting in that work right now are fabulous folks and I wish them well! Maybe we'll join them too when we get there years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not sure what you mean by location but one of the reasons we bought into the Janney disctrict is location. Public transportation is great there and the school is located next to a metro stop which saves a lot of time.
As for the beauty, I often get compliments, from my friends who come visit us, about how beautiful my neighborhood is.

I live in AU Park and agree that it's beautiful here. What PP is trying to say, I think, is that the houses in Cleveland park are simply larger and more expensive. Houses in AU Park are generally smaller colonials - with some having additions on the back. The stock in AU Park is "more affordable" because of their sizes. This is one of the reasons we ended up here... we bought a very small fixer upper, and it was at the TOP of our price range. We couldn't afford a Cleveland Park sized home. FWIW I think many of the houses in Murch are also on the larger size - but all the apartments on Ct Ave tempter that in terms of what families can afford to live in that zone.

I agree with your statements on AU Park versus Cleveland Park. But *Eaton* is in Cleveland Park. Hearst is in as the real estate agents call it "North Cleveland Park". Not at all the same housing stock. More smaller single family homes like in AU Park and duplexes, and many more apartment buildings because of Connecticut Ave and McLean Gardens.

Students in much of MaclLean Gardens attend Eaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not sure what you mean by location but one of the reasons we bought into the Janney disctrict is location. Public transportation is great there and the school is located next to a metro stop which saves a lot of time.
As for the beauty, I often get compliments, from my friends who come visit us, about how beautiful my neighborhood is.

I live in AU Park and agree that it's beautiful here. What PP is trying to say, I think, is that the houses in Cleveland park are simply larger and more expensive. Houses in AU Park are generally smaller colonials - with some having additions on the back. The stock in AU Park is "more affordable" because of their sizes. This is one of the reasons we ended up here... we bought a very small fixer upper, and it was at the TOP of our price range. We couldn't afford a Cleveland Park sized home. FWIW I think many of the houses in Murch are also on the larger size - but all the apartments on Ct Ave tempter that in terms of what families can afford to live in that zone.

I agree with your statements on AU Park versus Cleveland Park. But *Eaton* is in Cleveland Park. Hearst is in as the real estate agents call it "North Cleveland Park". Not at all the same housing stock. More smaller single family homes like in AU Park and duplexes, and many more apartment buildings because of Connecticut Ave and McLean Gardens.

Students in much of MaclLean Gardens attend Eaton.

typo: McLean Gardens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am not sure what you mean by location but one of the reasons we bought into the Janney disctrict is location. Public transportation is great there and the school is located next to a metro stop which saves a lot of time.
As for the beauty, I often get compliments, from my friends who come visit us, about how beautiful my neighborhood is.

I live in AU Park and agree that it's beautiful here. What PP is trying to say, I think, is that the houses in Cleveland park are simply larger and more expensive. Houses in AU Park are generally smaller colonials - with some having additions on the back. The stock in AU Park is "more affordable" because of their sizes. This is one of the reasons we ended up here... we bought a very small fixer upper, and it was at the TOP of our price range. We couldn't afford a Cleveland Park sized home. FWIW I think many of the houses in Murch are also on the larger size - but all the apartments on Ct Ave tempter that in terms of what families can afford to live in that zone.

I agree with your statements on AU Park versus Cleveland Park. But *Eaton* is in Cleveland Park. Hearst is in as the real estate agents call it "North Cleveland Park". Not at all the same housing stock. More smaller single family homes like in AU Park and duplexes, and many more apartment buildings because of Connecticut Ave and McLean Gardens.

Students in much of MaclLean Gardens attend Eaton.

typo: McLean Gardens

Yup. But not all of them. The northern part of it is in Hearst's boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nah, basement rentals are basically prohibited in the neighborhood.

No they are not. Plenty of people rent their basements and/or their garage apartments.

[Anonymous]

They just need to be to code with proper egress.