Peabody, SWS, or Brent

[Anonymous]

DCPS seems to have stopped renovating school buildings piecemeal (while they're being used). Camping out in swing spaces seems to be norm now. It it hasn't happened to your rundown school building on the Hill yet, here's a heads up, it will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I’ve heard that Brent is overcrowded and needs a remodel too, they but have better teachers.

Brent's "crowding" is basically the 1st and K bubble classes. There aren't as many little kids coming up the chain as there were just several years ago. Fewer in-boundary families are putting in for ECE each year now - the red hot Hill SE real estate market is simply pricing many young families out of the tiny Brent District. There's not a lot of inventory for 3-bedroom houses in the catchment area, or even 2 bedrooms, even if you can afford 900K+.

Brent could certainly use a remodel, like most DCPS schools, but the situation is hardly desperate. Nice big colored windows put in last summer have helped, along with an elevator.

The paragraph above about Brent’s lack of crowding is simply not true. The current PK3 cohort (rising PK4) is actually large - very few non siblings were admitted. When they get to K it’s likely another “bubble” year. If you have a bubble year every couple of years, or three “bubble” years out of four, at some point it’s a trend and not a bubble. Year over year there is increased IB percentage and kids are staying for longer. So there is definitely crowding and it is unlikely to improve in coming years without increased space.

It is true- you're not up to date. The current 1st grade class had 83 apply for PreS3 in-boundary. This year, 55 in-boundary applicants, way down from four years ago. The K bubble expected in the fall isn't nearly as big as that three or four years ago. The real estate price crunch on 2-3 and 4-bedroom houses is real.

I'm not sure what is to be gained in a fight about exactly how overcrowded Brent is, but the poster insisting that young families are priced out of Brent is misinformed. Yes, the current 1st is huge. Current K (inbounds kids) is actually a bit smaller. However, the current PK3 - about to be rising PK4 - has record numbers, even larger than the current (huge) 1st. There were less siblings, but overall a greater number of waitlisted inbounds kids for PK3 last year than even for 2015-2016. With more and more buildings being flipped to multifamily condos, the numbers are not trending smaller despite a boom or bust year here and there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS seems to have stopped renovating school buildings piecemeal (while they're being used). Camping out in swing spaces seems to be norm now. It it hasn't happened to your rundown school building on the Hill yet, here's a heads up, it will.

It is less expensive and usually makes the total time spent on the renovation shorter. Part of why they have converted a couple of unused schools to permanent swing space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I’ve heard that Brent is overcrowded and needs a remodel too, they but have better teachers.

Brent's "crowding" is basically the 1st and K bubble classes. There aren't as many little kids coming up the chain as there were just several years ago. Fewer in-boundary families are putting in for ECE each year now - the red hot Hill SE real estate market is simply pricing many young families out of the tiny Brent District. There's not a lot of inventory for 3-bedroom houses in the catchment area, or even 2 bedrooms, even if you can afford 900K+.

Brent could certainly use a remodel, like most DCPS schools, but the situation is hardly desperate. Nice big colored windows put in last summer have helped, along with an elevator.

The paragraph above about Brent’s lack of crowding is simply not true. The current PK3 cohort (rising PK4) is actually large - very few non siblings were admitted. When they get to K it’s likely another “bubble” year. If you have a bubble year every couple of years, or three “bubble” years out of four, at some point it’s a trend and not a bubble. Year over year there is increased IB percentage and kids are staying for longer. So there is definitely crowding and it is unlikely to improve in coming years without increased space.

It is true- you're not up to date. The current 1st grade class had 83 apply for PreS3 in-boundary. This year, 55 in-boundary applicants, way down from four years ago. The K bubble expected in the fall isn't nearly as big as that three or four years ago. The real estate price crunch on 2-3 and 4-bedroom houses is real.

I'm not sure what is to be gained in a fight about exactly how overcrowded Brent is, but the poster insisting that young families are priced out of Brent is misinformed. Yes, the current 1st is huge. Current K (inbounds kids) is actually a bit smaller. However, the current PK3 - about to be rising PK4 - has record numbers, even larger than the current (huge) 1st. There were less siblings, but overall a greater number of waitlisted inbounds kids for PK3 last year than even for 2015-2016. With more and more buildings being flipped to multifamily condos, the numbers are not trending smaller despite a boom or bust year here and there.

NP who's heard that this year's PreS3 IB applicant group is acdtually smaller than last year's. There really aren't multi-family buildings being built in the Brent area like elsewhere on the Hill. It's impossible have a good idea who will turn up from any given PK3 or PK4 applicant group. Many ece parents will move, go charter or go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundary review is coming in just a couple of years. New Hill ES boundaries are certainly going to be a focus as will the Wilson feeders.

Brent isn't going to get a renovation prior to that process.

Greater Greater Washington had a good story about this a few weeks ago. The boundary review is not going to fix over crowding in this city.

Is there a link to this article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundary review is coming in just a couple of years. New Hill ES boundaries are certainly going to be a focus as will the Wilson feeders.

Brent isn't going to get a renovation prior to that process.

Greater Greater Washington had a good story about this a few weeks ago. The boundary review is not going to fix over crowding in this city.

Is there a link to this article?

https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

I believe there was a thread about this when the story came out that the author was a part of. Long story short to even out the demand, neighborhoods would have to be put in districts away from their closest schools. Like much of Capitol Hill being assigned east of the river, while NW but east of the park neighborhoods would be assigned to the Capitol Hill schools. Not very likely.

I'm not sure how this all works out but the city needs to recognize that more families are staying and start planning for it. But I'm sure they won't.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm...I guess it depends how cool you are regarding the SWS modernization and swing site issue. SWS will be in trailers, with a tent, for 2 years. They are evaluating RFK (gross - a parking lot?!) as a place for the swing site. If you read between the lines from the SWS/DCPS modernization meeting, there is a good chance the swing site will not be co-located at a school facility - which means no playground.

Also, DCPS hasn't guaranteed that the location will be close to where it is - so there's that.

There is also no guarantee or promise that SWS will get to keep it's kitchen (seems pretty doubtful to me) during the swing-space period (2 years). So if the food is important to you (and it may not be), you might want to consider that. Also, the gardens are unlikely to transfer.

All of this throws into doubt how SWS will be able to keep up it's Reggio model with the outdoors being the "third teacher" when they're in swing space, because they might be located in a space where there isn't a great place for the kids to get outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm...I guess it depends how cool you are regarding the SWS modernization and swing site issue. SWS will be in trailers, with a tent, for 2 years. They are evaluating RFK (gross - a parking lot?!) as a place for the swing site. If you read between the lines from the SWS/DCPS modernization meeting, there is a good chance the swing site will not be co-located at a school facility - which means no playground.

Also, DCPS hasn't guaranteed that the location will be close to where it is - so there's that.

There is also no guarantee or promise that SWS will get to keep it's kitchen (seems pretty doubtful to me) during the swing-space period (2 years). So if the food is important to you (and it may not be), you might want to consider that. Also, the gardens are unlikely to transfer.

All of this throws into doubt how SWS will be able to keep up it's Reggio model with the outdoors being the "third teacher" when they're in swing space, because they might be located in a space where there isn't a great place for the kids to get outside.

You should check the warranty on your crystal ball. DCPS has mad numerous accommodations to other schools undergoing renovation. Just look around the corner at Maury Village, which is across the street from the RFK parking lot.

Foodprints and outdoor space/gard will be a given. You obviously never saw the Logan Annex setup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundary review is coming in just a couple of years. New Hill ES boundaries are certainly going to be a focus as will the Wilson feeders.

Brent isn't going to get a renovation prior to that process.

Greater Greater Washington had a good story about this a few weeks ago. The boundary review is not going to fix over crowding in this city.

Is there a link to this article?

https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

I believe there was a thread about this when the story came out that the author was a part of. Long story short to even out the demand, neighborhoods would have to be put in districts away from their closest schools. Like much of Capitol Hill being assigned east of the river, while NW but east of the park neighborhoods would be assigned to the Capitol Hill schools. Not very likely.

I'm not sure how this all works out but the city needs to recognize that more families are staying and start planning for it. But I'm sure they won't.

Except even if families stay/population grows, there is still far more DCPS capacity than can be utilized. See DME memo to the PCSB urging co-location as a solution to both sectors' problems (lack of charter facilities and surplus of DCPS facilities) https://dme.dc.gov/node/1404506

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not buying it, unless this happened at least five years ago. SWS current takes no more than 6 or 7% of applicants for PreK4 and Brent takes none OOB for PreS3, PreK4 and none OOB without siblings for K.

We actually know the world's luckiest family re: lottery. Renting IB for Peabody/Watkins (in the process of buying in Payne now, since IB no longer matters for them). Current rising 1st grader got into Peabody for PK3. Last year, got into Brent for K as a proximity preference-r. Ended up not taking the spot because parents were worried about her little brother not getting a PK3 spot the following year. This year, PK3 brother pulled SWS and she got a WL number almost guaranteed to get into MV. They took the SWS spot and then she got pulled in for 1st based on sibling preference. SO JEALOUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundary review is coming in just a couple of years. New Hill ES boundaries are certainly going to be a focus as will the Wilson feeders.

Brent isn't going to get a renovation prior to that process.

Greater Greater Washington had a good story about this a few weeks ago. The boundary review is not going to fix over crowding in this city.

Is there a link to this article?

https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

I believe there was a thread about this when the story came out that the author was a part of. Long story short to even out the demand, neighborhoods would have to be put in districts away from their closest schools. Like much of Capitol Hill being assigned east of the river, while NW but east of the park neighborhoods would be assigned to the Capitol Hill schools. Not very likely.

I'm not sure how this all works out but the city needs to recognize that more families are staying and start planning for it. But I'm sure they won't.

Except even if families stay/population grows, there is still far more DCPS capacity than can be utilized. See DME memo to the PCSB urging co-location as a solution to both sectors' problems (lack of charter facilities and surplus of DCPS facilities) https://dme.dc.gov/node/1404506

You ought to read the GGW article, PP. Trouble is, the population is not predicted to be where the empty seats are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundary review is coming in just a couple of years. New Hill ES boundaries are certainly going to be a focus as will the Wilson feeders.

Brent isn't going to get a renovation prior to that process.

Greater Greater Washington had a good story about this a few weeks ago. The boundary review is not going to fix over crowding in this city.

Is there a link to this article?

https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

I believe there was a thread about this when the story came out that the author was a part of. Long story short to even out the demand, neighborhoods would have to be put in districts away from their closest schools. Like much of Capitol Hill being assigned east of the river, while NW but east of the park neighborhoods would be assigned to the Capitol Hill schools. Not very likely.

I'm not sure how this all works out but the city needs to recognize that more families are staying and start planning for it. But I'm sure they won't.

Except even if families stay/population grows, there is still far more DCPS capacity than can be utilized. See DME memo to the PCSB urging co-location as a solution to both sectors' problems (lack of charter facilities and surplus of DCPS facilities) https://dme.dc.gov/node/1404506

You ought to read the GGW article, PP. Trouble is, the population is not predicted to be where the empty seats are.

I have. And I think everyone agrees that the empty seats are not where much of the growth is happening. But TBH everyone has is batting around competing numbers and projections and analysis- GGW, the DME, the PCSB, the DC Office of Planning ... And they all have their own institutional biases and agendas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundary review is coming in just a couple of years. New Hill ES boundaries are certainly going to be a focus as will the Wilson feeders.

Brent isn't going to get a renovation prior to that process.

Greater Greater Washington had a good story about this a few weeks ago. The boundary review is not going to fix over crowding in this city.

Is there a link to this article?

https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

I believe there was a thread about this when the story came out that the author was a part of. Long story short to even out the demand, neighborhoods would have to be put in districts away from their closest schools. Like much of Capitol Hill being assigned east of the river, while NW but east of the park neighborhoods would be assigned to the Capitol Hill schools. Not very likely.

I'm not sure how this all works out but the city needs to recognize that more families are staying and start planning for it. But I'm sure they won't.

Except even if families stay/population grows, there is still far more DCPS capacity than can be utilized. See DME memo to the PCSB urging co-location as a solution to both sectors' problems (lack of charter facilities and surplus of DCPS facilities) https://dme.dc.gov/node/1404506

You ought to read the GGW article, PP. Trouble is, the population is not predicted to be where the empty seats are.

I have. And I think everyone agrees that the empty seats are not where much of the growth is happening. But TBH everyone has is batting around competing numbers and projections and analysis- GGW, the DME, the PCSB, the DC Office of Planning ... And they all have their own institutional biases and agendas.

The point is, the city isn't going to be able to re-district themselves out of over crowding WOTP and on the Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boundary review is coming in just a couple of years. New Hill ES boundaries are certainly going to be a focus as will the Wilson feeders.

Brent isn't going to get a renovation prior to that process.

Greater Greater Washington had a good story about this a few weeks ago. The boundary review is not going to fix over crowding in this city.

Is there a link to this article?

https://ggwash.org/view/71802/can-dcps-survive-the-coming-enrollment-surge

I believe there was a thread about this when the story came out that the author was a part of. Long story short to even out the demand, neighborhoods would have to be put in districts away from their closest schools. Like much of Capitol Hill being assigned east of the river, while NW but east of the park neighborhoods would be assigned to the Capitol Hill schools. Not very likely.

I'm not sure how this all works out but the city needs to recognize that more families are staying and start planning for it. But I'm sure they won't.

Except even if families stay/population grows, there is still far more DCPS capacity than can be utilized. See DME memo to the PCSB urging co-location as a solution to both sectors' problems (lack of charter facilities and surplus of DCPS facilities) https://dme.dc.gov/node/1404506

You ought to read the GGW article, PP. Trouble is, the population is not predicted to be where the empty seats are.

I have. And I think everyone agrees that the empty seats are not where much of the growth is happening. But TBH everyone has is batting around competing numbers and projections and analysis- GGW, the DME, the PCSB, the DC Office of Planning ... And they all have their own institutional biases and agendas.

The point is, the city isn't going to be able to re-district themselves out of over crowding WOTP and on the Hill.

Tell that to Eaton parents.

[Anonymous]

^^ also West.