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

[Anonymous]

I think they get like $12k per PK kid vs. $8K per K and up.
It's enough of a difference when multiplied by 19 kids a class in PK that even though the cost of educating those PK is higher (lower teacher ratio), the school still makes money of each class.

If they "make" $25K per PK class this is a huge deal for a school. They function with VERY little margin in the budget.

I get that this is how it works but the idea that a school can "make money" from a PK class has always bothered me. If DCPS provides more money for PK, shouldn't all of that money be spent on PK? Same goes for special ed funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think they get like $12k per PK kid vs. $8K per K and up.
It's enough of a difference when multiplied by 19 kids a class in PK that even though the cost of educating those PK is higher (lower teacher ratio), the school still makes money of each class.

If they "make" $25K per PK class this is a huge deal for a school. They function with VERY little margin in the budget.

I get that this is how it works but the idea that a school can "make money" from a PK class has always bothered me. If DCPS provides more money for PK, shouldn't all of that money be spent on PK? Same goes for special ed funds.

PK classes have lower student to teacher ratio come with aides which is why the allotment is higher per pupil. There's only so low a school can legally go on that ratio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think they get like $12k per PK kid vs. $8K per K and up.
It's enough of a difference when multiplied by 19 kids a class in PK that even though the cost of educating those PK is higher (lower teacher ratio), the school still makes money of each class.

If they "make" $25K per PK class this is a huge deal for a school. They function with VERY little margin in the budget.

I get that this is how it works but the idea that a school can "make money" from a PK class has always bothered me. If DCPS provides more money for PK, shouldn't all of that money be spent on PK? Same goes for special ed funds.

i think some of the money is federal Head Start money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Janney parent, but it seems like the overcrowding blame should fall squarely on the folks who fought the boundary revision process so hard. I guess DCPS could have done a better job standing up to that interest group, but it looks to me like DCPS is basically just letting Janney parents reap what they sowed.

I love you.

This is so true. And shame on DCPS for caving to those parents.

What about Wilson and Deal overcrowding? Should we also applaud that the parents who fought the boundary revision just reaped what they sowed? Shame on DCPS for caving to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Janney parent, but it seems like the overcrowding blame should fall squarely on the folks who fought the boundary revision process so hard. I guess DCPS could have done a better job standing up to that interest group, but it looks to me like DCPS is basically just letting Janney parents reap what they sowed.

I love you.

This is so true. And shame on DCPS for caving to those parents.

What about Wilson and Deal overcrowding? Should we also applaud that the parents who fought the boundary revision just reaped what they sowed? Shame on DCPS for caving to them?

Yes - if you fight boundary revisions, you don't also get to complain about overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Janney parent, but it seems like the overcrowding blame should fall squarely on the folks who fought the boundary revision process so hard. I guess DCPS could have done a better job standing up to that interest group, but it looks to me like DCPS is basically just letting Janney parents reap what they sowed.

I love you.

This is so true. And shame on DCPS for caving to those parents.

What about Wilson and Deal overcrowding? Should we also applaud that the parents who fought the boundary revision just reaped what they sowed? Shame on DCPS for caving to them?

They already kicked two elementary schools out of Deal. This annoys the hell out of people because, even if every fifth grader in those schools went on to Deal (very unlikely), the number would still be less than the assumed number of Maryland residence cheaters who are at Deal today. DC needs to ferret out the fraudsters, yank them from the school and prosecute their parents, and they'd be on the way to reducing overcrowding at Deal (and Wilson)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Janney parent, but it seems like the overcrowding blame should fall squarely on the folks who fought the boundary revision process so hard. I guess DCPS could have done a better job standing up to that interest group, but it looks to me like DCPS is basically just letting Janney parents reap what they sowed.

I love you.

This is so true. And shame on DCPS for caving to those parents.

What about Wilson and Deal overcrowding? Should we also applaud that the parents who fought the boundary revision just reaped what they sowed? Shame on DCPS for caving to them?

They already kicked two elementary schools out of Deal. This annoys the hell out of people because, even if every fifth grader in those schools went on to Deal (very unlikely), the number would still be less than the assumed number of Maryland residence cheaters who are at Deal today. DC needs to ferret out the fraudsters, yank them from the school and prosecute their parents, and they'd be on the way to reducing overcrowding at Deal (and Wilson)

For every Deal residency cheater from MD, I'd bet there's 1 from other middle school boundaries. We know multiple people whose kids went to Key and Mann (zoned for Hardy for middle school) who rent efficiency apartments within the Deal boundaries and use those apartments--where they don't and will never live--as their fake residence for the 3 middle school years. "It's a lot cheaper than private school tuition."--direct quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all the third grade classes set up this way? Will it be like that for the 4th and fifth grades too then for this cohort?

all the 3rd grade classes are 31/32.
the old principal (who left in May) wouldn't answer this last year when asked about 4th/5th grade sizes. it would seem to be the plan because the school is out of rooms and
some neighborhood covenant prevents them from adding trailers to the yard.
It's concerning because some of the younger grades are even bigger.

I would be very concerned too, Janney's appeal will drop dramatically if classes have routinely 32 kids (having classes of that size was one of the reasons we did not buy in MOCO a few years ago). I am still surprised that Janney finds itself in this mess after two renovations, it seems that DCPS did not really think things through, especially with the first one. I wonder if DCPS at this point just relies on attrition, some parents will start switching to private and the number of kids will go back to normal. Even getting rid of pre-k would not be sufficient IMO if there are so many kids. We are at Murch and I seriously hope DCPS does a better planning job with the renovation of the school and that we do not end up in this situation.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... Whoo! Now you're killing me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think they get like $12k per PK kid vs. $8K per K and up.
It's enough of a difference when multiplied by 19 kids a class in PK that even though the cost of educating those PK is higher (lower teacher ratio), the school still makes money of each class.

If they "make" $25K per PK class this is a huge deal for a school. They function with VERY little margin in the budget.

I get that this is how it works but the idea that a school can "make money" from a PK class has always bothered me. If DCPS provides more money for PK, shouldn't all of that money be spent on PK? Same goes for special ed funds.

Of course it should. However, as you've surely heard, SpEd has been a hellhole in DC for 30+ years. Did you know some parents move to DC, to make it easier to win a state-sponsored seat in a specialized private school? It may not be as easy as it used to be, but it's not exactly a secret. Unless and until (I'm betting on unless) DCPS gets it act together, there will always be ways to drain the city dry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a Hearst rapid response team hanging on this Janney thread, ready to counter any statement about Hearst, like the suggestion that Janney twin with Hearst. Wondering how the other half lives?

Nope. Just amazed at how everyone thinks they can just take or annex or occupy our fantastic school without considering our kids' needs as if the Janney parents just say something and it's done. That false air of superiority won't fit it into our school environment.

This comment is pretty revealing. Much of the postings have been about redrawing boundaries so that Hearst becomes more of a neighborhood/IB school, thereby relieving overcrowding at Janney. But it's clear that the Hearst community would view this as an "occupation." They have no interest in Hearst becoming a primarily neighborhood-based school because they want Hearst to remain a Distrct-wide school that just happens to be located in the neighborhood.

The last election cycle pointed out how clearly this is true. The thing is - where is the pushback coming from? One post suggested Crestwood/Mt.P, but I'll bet it comes from further away than that. It becomes a grievance that starts with socio-economic status. Once the professional pot-stirrers get the angry-rhetoric going, it becomes all about racial oppression! That's how we end up with bland campaign slogans like "One City!"

Don't you see? By wanting a neighborhood school to serve your neighborhood, you're a racial oppressor.

So, you end up with Hearst being an OOB school, Janney being more over-crowded than MoCo, and a handful of HRCS schools with 17 students per class - but you have to drive to, say, Brookland to get them there.

[Anonymous]

DCPS should stop letting politics play a role in school boundaries. If that were the case, overnight the boundaries for Eaton and Hearst would be increased and the overcrowding at Janney and Murch lessened. And I am positive they would all be thriving communities with high test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS should stop letting politics play a role in school boundaries. If that were the case, overnight the boundaries for Eaton and Hearst would be increased and the overcrowding at Janney and Murch lessened. And I am positive they would all be thriving communities with high test scores.

+1. Upper NW parents need to start working NOW to make this happen in the next round of boundary changes. Totally understand why families on the southern boundaries or Janney and Murch fought the proposed switch to Hearst. They went for the sure thing. But it was short sighted because it actually hurts down the road at Deal and Wilson because this decision contributes to continued overcrowding at the MS and HS level. These parents need to realize that if they get switched to Hearst they end up with a small, brand new school, which would become filled with IB kids that has access to Sidwell facilities and DC parks and rec. Their home values will increase NOT decrease and their kids will get a tremendous elementary education in a small setting where the principal and teachers literally know every kid. There is a better way. Don't be afraid. Your kids don't need to attend elementary school at a school the size of a small cruise ship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS should stop letting politics play a role in school boundaries. If that were the case, overnight the boundaries for Eaton and Hearst would be increased and the overcrowding at Janney and Murch lessened. And I am positive they would all be thriving communities with high test scores.

+1. Upper NW parents need to start working NOW to make this happen in the next round of boundary changes. Totally understand why families on the southern boundaries or Janney and Murch fought the proposed switch to Hearst. They went for the sure thing. But it was short sighted because it actually hurts down the road at Deal and Wilson because this decision contributes to continued overcrowding at the MS and HS level. These parents need to realize that if they get switched to Hearst they end up with a small, brand new school, which would become filled with IB kids that has access to Sidwell facilities and DC parks and rec. Their home values will increase NOT decrease and their kids will get a tremendous elementary education in a small setting where the principal and teachers literally know every kid. There is a better way. Don't be afraid. Your kids don't need to attend elementary school at a school the size of a small cruise ship.

Janney is the established gold standard. An infusion of Janney and Murch families would eventually make Heart equally desirable but it would take some time. If your kids are already in elementary you may not have time on your side. It's tough to advocate for something long term when your horizon is short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS should stop letting politics play a role in school boundaries. If that were the case, overnight the boundaries for Eaton and Hearst would be increased and the overcrowding at Janney and Murch lessened. And I am positive they would all be thriving communities with high test scores.

Definitely. DCPS should stop letting politics play a role in school boundaries. Shifting some of Janney and Murch's students to Hearst makes sense.

But politics goes two ways - it doesn't just mean redrawing the map in upper NW, deciding who is in the "new" boundary. DCPS must also enforce the boundary itself - if the IB school is full, there is no room to accept students from outside the boundary. This also makes sense. Deal and Wilson are not over-crowded just because Janney is over-crowded.

No politics means some AU Park kids won't get to stay at Janney, but is also mean some Crestwood kids won't get to go to Deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS should stop letting politics play a role in school boundaries. If that were the case, overnight the boundaries for Eaton and Hearst would be increased and the overcrowding at Janney and Murch lessened. And I am positive they would all be thriving communities with high test scores.

+1. Upper NW parents need to start working NOW to make this happen in the next round of boundary changes. Totally understand why families on the southern boundaries or Janney and Murch fought the proposed switch to Hearst. They went for the sure thing. But it was short sighted because it actually hurts down the road at Deal and Wilson because this decision contributes to continued overcrowding at the MS and HS level. These parents need to realize that if they get switched to Hearst they end up with a small, brand new school, which would become filled with IB kids that has access to Sidwell facilities and DC parks and rec. Their home values will increase NOT decrease and their kids will get a tremendous elementary education in a small setting where the principal and teachers literally know every kid. There is a better way. Don't be afraid. Your kids don't need to attend elementary school at a school the size of a small cruise ship.

Janney is the established gold standard. An infusion of Janney and Murch families would eventually make Heart equally desirable but it would take some time. If your kids are already in elementary you may not have time on your side. It's tough to advocate for something long term when your horizon is short.

It really would not take long at all. It could happen next year. At Hearst there are only 2 PK classes totaling 40 kids, 20+ of which are IB. So adding roughly15 IB kids a year would make Hearst overwhelmingly IB majority going forward.

Janney may be the gold standard for DCPS, but it is far from ideal given its size. Just need a group of parents with a little courage to see the huge upside here. Not easy, I understand.