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

[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.

Actually if they had rezoned 100 kids from each of Janney and Murch (<20% of each school) and made it effective right away the school would have been 100% in boundary given the 1/3 of students already IB and attending and the 300 student total capacity. Obviously that was not possible given the howls of torment that came from Janney and Murch parents during the DME process - but had there been the political will to do it Hearst could have looked like Janney and Murch virtually overnight. it doesn't have to be a long term process if folks have a bit of vision.

[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.

Who knew? I thought it was Mann, or at least Key. And, that's really only for DCPS, it doesn't take into account the DCPCS and privates for which Janney parents leave. Is there a gold medal that you've been awarded? I'm unaware of its existence, only that I really don't want to live in Tenleytown and drink the Janney kool-aid.

Of course, this could really be about your need to have your decisions validated (not to mention the value of your home propped up).

[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.

These are the magic words. Many upper NW parents aren't willing to take that risk so they'd stick with Janney and Murch until things change at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who knew? I thought it was Mann, or at least Key. And, that's really only for DCPS, it doesn't take into account the DCPCS and privates for which Janney parents leave. Is there a gold medal that you've been awarded? I'm unaware of its existence, only that I really don't want to live in Tenleytown and drink the Janney kool-aid.

Of course, this could really be about your need to have your decisions validated (not to mention the value of your home propped up).

^^ PP here -- no, I don't live IB for Janney or plan on my kids attending. This is a widely known fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who knew? I thought it was Mann, or at least Key. And, that's really only for DCPS, it doesn't take into account the DCPCS and privates for which Janney parents leave. Is there a gold medal that you've been awarded? I'm unaware of its existence, only that I really don't want to live in Tenleytown and drink the Janney kool-aid.

Of course, this could really be about your need to have your decisions validated (not to mention the value of your home propped up).

^^ PP here -- no, I don't live IB for Janney or plan on my kids attending. This is a widely known fact.

^^^ and I'd add the same about Deal. Being a highly sought after school has its downsides too, one of which is overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is clearly not true. The Hearst families are too dispersed to wield any real political power. Janney is stuffed because Janney families and their rep on the cmte demanded no changes in boundary. Don't insert your bias where they don't fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is clearly not true. The Hearst families are too dispersed to wield any real political power. Janney is stuffed because Janney families and their rep on the cmte demanded no changes in boundary. Don't insert your bias where they don't fit.

Hearst has superior housing stock to much of Janney and on par with parts of Murch, but the price tag puts the owners outside the realm of caring about public school options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is clearly not true. The Hearst families are too dispersed to wield any real political power. Janney is stuffed because Janney families and their rep on the cmte demanded no changes in boundary. Don't insert your bias where they don't fit.

Hearst has superior housing stock to much of Janney and on par with parts of Murch, but the price tag puts the owners outside the realm of caring about public school options.

NP here. That's not true. I know many IB families that would like Hearst if it was more like Janney.

[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.

These are the magic words. Many upper NW parents aren't willing to take that risk so they'd stick with Janney and Murch until things change at Hearst.

NP. I question whether things will change at Hearst until the student population changes.

[Anonymous]

Hearst is still a bit like the "Hardy" of upper NW elementary schools (although it feeds to Deal not Hardy itself). It still needs to solve its "Hardy problem" in that it needs to flip to a mostly IB school and become more like Janney and Mann academically.

On the bright side, at least Hearst doesn't require school uniforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, and the oppressors had better apologize for their numerous microaggressions-- and, of course, not forget to check their privilege.

[Anonymous]

Those worried about overcrowding at Janney might want to know that over on the private school thread, boosters of GDS' proposed mixed use development on Wisconsin and 42nd are flacking it as a way to add significant new housing stock with access to Janney, Deal and Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who knew? I thought it was Mann, or at least Key. And, that's really only for DCPS, it doesn't take into account the DCPCS and privates for which Janney parents leave. Is there a gold medal that you've been awarded? I'm unaware of its existence, only that I really don't want to live in Tenleytown and drink the Janney kool-aid.

Of course, this could really be about your need to have your decisions validated (not to mention the value of your home propped up).

^^ PP here -- no, I don't live IB for Janney or plan on my kids attending. This is a widely known fact.

It may be a widely held opinion - particularly for those IB for Janney - but it is not a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those worried about overcrowding at Janney might want to know that over on the private school thread, boosters of GDS' proposed mixed use development on Wisconsin and 42nd are flacking it as a way to add significant new housing stock with access to Janney, Deal and Wilson.

Are you suggesting that public schools not be available to the public?

Or are you suggesting that hordes of families are going to be crowding into 750 square foot units?

Either way, spreading mass hysteria will get you everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those worried about overcrowding at Janney might want to know that over on the private school thread, boosters of GDS' proposed mixed use development on Wisconsin and 42nd are flacking it as a way to add significant new housing stock with access to Janney, Deal and Wilson.

Are you suggesting that public schools not be available to the public?

Or are you suggesting that hordes of families are going to be crowding into 750 square foot units?

Either way, spreading mass hysteria will get you everywhere.

I raised a similar point in an earlier thread regarding the possible effects of the proposed GDS buildings on the public school crowding and received a similarly worded and similarly rapid response to the one above by pp. Seems like the GDS PR hacks are working overtime...

Don't want to highjack the thread, but the question of new housing stock is a valid worry, and something that should be addressed with some foresight.