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

[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.

It's a little, well, rich for a private school to profit from a large development project by touting it as a guaranteed entry into good, but already quite overcrowded, neighborhood public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's a little, well, rich for a private school to profit from a large development project by touting it as a guaranteed entry into good, but already quite overcrowded, neighborhood public schools.

I've been following the GDS thread because it's a hot mess over there. I think you are misrepresenting what is being said. No one from GDS is touting Janney as a development asset. Someone did throw out there that Janney parents don't like the development because they think it will add to crowding. That person also commented that Janney was better than GDS. Hardly an endorsement of GDS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do care a lot about this fact, though. Comment after comment denying it.

[Anonymous]

+1 It's either GDS flacks or their auxilliary, Ward Three Vision.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's a little, well, rich for a private school to profit from a large development project by touting it as a guaranteed entry into good, but already quite overcrowded, neighborhood public schools.

I've been following the GDS thread because it's a hot mess over there. I think you are misrepresenting what is being said. No one from GDS is touting Janney as a development asset. Someone did throw out there that Janney parents don't like the development because they think it will add to crowding. That person also commented that Janney was better than GDS. Hardly an endorsement of GDS.

I was thinking of this comment, which lauded the GDS proposal for adding significantly more housing with access to Janney, Deal and Wilson:

"But you can add significantly more housing in tenley - and we should! More metro access (both rail and bus) means fewer people driving because they have to commute to metro, access to good schools from elementary to high school, this is all good stuff!"

Another pro-GDS project commentator suggested that overcrowding at Janney would take care of itself as neighborhood parents who didn't like it could find other options. Alternatively, s/he suggested redistricting parts of the Janney IB area to balance out the additional students coming from the GDS mixed-use development. Nice.

[Anonymous]

The zone needs to be adjusted regardless of the GDS hoopla, don't let that distract you folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The zone needs to be adjusted regardless of the GDS hoopla, don't let that distract you folks.

Exactly. Sooner the better for the sake of overcrowding at Deal and Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Maybe GDS should offer access to GDS to anyone who lives in the new units....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe GDS should offer access to GDS to anyone who lives in the new units....

Provided that they are gifted and talented enough to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's a little, well, rich for a private school to profit from a large development project by touting it as a guaranteed entry into good, but already quite overcrowded, neighborhood public schools.

I've been following the GDS thread because it's a hot mess over there. I think you are misrepresenting what is being said. No one from GDS is touting Janney as a development asset. Someone did throw out there that Janney parents don't like the development because they think it will add to crowding. That person also commented that Janney was better than GDS. Hardly an endorsement of GDS.

I was thinking of this comment, which lauded the GDS proposal for adding significantly more housing with access to Janney, Deal and Wilson:

"But you can add significantly more housing in tenley - and we should! More metro access (both rail and bus) means fewer people driving because they have to commute to metro, access to good schools from elementary to high school, this is all good stuff!"

Another pro-GDS project commentator suggested that overcrowding at Janney would take care of itself as neighborhood parents who didn't like it could find other options. Alternatively, s/he suggested redistricting parts of the Janney IB area to balance out the additional students coming from the GDS mixed-use development. Nice.

That's fairly standard urban planning "smart growth" thinking. I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to a GDS representative. I have nothing to do with the project but don't disagree with the sentiment and I put two kids through Janney. The school needs to have its boundaries redrawn regardless of what GDS does with its site. Janney is a fine school but some people do seem to treat it like its some weird holy grail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe GDS should offer access to GDS to anyone who lives in the new units....

Provided that they are gifted and talented enough to get in.

Good lord, you don't really believe that, I assume? We know more than a dozen GDS high school students and one of my kids is at a similar school in NW. Both schools have the same range of skills/talents as Wilson or any other school in the area. They're definitely not all "gifted" or academically accelerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe GDS should offer access to GDS to anyone who lives in the new units....

Provided that they are gifted and talented enough to get in.

Good lord, you don't really believe that, I assume? We know more than a dozen GDS high school students and one of my kids is at a similar school in NW. Both schools have the same range of skills/talents as Wilson or any other school in the area. They're definitely not all "gifted" or academically accelerated.

Yes, they just had the connections/background to get in and the bucks to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

It's more the bucks than the connections, but whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know more than a dozen GDS high school students and one of my kids is at a similar school in NW. Both schools have the same range of skills/talents as Wilson or any other school in the area.

I think you might be exaggerating here, or mistaken. Or maybe I misunderstand you. I accept that GDS and other selective private schools have ranges of abilities, but I doubt it's the same range as Wilson or other public schools.

[Anonymous]

953 again. Just to be clear, I am not drawing a distinction between private and public. I am saying highly selective private schools will have a different range of abilities than other less selective schools, be they private or public. I noted Wilson and other publics in my PP only because you had mentioned Wilson.