Why is the Foxhall Community Citizens Association scared of public school children?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
DP. He deals well with people! But wanting to be a councilperson is a whole different ball of wax that most people wouldn’t want to deal with. |
Anonymous
Unless you're willing to state your qualifications for the record, it can reasonably be assumed that you are much less knowledgeable than Matt is about public school and transportation issues in Ward 3. Accordingly, your positions are more likely to be grounded in ignorance rather than political posturing. But Matt is very knowledgeable about the issues on hand and yet offers "compromise solutions" that the experiences of others - better qualified than he is - and logic strongly suggest are infeasible. In addition, at least a few of his positions seem to be crafted to specifically appeal to the Foxhall lobby. For instance, he is actually in favor (unlike you) of opening MacArthur HS, but wants to restrict the size of the school to half of its projected size so that it would almost entirely serve in-boundary students (which of course runs counter to your sentiment that it would not be equitable for the school to only serve local children). By the way, your notion that no OOBer would attend MacArthur HS is belied by the facts. By your metric, Key ES is more inaccessible than MacArthur HS will be and yet manages to attract a long waitlist of prospective OOB students. There are also ample options for improving access to the location, which Matt - to his credit - recognizes. If he would only recognize the rest of the good work done by the CWG in exhaustively exploring various alternatives, he would be a very worthy candidate. |
Anonymous
|
Interesting to see this thread with a discussion of me and my integrity.
On MacArthur, the expectation had been for a small high school on the site. The bump to 1000 came out of the blue in the Mayor's budget. That does not make sense and is bad for other high schools around the city. It is the case that 90 students a grade go from Hardy to Wilson under today's enrollment levels which is around 60% of Hardy 8th grade classes. That suggests that if Hardy fed to MacArthur now, Wilson would have 360 fewer kids which would go a long way (but not all of the way over the long term) towards solving crowding issues there. It is also true that Hardy enrollment levels are increasing. Four years from now that 90 kids a grade could go to 150 in which case MacArthur could get 600 kids from Hardy. MacArthur will almost certainly be filled one year at a time so it will be SY26-27 at the soonest that it will have four grades. Renovating MacArthur's existing envelope now which would yield a school of around 700 makes sense, building to 1000 now with a 500 citywide set aside, in my opinion does not. See https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/ I have spent a decade advocating for successful schools in every part of the city. I suppose if someone wants to think I took the view I did on this out of pandering, they can feel free, but it is not true and in fact my view is consistent with my years of research and advocacy. On Foxhall, this was an idea that nobody took seriously when proposed. It was a clear fig leaf for the eventual midnight transfer of Old Hardy to Lab. A 550 student school on that site makes no sense. Indeed, if the city got Old Hardy back a 550 student school on that site would make no sense. Besides the Foxhall community, the Stoddert community does not like the idea. Not because they are pandering, but because they believe it would break up their community and be bad for the school at the center of it. In the Student Assignment process, I supported moving part of Burlieth out of Stoddert and into Hyde because we saw overcrowding coming and given the fact that Burlieth was on the other side of the park from Stoddert, over the long term it made sense for it to be in Hyde. We did not have it kick in until the Hyde modernization was complete. It was a pretty unpopular decision at the time, but I am proud of it today and it was motivated by the same logic that motivates the Stoddert community now. It seems clear to me that the better answer for Stoddert is to renovate to add capacity to serve its existing boundary. Meanwhile, since my blog came out, leaders at Hardy testified about why the current proposal for Foxhall does not make sense, that rather than helping the Key, Stoddert and Mann it could hurt them and there should instead be investment at Hardy. I found that testimony compelling, and consistent with my blog. Again, read my blog carefully and conclude whether you think it is well-reasoned and grounded in ten plus years of advocacy or pandering. https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/ People can have different views and also have integrity. I am used to people disagreeing with me, sometimes with heat. It is part of putting yourself out there to accept that and I do. But for the many readers out there trying to sort it out for themselves, please resist the temptation to think the only reason people can have different views is that one is somehow corrupt and look at what is argued and how. All the best, Matthew Frumin |
Anonymous
|
It struck me it could be useful for folks to see the testimony in support of Hardy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vK46lTW1AyNoY4zWpx94zhcEBxi1D7qJ/view?usp=sharing Were they pandering on Foxhall? Thanks and all the best, Matthew Frumin |
Anonymous
No. They want a part of that $56m allocated to Foxhall ES for their own purposes. They make that perfectly clear in the first paragraph. |
Anonymous
| Thanks. They make clear in the second paragraph why they think Foxhall as current conceived does not make sense for Stoddert, Mann or Key. |
Anonymous
And they do that because it’s in their interest to do so. You are asking us to believe that they are some kind of objective adjudicator when the whole point of their testimony is to convince the Council that they need the money more. Do you really think we would believe that? |
Anonymous
|
So I am going to call it a night. I'd urge others to read the blog, read the testimony and come to their own conclusions.
https://fruminforward3.com/food-for-thought-new-schools/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vK46lTW1AyNoY4zWp...4zhcEBxi1D7qJ/view?usp=sharing |
Anonymous
The Community Working Group members who examined this for months and solicited hours of testimony and hundreds of pages of written submissions are nobody? Families in Foxhall who will finally have the neighborhood public school that every other neighborhood in DC has are nobody? Elementary school kids who walk 1.5 miles to get to school are nobody? 4th and 5th graders at Key being taught in “modular classrooms” are nobody? Kids who are forbidden to talk when eating lunch because their cafeteria is too small are nobody? Families across the city who would like to send their children to one of the high-performing Ward 3 elementaries but can’t because there are no out-of-boundary slots available are nobody? Families in Ward 3 who would like to send their 3 and 4 year olds to pre-K at a DCPS school but can’t because, again, there isn’t enough space to accommodate them are nobody? All of these people took this “idea” rather seriously. But to you, apparently, they are “nobody”. You can claim you are being taken out of context but the context makes the same point less succinctly. The Foxhall ES building may not be the most aesthetically pleasing addition to the Foxhall neighborhood but it is the only proposal with funding, a timeline, and mayoral support that promises to solve the above problems (which maybe you don’t think are worth addressing). We all realize that projecting oneself as having a Midas touch that can magically achieve miraculous solutions to intractable problems is part and parcel with running for office, but your stance on the issue opens up a can of worms that threatens to derail the only chance on the horizon of resolving the worsening overcrowding in our local schools. |
Anonymous
We’ve read your blog. Unlike the other fairy tales we read to our children, yours give us nightmares. |
Anonymous
|
Matt:
I like you. I've donated to you. And I'll put up a yard sign for you. But you are totally pandering to the people in Foxhall and Stoddert. Aspects of the Mayor's plan don't make sense. You know this. I know this. But you're not going after aspects of the plan; you're giving complaining neighbors (largely really nasty NIMBYs) the succor of thinking the entire plan is bad. The Foxhall school is needed, just in a different form than is currently being proposed. You know the data, so I know you know this. And Macarthur isn't far off from ideal already. Hardy will be 650 kids within a year or two. Most of the kids attending privates in this area of the Ward peel off during elementary school. Those who stay for Hardy are likely planning to stay for HS too. The school needs to have at least an 800-person capacity. We can quibble over whether 850 is enough or if 1,000 is needed, but we're splitting hairs at this point. You're a smart guy. Yes, your tendency to compromise instead of sticking to principles is galling, but you're smart, and we've spoken about these things, so I know you get it. Not standing up in support of these schools is just pandering, even if you refuse to admit or have to tell yourself it's not. |
Anonymous
I don't mean this first part to be insulting, but did the CWG really think they did a good job? Didn't the members go to the community meetings, or read the comments submitted, or interact with anyone outside the Palisades? I commend everyone who serves on these sorts of committees, but doing a job does not mean doing a good job. It's not pandering to actually weigh trade-offs, which the CWG failed to do. Ward 3 needs more schools, agreed. If you live in the Palisades and are presented with the option of Foxhall you will support Foxhall. I don't blame you. But enough of the thinking your motives are high and pure. Building a school at Foxhall with few kids nearby, then having to reach around the Ward to find kids to fill it is nonsensical. Since you bring up having to walk 1.5 miles to school, check the CWG working group's estimate of the distance of the new school (via the only catchment that make sense to DCPS): https://ibb.co/DQq60tn The majority of the kids will be traveling a farther distance (186 > 155)! And this is with the CWG's dishonest estimate that Glover Park is a simple hike through the slop of Glover-Archbold Park. The actual distance, via walkable roads (with no bus line), is 2.0 miles, not the 1.2 reported in that table. Does your compassion extend to those children? As I said, you have to confront trade-offs, not simply take what's best for your own children. Frumin's suggestion of a small school at Foxhall, to serve those kids who are currently traveling far distances makes sense: it minimizes the kids who will have a much longer walk. I realize this is a topic to make deserved fun of the FCCA, but shouldn't we laugh at the Palisades forcing out their grocery store? Safeway wanted to build a nice mixed-use building on the spot with housing and a new grocery store, but the Palisades couldn't imagine that. Now everyone has to drive for groceries. Maybe everyone in the Palisades has a car and loves driving. Some of us in other parts of the Ward don't. To the extent we ignore the FCCA's complaints, we should ignore the Palisades praise. |
Anonymous
Foxhall and the Palisades are not really distinct neighborhoods. Anyone who lived in Foxhall and bought groceries, most probably bought them from Safeway. People from Foxhall post to the Palisades listserv and regularly comment on Palisades’ issues. The FCCA likes to pretend they represent the neighborhood but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the PCA has more members from Foxhall than they do. And the people who opposed the proposed Safeway building did so for the exact same reasons that the FCCA opposed Foxhall ES (and may have indeed been many of the same people). That reason is some warped kind of nostalgia-driven NIMBYism harbored by those who want the neighborhood to never change and to remain the same way as it has for the past 50 years, mixed in with a very healthy dose of aggressive (albeit disguised) self-interest from those who benefit from the status quo from various reasons and don’t want that disturbed. It was the same carry on with the proposed Trolley Trail development. |
Anonymous
It's a sad fact that, over the course of the past year, certain FCCA affiliates have saw fight to drum up opposition to the new schools by spreading misinformation and outright falsehoods. We saw an example of this just a few days ago when an FCCA affiliate sent messages to the Glover Park, Palisades, and FCCA listservs claiming that Hardy sends only 90 students per year to Wilson when the actual number is 90 students per year and will, in all probability, rise rapidly given the rapid growth in Hardy's student population in the past two years. I will heartily support any candidate that calls such scaremongering out for what it is. Thus far, no one has stepped up. That Foxhall ES can only be filled by denying students from Glover Park access to their excellent neighborhood school is yet another example of scaremongering fomented by those with vested interests. If I lived in Glover Park and I was told that my kids were going to be sent to Foxhall ES, I would do all I could to oppose the creation of that new school too. However, logic dictates that this is very unlikely to happen because it just doesn't make any sense. It's even less likely to happen now that Stoddert ES won the money that it was seeking for the mayor for its extension. And, regardless, the grandfathering provisions that the chancellor has promised would ensure that no current students (and their siblings) would be affected. There are blocks in Burleith (south of Whitehaven Parkway and north of Reservoir Rd) - Hillendale is a good example - that are equidistant to the Foxhall ES site than they are to Stoddert ES. I can imagine some contention on whether these neighborhoods would be zoned to Foxhall ES or Stoddert ES. But any proposals to zone neighborhoods in Glover Park proper to Foxhall ES are indefensible, even for proponents of Foxhall ES. Also, there similarly seems to be a lot of misunderstandings around the proposition of how large Foxhall ES would be. Some people would like others to believe that it will be 550 students on day one (and that this will be achieved by dragging students from Glover Park, A.U. Park, Georgetown, and goodness knows where else). Of course, it won't be. It could well open with just a couple of hundred students. But, given the demographic projections and given that schools in the area have found themselves without sufficient space even after massive new additions (Hyde-Addison being the most recent example), it would be irresponsible to plan for a school that the projections strongly suggest would already be too small by the time it opened (with or without PK). There are feasible ways in which the footprint of the school could be much smaller than what the schematics shared by DCPS suggest (while still keeping it big enough to accommodate the projected demand). For instance, the city can exercise the clause in the existing contract with LAB to reclaim the parking lot on the southwest side of Old Hardy and build the new school as an annex to the existing building (and, potentially, by reclaiming the currently-unused first floor of the Old Hardy building). Matt could propose that and he'd have my full support. But the serious ES overcrowding issues that plague Ward 3 cannot - in all likelihood - be solved without some kind of new building and the most logical (and only practical) place for that is next to Old Hardy. It would become someone who aspires to lead the Ward to be upfront about this. |
Anonymous
How in the earth would the bump to 1000 be "bad for other high schools around the city"? Does Reed-Jackson and others not benefit by being less over-crowded? Do students across the city not benefit from having more choice as to where they go to HS? As others have noted, Matt knows the demographic projections very well. How is it responsible to direct DCPS to plan a school that is barely large enough to accommodate the exploding Hardy MS student population? Almost every DCPS family in Ward 3 will benefit from a large MacArthur HS. Families across the city will benefit from better opportunities to send their children to better schools. Principals at under-performing schools may have to work harder to retain students, yes, but that is the model that DC has chosen for its PS system and the alternatives to it - being locked in to your local school or busing - are politically and legally infeasible. Other than principals at under-performing schools, the other group of people who benefit from a smaller MacArthur HS are, of course, a relatively small number of Foxhall residents. Why put their interests ahead of the rest of the city? |