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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most of this should rest on the shoulders of the former principal. she made decisions without teacher input and then told them it was a done deal. as often happened, teachers were not told their assignments until the last day of school or later. some had no choice. we can't make a blanket statement such as "my child was in a class with thirty children and it worked well." we have to look at the classroom size, school curriculum and the experience of the teachers. the principal did this once before and it was a mess. one teacher said she would not do it again, after three years and was told if she didn't like it she could leave. which she did.
many good, experienced teachers left because of her style of "running the school." so glad the new administration is more focused on the children. she has inherited a difficult situation and should be given an opportunity and support in trying to work through the mess left by the last principal. do you all know that she was not in the building during the last few days of school? she left her office a mess for the new principal to clean. how professional. good riddance to bad rubbish. PS- her comamndo style is not working at her new school with middle school parents and students. karma !!

It's nice to know I'm not the only parent that was not a fan of the old principal. So far my impression of the new one has been good. I like the on time and speedy Jamboree; I like how she let teachers into their classes early this year for set up; I like the increased security in the school. It will be interesting how she handles setting up the classes next year and if she continues with all the PK classes.

We are very impressed by the new Janney principal -- highly professional, fair, constructive, and responsive to parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:aka grandparents whose grandchildren are suddenly living with them so they can go to Janney. New addresses are new addresses. It doesn't matter who they are "hoping" will buy them. Every unit has the potential to increase enrollment.

Yes, good point. Be sure to express your views to the Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners who are presently evaluating the GDS application filed with DC. http://anc3e.org/contact/.

[Anonymous]

The DC Zoning Board is likely to approve new regulations which could create backyard auxiliary dwelling units in much of DC, including AU Park and Tenleytown. Although there are arguments on both sides of this issue, the potential is there to create many alley cottages in the neighborhood, which could further increase the IB population at Janney over the next several years.

[Anonymous]

Isn't the solution in growing areas to build more schools or shift boundaries rather than restrict growth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the solution in growing areas to build more schools or shift boundaries rather than restrict growth?

DC is not going to build more schools in Ward 3 when they are closing them EOTP.

Increasing the population of AU Park by 50% or more by having lots of houses in the alleys, will have implications far beyond schools: on parking, traffic, noise, tree canopy, SFH residential/ neighborhood character. This should not be as a "matter of right" and the impacts should be more carefully considered.

[Anonymous]

Wait, I'm confused, will families live in an alley cottage just to get into Janney?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DC Zoning Board is likely to approve new regulations which could create backyard auxiliary dwelling units in much of DC, including AU Park and Tenleytown. Although there are arguments on both sides of this issue, the potential is there to create many alley cottages in the neighborhood, which could further increase the IB population at Janney over the next several years.

that's absurd -- alley dwellers are not families -- they're almost uniformly singles or couples. . . I suspect there will be more AirBnB renters than residents anyway.

If you could rent an alley residence for the purpose of establishing residency you could just as easily rent a studio apartment IB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Zoning Board is likely to approve new regulations which could create backyard auxiliary dwelling units in much of DC, including AU Park and Tenleytown. Although there are arguments on both sides of this issue, the potential is there to create many alley cottages in the neighborhood, which could further increase the IB population at Janney over the next several years.

that's absurd -- alley dwellers are not families -- they're almost uniformly singles or couples. . . I suspect there will be more AirBnB renters than residents anyway.

If you could rent an alley residence for the purpose of establishing residency you could just as easily rent a studio apartment IB

Uh oh - people will build, move their nannies into them, and then the nannies children will be IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Zoning Board is likely to approve new regulations which could create backyard auxiliary dwelling units in much of DC, including AU Park and Tenleytown. Although there are arguments on both sides of this issue, the potential is there to create many alley cottages in the neighborhood, which could further increase the IB population at Janney over the next several years.

that's absurd -- alley dwellers are not families -- they're almost uniformly singles or couples. . . I suspect there will be more AirBnB renters than residents anyway.

If you could rent an alley residence for the purpose of establishing residency you could just as easily rent a studio apartment IB

Uh oh - people will build, move their nannies into them, and then the nannies children will be IB.

ADUs will not get matter-of-right approval in current R-1, SFH neighborhoods. PP upthread is being chicken little with regard to Office of Planning's eventual decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:aka grandparents whose grandchildren are suddenly living with them so they can go to Janney. New addresses are new addresses. It doesn't matter who they are "hoping" will buy them. Every unit has the potential to increase enrollment.

Out of morbid curiosity, I pulled out my most recent copy of the Janney directory to see how many Janney families lived in the Cityline apartments. It's a nice apartment building with an appealing location right across the street from what must be America's favorite elementary school. Do you know how many there were? Three. Yes, three. I'm not too concerned with GDS's building pulling in hoards of five-year-olds to Janney any time soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Zoning Board is likely to approve new regulations which could create backyard auxiliary dwelling units in much of DC, including AU Park and Tenleytown. Although there are arguments on both sides of this issue, the potential is there to create many alley cottages in the neighborhood, which could further increase the IB population at Janney over the next several years.

that's absurd -- alley dwellers are not families -- they're almost uniformly singles or couples. . . I suspect there will be more AirBnB renters than residents anyway.

If you could rent an alley residence for the purpose of establishing residency you could just as easily rent a studio apartment IB

Uh oh - people will build, move their nannies into them, and then the nannies children will be IB.

ADUs will not get matter-of-right approval in current R-1, SFH neighborhoods. PP upthread is being chicken little with regard to Office of Planning's eventual decision.

Not true. The current proposal before the zoning commission largely removes the special exception requirement and for the first time permits matter of right units in outbuildings like garages in R-1 zones. Up to three persons can live in the accessory dwelling unit. This could have a meaningful impact on density in AU Park and Tenleytown.

https://zoningdc.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/accessory-apartments.jpg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:aka grandparents whose grandchildren are suddenly living with them so they can go to Janney. New addresses are new addresses. It doesn't matter who they are "hoping" will buy them. Every unit has the potential to increase enrollment.

Out of morbid curiosity, I pulled out my most recent copy of the Janney directory to see how many Janney families lived in the Cityline apartments. It's a nice apartment building with an appealing location right across the street from what must be America's favorite elementary school. Do you know how many there were? Three. Yes, three. I'm not too concerned with GDS's building pulling in hoards of five-year-olds to Janney any time soon.

Thank you for this. I was talking with another Janney parent the other day who was telling me how awful the GDS development was because of the potential new families. I thought she was nuts and here's the evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Zoning Board is likely to approve new regulations which could create backyard auxiliary dwelling units in much of DC, including AU Park and Tenleytown. Although there are arguments on both sides of this issue, the potential is there to create many alley cottages in the neighborhood, which could further increase the IB population at Janney over the next several years.

that's absurd -- alley dwellers are not families -- they're almost uniformly singles or couples. . . I suspect there will be more AirBnB renters than residents anyway.

If you could rent an alley residence for the purpose of establishing residency you could just as easily rent a studio apartment IB

Uh oh - people will build, move their nannies into them, and then the nannies children will be IB.

ADUs will not get matter-of-right approval in current R-1, SFH neighborhoods. PP upthread is being chicken little with regard to Office of Planning's eventual decision.

Not true. The current proposal before the zoning commission largely removes the special exception requirement and for the first time permits matter of right units in outbuildings like garages in R-1 zones. Up to three persons can live in the accessory dwelling unit. This could have a meaningful impact on density in AU Park and Tenleytown.

https://zoningdc.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/accessory-apartments.jpg

I know it's been proposed. It won't go forward though. It's mainly there as a masturbatory ego move by Greater Greater Washington and for use as a bargaining chip by Ofc. Planning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Zoning Board is likely to approve new regulations which could create backyard auxiliary dwelling units in much of DC, including AU Park and Tenleytown. Although there are arguments on both sides of this issue, the potential is there to create many alley cottages in the neighborhood, which could further increase the IB population at Janney over the next several years.

that's absurd -- alley dwellers are not families -- they're almost uniformly singles or couples. . . I suspect there will be more AirBnB renters than residents anyway.

If you could rent an alley residence for the purpose of establishing residency you could just as easily rent a studio apartment IB

Uh oh - people will build, move their nannies into them, and then the nannies children will be IB.

ADUs will not get matter-of-right approval in current R-1, SFH neighborhoods. PP upthread is being chicken little with regard to Office of Planning's eventual decision.

Not true. The current proposal before the zoning commission largely removes the special exception requirement and for the first time permits matter of right units in outbuildings like garages in R-1 zones. Up to three persons can live in the accessory dwelling unit. This could have a meaningful impact on density in AU Park and Tenleytown.

https://zoningdc.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/accessory-apartments.jpg

I know it's been proposed. It won't go forward though. It's mainly there as a masturbatory ego move by Greater Greater Washington and for use as a bargaining chip by Ofc. Planning

This is in the final proposal. Unfortunately, I think it will go through and the impact over time on AU Park will be very noticeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:aka grandparents whose grandchildren are suddenly living with them so they can go to Janney. New addresses are new addresses. It doesn't matter who they are "hoping" will buy them. Every unit has the potential to increase enrollment.

Out of morbid curiosity, I pulled out my most recent copy of the Janney directory to see how many Janney families lived in the Cityline apartments. It's a nice apartment building with an appealing location right across the street from what must be America's favorite elementary school. Do you know how many there were? Three. Yes, three. I'm not too concerned with GDS's building pulling in hoards of five-year-olds to Janney any time soon.

Thank you for this. I was talking with another Janney parent the other day who was telling me how awful the GDS development was because of the potential new families. I thought she was nuts and here's the evidence.

Don't be so sure. It all depends on the final building configuration and the lease terms. People are renting efficiency apartments to be in-bounds for schools like Murch and Eaton. There are few multifamily buildings in the Janney district currently, and Janney is a higher ranked school. So the incentive for people to rent even sub-optimally sized units is there.