Why is the Foxhall Community Citizens Association scared of public school children?

[Anonymous]

As for Stoddert losing students, anecdotally it seems like most of the 'south glover park' families, will just rent an apartment for a couple months within the borders (and take that time to renovate their bathrooms). Plus, since nearly the entire stoddert area is within .5 mi, they also get automatic priority in the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I hesitate to make this point too directly, but you are mistaken about Stoddert’s engagement during the CWG process. Stoddert had a rep. She was engaged. Sadly, she started the fear-mongering based upon a silly, entirely nonsensical example map that DCPS never should have drawn and clearly distanced themselves from in short order. More sadly, her successor is pulling from the same playbook.

All I can without being too revealing is that there are emails involving Stoddert where much of what has happened and is happening was laid out in advance.

I’m not going to say I wish no one ill will. That’s nonsense: there are plenty of people I’d like to righteously smite. But the Stoddert CWG rep is not one of them. So I won’t say more. But if others keep trying to run with made-up narratives, I know who has the goods to lay it all out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

I was on the CWG, and I agree with almost everything you said.

"I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment)."

Bingo. What they were trying to demonstrate was that were enough existing DCPS students within a mile of the school to fill it.

"I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously." More specifically, the DCPS representatives kept saying, "this isn't the actual map, it's just an example." But the Stoddert reps refused to hear it.

"Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit." This is exactly the problem I have with what Frumin is saying. He gives the mayor an out to not build a new school, which she doesn't really want to do and is only doing to cover up what happened with Old Hardy.

"But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. " Agree completely.

"Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor)." Yep, nailed it.

" But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES. " This.

Now let add one more tidbit. At the first CWG meeting, we were asked to keep our discussions in the working group and off of social media. What was frustrating was there were two groups that essentially refused to engage in the process, refused to believe what knowledgeable people in the working group told them, refused to learn the facts themselves, and flew immediately onto social media spreading misinformation about the working group and what was being discussed. And that was the Stoddert reps and the Foxhall reps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

That's easy. The reason the school has to go at Hardy rec is that Bowser is trying to make up for the Old Hardy School deal. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment). Those who served on the CWG should speak up, but I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously. It's inconceivable that blocks so close to Stoddert would be shut out of the neighborhood school and it would be a shame if there are families that are opposing Foxhall ES for that reason and that reason only.

I don't think any self-interested person who currently lives in the Foxhall or Palisades would particularly mind a smaller Foxhall ES. A 300 student school (vs. a 550 student school) is not going to adversely affect anyone locally, at least not in the short-term. But I'm not sure Frumin is proposing exactly that. By my read, he is campaigning on finding an alternative to new construction beside Old Hardy and, in particular, DCPS recouping the Old Hardy building (and if this is wrong, I presume he will correct me). This is something that nearly everyone would prefer if it could be done. But it is something that nearly everyone - Cheh, the PCA, Keep Old Hardy Public etc. - tried to make happen and couldn't. Frumin hasn't explained - to be the best of my knowledge - why he thinks he could pull it off when those others couldn't. Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit.

But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor) and, when space constraints bind, DCPS directs WoTP schools to first cut Pre-K classrooms for IBs and then overcrowd the upper grades before cutting OOB slots. This is exactly what just happened at Hyde-Addison ES (PK3 was cut for IBs to add a third K classroom filled with OOBs). People concerned about the aesthetics of Foxhall Village and/or who don't want public school kids around their neighborhood don't want the new construction. But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES.

There is a whole lot that the mayor and DCPS does that causes me to gnash my teeth. But that's the context we have to optimize within.

I was on the CWG, and I agree with almost everything you said.

"I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment)."

Bingo. What they were trying to demonstrate was that were enough existing DCPS students within a mile of the school to fill it.

"I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously." More specifically, the DCPS representatives kept saying, "this isn't the actual map, it's just an example." But the Stoddert reps refused to hear it.

"Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit." This is exactly the problem I have with what Frumin is saying. He gives the mayor an out to not build a new school, which she doesn't really want to do and is only doing to cover up what happened with Old Hardy.

"But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. " Agree completely.

"Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor)." Yep, nailed it.

" But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES. " This.

Now let add one more tidbit. At the first CWG meeting, we were asked to keep our discussions in the working group and off of social media. What was frustrating was there were two groups that essentially refused to engage in the process, refused to believe what knowledgeable people in the working group told them, refused to learn the facts themselves, and flew immediately onto social media spreading misinformation about the working group and what was being discussed. And that was the Stoddert reps and the Foxhall reps.

I was also on the CWG. This is accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Foxhall ES and the MacArthur HS are not gift horses in mouths. They are an illconceived $100M boondoggle that will balkanize the students of the west side of town into their own quasi-private school funded by DC taxpayers.

Horrible planning an potential execution.

Period.

Do you really think that adding "Period." to the end of your screed will make them more authoritative? I can't quite tell whether you are an FCCA operative or one of those people who think that giving students across the city a better chance of attending good schools is a bad thing. In any case, you defy common sense. Both schools - if they are built to the sizes that are proposed (not what Frumin wants) - will do the exact opposite of what are you claiming they will do.

No, it would be a great thing but the reality is that kids won't be able to reliably get to this school on a timely basis daily via public transportation. It is an unviable location unless you live in Foxhall or Palisades. As a result, it will be a majority white, majority affluent enclave facility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

(I'm the previous GP poster, if it weren't obvious)
This is all very interesting, and a very credible response. I'm glad you say Foxhall/Palisades DCPS families will try to prevent the screwing over of Glover Park, but that will require trust; and I'm skeptical. I think you can see where my skepticism comes from: there was an entire process where Glover Park was ignored by CWG/DCPS/Cheh, and no one spoke up then. Where were these objections during the CWG process? Why didn't these families ask DCPS not to put forth, and defend, and justify the boundary? Where were they talking to Cheh, when Glover Park entreaties received absolute disregard? Without trust, the question is whether Frumin's plan for a smaller school at Foxhall and the possibility of ending up with no school is better than the status quo. Self-interestedly, I'd likely prefer sending my child to Stoddert (and MacArthur HS) than having to move because of these shenanigans.

(Slight note: Hyde-Addison isn't further afield than the Foxhall school. It's actually closer (or nearly the same) to that section of southern Glover Park than Foxhall! This is yet more gritting teeth with DCPS, and the reason they list the distance from Glover Park to Foxhall as the hike through the park rather than on roads children can walk! This was brought up so many times with the CWG and DCPS...)

Frumin has enough experience, I trust he'd be willing to settle for half a loaf. Is your argument against a smaller Foxhall school that more space will be needed there after families come to the Palisades? That's definitely valid, and leads me to at least think a larger school might be filled without needing to import Glover Park when the school opens.

Overall, DCPS's lack of planning (they never had too many students like this) is the problem. I hope there's space for more schools because they will be needed.

Hyde-Addison is far more accesible than the new school will be. It is simply a really bad location to try to attract students from anywhere beyond Foxhall and Palisades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

You do realize that the rush hour traffic runs in the opposite direction, right? And there are ample options to improve the accessibility of the area - such as restoring the Palisades Trolley Trail and putting in a bus only lane on Reservoir. The city has four years to sort these out, which is more than enough time.

Foxhall ES is not designed to be a school for the entire city. But it will reduce crowding at other elementary schools that are more accessible and increase options for children across the city to access better schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was on the CWG, and I agree with almost everything you said.

"I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment)."

Bingo. What they were trying to demonstrate was that were enough existing DCPS students within a mile of the school to fill it.

"I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously." More specifically, the DCPS representatives kept saying, "this isn't the actual map, it's just an example." But the Stoddert reps refused to hear it.

"Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit." This is exactly the problem I have with what Frumin is saying. He gives the mayor an out to not build a new school, which she doesn't really want to do and is only doing to cover up what happened with Old Hardy.

"But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. " Agree completely.

"Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor)." Yep, nailed it.

" But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES. " This.

Now let add one more tidbit. At the first CWG meeting, we were asked to keep our discussions in the working group and off of social media. What was frustrating was there were two groups that essentially refused to engage in the process, refused to believe what knowledgeable people in the working group told them, refused to learn the facts themselves, and flew immediately onto social media spreading misinformation about the working group and what was being discussed. And that was the Stoddert reps and the Foxhall reps.

Was attempted confidentiality a good idea?

I can't speak about the Stoddert rep (because I don't know, and didn't hear from them), but your defense of the CWG rings hollow to me. View it from Glover Park's perspective: the CWG is told to keep the meetings private. There's no representative for Glover Park (Stoddert is not Glover Park, no ANC member despite other ANCs being there). DCPS proposes, or provides as an example, boundaries that the new school will split Glover Park, and be made up of ~40% Glover Park kids. Glover Park hears about this and demands representation. Cheh finally asks for/provides it after the decisions have been narrowed down to those that in the CWG's own materials, split Glover Park.

What you insist were only example boundaries were defended and justified by multiple DCPS representatives at every meeting Glover Park could attend. The necessity of these borders was emphasized every time, otherwise there wouldn't be enough kids to fill the school. To me (and clearly to the rest of GP), calling it an example sounded like a fig leaf to divert attention. Especially because the boundaries had been proposed and decisions made before GP had representation on the CWG. And this came after DCPS mysteriously pulled funding for the Stoddert expansion (which is now back, though smaller).

Check slide 17 from the last CWG meeting that are online.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1p2opcZs6ZzD9ohhrfAJ_Cm_PDuNRTMKn
Or directly
https://ibb.co/KKp621X

The very first challenge/concern is the boundary change to Stoddert. (Again with the hiking measurement rather than an honest route via roads.) The second advantage/benefit is the Glover Park kids who will have to leave Stoddert. The decisions are made based on those boundaries, whatever we may call them. In fairness, the boundary is also the first implementation consideration, but they already took that into account when they provided, defended, and forced the boundary earlier. That's why Slide 31 shows the meeting with the Stoddert community had the highest attendance (and slide 34 shows the same concerns, and the survey results). The CWG and DCPS had time to think about other boundaries, but the entire proposal is based on the ones already provided.

What's annoying to me is that I agree with the previous posters about the necessity building more schools. I'm sure overall we'd agree on the Ward 3 school situation 98% of the time. But we disagree on attempting to solve the issue by splitting Glover Park. Solomonic, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

You do realize that the rush hour traffic runs in the opposite direction, right? And there are ample options to improve the accessibility of the area - such as restoring the Palisades Trolley Trail and putting in a bus only lane on Reservoir. The city has four years to sort these out, which is more than enough time.

Foxhall ES is not designed to be a school for the entire city. But it will reduce crowding at other elementary schools that are more accessible and increase options for children across the city to access better schools.

What kid is going to ride their bike from Ward 7 or 8 with a full backpack and a musical instrument, each way all year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I think the NIMBYs in foxhall are silly; we do need more schools and the new high school in that location immediately relieves Jackson-Reed by diverting rich families from Jackson-Reed and opening up room there. But Hardy rec is one of the least accessible sites in the city. Why not build another school in Volta Park, Jelleff, Guy Mason, Newark, Forest Hills, or Turtle Park. They Key/Mann axis is the least overcrowded part of Ward 3. A new school at guy mason or jelleff wouldn't annoy the stoddert parents. This site is some suburban no-mans land. There is a reason GDS got rid of their white elephant over there.

All of this. The Foxhall location is just bad bad bad. And no, I am not a Foxhall NIMBY. People simply won't be able to get there reasonable during Rush Hour.

You do realize that the rush hour traffic runs in the opposite direction, right? And there are ample options to improve the accessibility of the area - such as restoring the Palisades Trolley Trail and putting in a bus only lane on Reservoir. The city has four years to sort these out, which is more than enough time.

Foxhall ES is not designed to be a school for the entire city. But it will reduce crowding at other elementary schools that are more accessible and increase options for children across the city to access better schools.

Better solution....buy Lab out of their lease and set them up somewhere else and expand the Old Hardy school into a new Foxhall ES. It is what should have been done years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was on the CWG, and I agree with almost everything you said.

"I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment)."

Bingo. What they were trying to demonstrate was that were enough existing DCPS students within a mile of the school to fill it.

"I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously." More specifically, the DCPS representatives kept saying, "this isn't the actual map, it's just an example." But the Stoddert reps refused to hear it.

"Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit." This is exactly the problem I have with what Frumin is saying. He gives the mayor an out to not build a new school, which she doesn't really want to do and is only doing to cover up what happened with Old Hardy.

"But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. " Agree completely.

"Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor)." Yep, nailed it.

" But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES. " This.

Now let add one more tidbit. At the first CWG meeting, we were asked to keep our discussions in the working group and off of social media. What was frustrating was there were two groups that essentially refused to engage in the process, refused to believe what knowledgeable people in the working group told them, refused to learn the facts themselves, and flew immediately onto social media spreading misinformation about the working group and what was being discussed. And that was the Stoddert reps and the Foxhall reps.

Was attempted confidentiality a good idea?

I can't speak about the Stoddert rep (because I don't know, and didn't hear from them), but your defense of the CWG rings hollow to me. View it from Glover Park's perspective: the CWG is told to keep the meetings private. There's no representative for Glover Park (Stoddert is not Glover Park, no ANC member despite other ANCs being there). DCPS proposes, or provides as an example, boundaries that the new school will split Glover Park, and be made up of ~40% Glover Park kids. Glover Park hears about this and demands representation. Cheh finally asks for/provides it after the decisions have been narrowed down to those that in the CWG's own materials, split Glover Park.

What you insist were only example boundaries were defended and justified by multiple DCPS representatives at every meeting Glover Park could attend. The necessity of these borders was emphasized every time, otherwise there wouldn't be enough kids to fill the school. To me (and clearly to the rest of GP), calling it an example sounded like a fig leaf to divert attention. Especially because the boundaries had been proposed and decisions made before GP had representation on the CWG. And this came after DCPS mysteriously pulled funding for the Stoddert expansion (which is now back, though smaller).

Check slide 17 from the last CWG meeting that are online.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1p2opcZs6ZzD9ohhrfAJ_Cm_PDuNRTMKn
Or directly
https://ibb.co/KKp621X

The very first challenge/concern is the boundary change to Stoddert. (Again with the hiking measurement rather than an honest route via roads.) The second advantage/benefit is the Glover Park kids who will have to leave Stoddert. The decisions are made based on those boundaries, whatever we may call them. In fairness, the boundary is also the first implementation consideration, but they already took that into account when they provided, defended, and forced the boundary earlier. That's why Slide 31 shows the meeting with the Stoddert community had the highest attendance (and slide 34 shows the same concerns, and the survey results). The CWG and DCPS had time to think about other boundaries, but the entire proposal is based on the ones already provided.

What's annoying to me is that I agree with the previous posters about the necessity building more schools. I'm sure overall we'd agree on the Ward 3 school situation 98% of the time. But we disagree on attempting to solve the issue by splitting Glover Park. Solomonic, eh?

There is room and opportunity to expand Stoddert. That should be the priority for Glover Park. Asking families to drive to a Foxhall ES is a ridiculous waste of resources.