Low In Boundary at Hearst?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ranting poster above should recognize that 1) her kids will do just as well in life whether they go to M or H 2) H is growing very quickly in popularity like Ross did and it is good city planning to expand the boundaries. 3) everyone knows that school boundaries can be changed and they have been postulating moving Hearst boundaries for years now. No surprise there.

Out of all the families across the city that could have a beef with the DME proposals, the Murch --> Hearst families have the weakest case.

[Anonymous]

^^ . I think Murch, Janney and Hearst families would all be better served in this process by focusing on the higher stakes issues of keeping MS and HS feeder patterns intact rather than in-fighting about overall great elementary options within the neighborhood

That said the janney and Murch current family and current homeowner arguments for grandfathering and phasing in boundary shift as housing stock turns over seems very reasonable. Maybe there is even an option for families to claim an IB spot at Murch/Janney OR Hearst during a multi-year transition.

As new facilities come online, test scores continue to rise money is on more neighborhood families seriously considering the benefits of Hearst including the overall smaller school environment. Also the potential addition of a PK3 class in 2015-16 is likely to draw neighborhood interest

You can see this effect with this years PK4 lottery results already - 25 out of 38 spots to IB families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ . I think Murch, Janney and Hearst families would all be better served in this process by focusing on the higher stakes issues of keeping MS and HS feeder patterns intact rather than in-fighting about overall great elementary options within the neighborhood

That said the janney and Murch current family and current homeowner arguments for grandfathering and phasing in boundary shift as housing stock turns over seems very reasonable. Maybe there is even an option for families to claim an IB spot at Murch/Janney OR Hearst during a multi-year transition.

As new facilities come online, test scores continue to rise money is on more neighborhood families seriously considering the benefits of Hearst including the overall smaller school environment. Also the potential addition of a PK3 class in 2015-16 is likely to draw neighborhood interest

You can see this effect with this years PK4 lottery results already - 25 out of 38 spots to IB families.

I think that they should let anyone in-bounds for Murch or Janney choose Hearst as an option to relieve overcrowding as opposed to moving the boundary to within 2 blocks of Murch. I think that some families would prefer the smaller class size and diversity at Hearst, plus it does not force people who would walk to school to now have to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranting poster above should recognize that 1) her kids will do just as well in life whether they go to M or H 2) H is growing very quickly in popularity like Ross did and it is good city planning to expand the boundaries. 3) everyone knows that school boundaries can be changed and they have been postulating moving Hearst boundaries for years now. No surprise there.

Out of all the families across the city that could have a beef with the DME proposals, the Murch --> Hearst families have the weakest case.

Hearst is a fine school, but it is bad city planning to turn 50-75 Murch walkers into 50-75 Hearst drivers. Does anyone really want more cars all trying to turn left on Reno after drop off every morning during the commute? Think about it. This impacts more than schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranting poster above should recognize that 1) her kids will do just as well in life whether they go to M or H 2) H is growing very quickly in popularity like Ross did and it is good city planning to expand the boundaries. 3) everyone knows that school boundaries can be changed and they have been postulating moving Hearst boundaries for years now. No surprise there.

Out of all the families across the city that could have a beef with the DME proposals, the Murch --> Hearst families have the weakest case.

Hearst is a fine school, but it is bad city planning to turn 50-75 Murch walkers into 50-75 Hearst drivers. Does anyone really want more cars all trying to turn left on Reno after drop off every morning during the commute? Think about it. This impacts more than schools.

As someone who lives near the northern edge of the Hearst boundary, certainly for a few blocks you would still be walkers, or could be. Murch, quite frankly, is close to Hearst. But I get that your walk (or the future you's walk) would be farther, especially for those very close to Murch, and I'd be annoyed by that too. I don't think it will be that compelling an argument for the boundary process, but it is a perfectly reasonable one to make.

My bet is that in the end they move the boundary shift back down to say Albemarle or Alton, and then turn around and move the Hearst border north on the other side of Connecticut. Either way, Murch's size is not sustainable. Similarly, I suspect that they will keep the small piece of Janney near that school at Janney, and instead shift a portion on the other side of Wisconsin. I feel a little for the boundary planners. Murch and Janney have boundaries that are a little "pie-shaped" with the wide part near the DC/MD border and the points close together; and it is the points that are the ones close to Hearst, hence switching families that are close to the other schools.

As far as the impact on traffic goes, again I suspect that many families in those areas will still walk or not have to drive far, and in contrast, fewer OOB families will be driving across the park. On net, traffic in the city will be improved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranting poster above should recognize that 1) her kids will do just as well in life whether they go to M or H 2) H is growing very quickly in popularity like Ross did and it is good city planning to expand the boundaries. 3) everyone knows that school boundaries can be changed and they have been postulating moving Hearst boundaries for years now. No surprise there.

Out of all the families across the city that could have a beef with the DME proposals, the Murch --> Hearst families have the weakest case.

Hearst is a fine school, but it is bad city planning to turn 50-75 Murch walkers into 50-75 Hearst drivers. Does anyone really want more cars all trying to turn left on Reno after drop off every morning during the commute? Think about it. This impacts more than schools.

As someone who lives near the northern edge of the Hearst boundary, certainly for a few blocks you would still be walkers, or could be. Murch, quite frankly, is close to Hearst. But I get that your walk (or the future you's walk) would be farther, especially for those very close to Murch, and I'd be annoyed by that too. I don't think it will be that compelling an argument for the boundary process, but it is a perfectly reasonable one to make.

My bet is that in the end they move the boundary shift back down to say Albemarle or Alton, and then turn around and move the Hearst border north on the other side of Connecticut. Either way, Murch's size is not sustainable. Similarly, I suspect that they will keep the small piece of Janney near that school at Janney, and instead shift a portion on the other side of Wisconsin. I feel a little for the boundary planners. Murch and Janney have boundaries that are a little "pie-shaped" with the wide part near the DC/MD border and the points close together; and it is the points that are the ones close to Hearst, hence switching families that are close to the other schools.

As far as the impact on traffic goes, again I suspect that many families in those areas will still walk or not have to drive far, and in contrast, fewer OOB families will be driving across the park. On net, traffic in the city will be improved.

Families with little ones are not going to walk from Alton to Hearst. And I wouldn't let my 5th grader walk alone that stretch because of the Reno traffic and few lights (but I would from Alton to Murch). If you want to shrink Murch it makes more sense to shift the northern border to send more to Lafayette. Growing Hearst is trickier but I agree with PP that making it a choice rather than a forced move is better for the community. A lot of people on Yuma, Alton, etc. bought there to go to Murch and we are mad to have the rug pulled from under us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranting poster above should recognize that 1) her kids will do just as well in life whether they go to M or H 2) H is growing very quickly in popularity like Ross did and it is good city planning to expand the boundaries. 3) everyone knows that school boundaries can be changed and they have been postulating moving Hearst boundaries for years now. No surprise there.

Out of all the families across the city that could have a beef with the DME proposals, the Murch --> Hearst families have the weakest case.

Hearst is a fine school, but it is bad city planning to turn 50-75 Murch walkers into 50-75 Hearst drivers. Does anyone really want more cars all trying to turn left on Reno after drop off every morning during the commute? Think about it. This impacts more than schools.

As someone who lives near the northern edge of the Hearst boundary, certainly for a few blocks you would still be walkers, or could be. Murch, quite frankly, is close to Hearst. But I get that your walk (or the future you's walk) would be farther, especially for those very close to Murch, and I'd be annoyed by that too. I don't think it will be that compelling an argument for the boundary process, but it is a perfectly reasonable one to make.

My bet is that in the end they move the boundary shift back down to say Albemarle or Alton, and then turn around and move the Hearst border north on the other side of Connecticut. Either way, Murch's size is not sustainable. Similarly, I suspect that they will keep the small piece of Janney near that school at Janney, and instead shift a portion on the other side of Wisconsin. I feel a little for the boundary planners. Murch and Janney have boundaries that are a little "pie-shaped" with the wide part near the DC/MD border and the points close together; and it is the points that are the ones close to Hearst, hence switching families that are close to the other schools.

As far as the impact on traffic goes, again I suspect that many families in those areas will still walk or not have to drive far, and in contrast, fewer OOB families will be driving across the park. On net, traffic in the city will be improved.

Families with little ones are not going to walk from Alton to Hearst. And I wouldn't let my 5th grader walk alone that stretch because of the Reno traffic and few lights (but I would from Alton to Murch). If you want to shrink Murch it makes more sense to shift the northern border to send more to Lafayette. Growing Hearst is trickier but I agree with PP that making it a choice rather than a forced move is better for the community. A lot of people on Yuma, Alton, etc. bought there to go to Murch and we are mad to have the rug pulled from under us.

I was the PP that stated I fully agree with the grandfathering, etc but also just want to point out that we walked with our 4 yr old from Yuma (south side of Yuma is Hearst, north is janney or Murch ) and it was fine - 7 1/2 blocks. Alton would be one block further. Not disagreeing with your points about not liking the change or the fact that Alton to Hearst is a bit Further than Alton to Murch. Just pointing out there are parts of the Murch (and janney for that matter) boundary that would in fact still be quite walkable to Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranting poster above should recognize that 1) her kids will do just as well in life whether they go to M or H 2) H is growing very quickly in popularity like Ross did and it is good city planning to expand the boundaries. 3) everyone knows that school boundaries can be changed and they have been postulating moving Hearst boundaries for years now. No surprise there.

Out of all the families across the city that could have a beef with the DME proposals, the Murch --> Hearst families have the weakest case.

Hearst is a fine school, but it is bad city planning to turn 50-75 Murch walkers into 50-75 Hearst drivers. Does anyone really want more cars all trying to turn left on Reno after drop off every morning during the commute? Think about it. This impacts more than schools.

As someone who lives near the northern edge of the Hearst boundary, certainly for a few blocks you would still be walkers, or could be. Murch, quite frankly, is close to Hearst. But I get that your walk (or the future you's walk) would be farther, especially for those very close to Murch, and I'd be annoyed by that too. I don't think it will be that compelling an argument for the boundary process, but it is a perfectly reasonable one to make.

My bet is that in the end they move the boundary shift back down to say Albemarle or Alton, and then turn around and move the Hearst border north on the other side of Connecticut. Either way, Murch's size is not sustainable. Similarly, I suspect that they will keep the small piece of Janney near that school at Janney, and instead shift a portion on the other side of Wisconsin. I feel a little for the boundary planners. Murch and Janney have boundaries that are a little "pie-shaped" with the wide part near the DC/MD border and the points close together; and it is the points that are the ones close to Hearst, hence switching families that are close to the other schools.

As far as the impact on traffic goes, again I suspect that many families in those areas will still walk or not have to drive far, and in contrast, fewer OOB families will be driving across the park. On net, traffic in the city will be improved.

Families with little ones are not going to walk from Alton to Hearst. And I wouldn't let my 5th grader walk alone that stretch because of the Reno traffic and few lights (but I would from Alton to Murch). If you want to shrink Murch it makes more sense to shift the northern border to send more to Lafayette. Growing Hearst is trickier but I agree with PP that making it a choice rather than a forced move is better for the community. A lot of people on Yuma, Alton, etc. bought there to go to Murch and we are mad to have the rug pulled from under us.

I walk with a preschool kid (who walks... well most of the time) from the Tenleytown metro to Hearst, not quite as far North but farther west. It will be just fine.

If you think that shifting Murch to Lafayette would make sense but Murch to Hearst would not, what is the basis or principles are you using for such a shift? And how would shift kids from one overcrowded school to another any help to the system?

[Anonymous]

^^. Exactly. Moving kids from Murch to Lafayette really makes no sense to me. And the commute traffic issues are much worse going east to west (Murch - Lafayette) vs north to south (Murch - Hearst).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^. Exactly. Moving kids from Murch to Lafayette really makes no sense to me. And the commute traffic issues are much worse going east to west (Murch - Lafayette) vs north to south (Murch - Hearst).

PP here - I personally would not move anyone. I would renovate Murch for the capacity it needs and leave well enough alone with the boundaries....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ranting poster above should recognize that 1) her kids will do just as well in life whether they go to M or H 2) H is growing very quickly in popularity like Ross did and it is good city planning to expand the boundaries. 3) everyone knows that school boundaries can be changed and they have been postulating moving Hearst boundaries for years now. No surprise there.

Out of all the families across the city that could have a beef with the DME proposals, the Murch --> Hearst families have the weakest case.

THIS!

[Anonymous]

This thread needs to end. The OP has received the info she requested, now the thread has dissolved into yet another discussion on boundaries and feeder patterns and the poor parents of Murch.

[Anonymous]

Mine is just one opinion from the Murch to Hearst crowd but here it is...

As of today we are in bounds for Murch. To go to Hearst we need to walk near Janney to get there. And the walk would go from 4 blocks to just under a mile (thank you google maps) with another walk for me to the metro.

I was upset about this for about 2 days. Then I got over it. What helped was the petition circulating to upgrade Murch and the overcrowding there (although if we get another polar vortex I'm not going to be happy about the walking!)

I'm still voting for Catania and I still hope that the boundary doesn't move so far, but if it does it will be fine.

My husband is the delusional one...he keeps hoping we get rezoned for Janney because it's on top of the metro!

[Anonymous]

If you don't want to discuss don't read.

Hearst proposed boundaries isn't just the A streets. They go to the C Streets. So you are looking at families which were two blocks from their neighborhood school to now being 12+ blocks from their school. That is odd.

I wish the Hearst parents would let go of the "we have a great school" line. No one is saying Hearst is bad but rather what in the hell are you moving the kids who love closest to Murch out of Murch?

[Anonymous]

This is actually a good idea:

A council staffer told me that it is unlikely now that any school will be forced to switch from Deal to Hardy. What is likely is that Hardy will be an option along with Deal for more schools, as it currently is for John Eaton and perhaps others. The thought is that Hardy will have a chance to "sell" its program -- smaller enrollment, perhaps distinguishing curricular features,etc. -- but no one in a home currently zoned for Deal will be forced to take Hardy. It's more of a "free market competition" model than a "socialist planned economy' model. This seems to be a fair and sensible solution.