Overcrowded Schools

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Here's one: Amidon-Bowen. It's not overcrowded now, but 82% of the kids there are from in-boundary, and its current boundary has literally thousands of housing units under construction. They had to add a 3rd section of 2nd graders this year and take over classrooms that had been used by Appletree. PK3 and PK4 had waitlists including in-bounds students (not sure how much these waitlists cleared after the second round of the lottery) and since it's a Title 1 school, all the in-bound families would have a right to attend PK there in 2015-6. Shrinking its boundaries was a good choice because it prevents overcrowding and allowed for a school to open in the Navy Yard area.

Thank you. I don't know a thing about this school so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

[Anonymous]

"Obviously the situation at Deal and Wilson is unsustainable. Did that account for most of the drive behind the boundary assignments?"

No, my understanding (going back at least to the Fenty administration and my guess is to the Williams administration) is that the boundary issue was raised due to the (financial) need to close the many underused schools in other parts of town, and to then to figure out how to restructure boundaries to best fit the children into the remaining schools. The overcrowding in NWDC is a newer phenomenon that resulted from a min-baby boom + recession and parents being priced out of privates + growing interest in staying in the city to avoid long commutes.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Help me then, what implications do you draw. There is, IIUC, a massive overcrowding problem at Wilson. That means redrawing Wilson boundaries, with knock on effects on hgih schools across the district. There is IIUC a massive overcrowding problem at Deal, which means redrawing Deal - the knock on effects of that, combined with general dissatisfaction with EC's means considerable change to MS boundaries. Elementary boundaries are being changed mostly for reasons unrelated to overcrowding, AFAICT - for walkability, to simplify feeder patterns, etc.

In which case the lack of schools on the list has NO implication for the necessity of these changes. Do you agree?

I identified Wilson, Deal and Murch as examples of schools whose overcrowding problems were addressed by the final recommendations in my very first post on this thread. If that is the entire list (which is not the case because two more examples have been added), then the new plan is not addressing wide-spread overcrowding, but rather overcrowding in very few schools. It does seem that this is the case, even with the expanded five member list of schools. Your argument appears to agree with this, but offer a justification.

So, the main implication I draw -- just be clear -- is that the final recommendations only address over-crowding problems at Wilson, Deal, Murch, Stoddert, and Amidon-Bowen (and one poster has made a fairly convincing argument that Stoddert should not be included). Given the prominence of overcrowding as a justification for the boundary and feeder changes, it seems a little underwhelming. A cynical person -- not me because I haven't a single cynical cell in my body -- might be led to believe that overcrowding was hyped in much the same manner as WMDs in the Iraq invasion. Let's hope that's where the comparison ends.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, the main implication I draw -- just be clear -- is that the final recommendations only address over-crowding problems at Wilson, Deal, Murch, Stoddert, and Amidon-Bowen (and one poster has made a fairly convincing argument that Stoddert should not be included). Given the prominence of overcrowding as a justification for the boundary and feeder changes, it seems a little underwhelming. A cynical person -- not me because I haven't a single cynical cell in my body -- might be led to believe that overcrowding was hyped in much the same manner as WMDs in the Iraq invasion. Let's hope that's where the comparison ends.

Except Wilson HS educates a very high percentage of DC high school students. Deal educates a smaller, but still substantial proportion of DC middle schoolers. And both are among the most sought after schools in their categories in DC (which is why being cut out of them is a big deal. So if its only Wilson and Deal, that hardly is underwhelming - its important to the future of DCPS. And of course DME has hardly attempted to hide the other reasons for the change.

Also note, ovecrowding at Wilson and Deal can be easily verified. It does not rely on a few informants of questionable veracity. So a better parallel might be needed. I would say health care is one - it could be (and I believe was) claimed that ACA only benefited a small number of people who actually had issues getting insured due to pre-existing conditions. But those folks were real, were important, and there were also many other reasons to do it that the admin repeatedly pointed out.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Help me then, what implications do you draw. There is, IIUC, a massive overcrowding problem at Wilson. That means redrawing Wilson boundaries, with knock on effects on hgih schools across the district. There is IIUC a massive overcrowding problem at Deal, which means redrawing Deal - the knock on effects of that, combined with general dissatisfaction with EC's means considerable change to MS boundaries. Elementary boundaries are being changed mostly for reasons unrelated to overcrowding, AFAICT - for walkability, to simplify feeder patterns, etc.

In which case the lack of schools on the list has NO implication for the necessity of these changes. Do you agree?

I identified Wilson, Deal and Murch as examples of schools whose overcrowding problems were addressed by the final recommendations in my very first post on this thread. If that is the entire list (which is not the case because two more examples have been added), then the new plan is not addressing wide-spread overcrowding, but rather overcrowding in very few schools. It does seem that this is the case, even with the expanded five member list of schools. Your argument appears to agree with this, but offer a justification.

So, the main implication I draw -- just be clear -- is that the final recommendations only address over-crowding problems at Wilson, Deal, Murch, Stoddert, and Amidon-Bowen (and one poster has made a fairly convincing argument that Stoddert should not be included). Given the prominence of overcrowding as a justification for the boundary and feeder changes, it seems a little underwhelming. A cynical person -- not me because I haven't a single cynical cell in my body -- might be led to believe that overcrowding was hyped in much the same manner as WMDs in the Iraq invasion. Let's hope that's where the comparison ends.

I think you're making a PP's point here; you're looking for ways to discredit the need the boundary changes. Even if it were just these five schools that are overcrowded, throw in the need to stack the feeder patterns so they make sense and alleviate the EC mess in W4 and W5..that is more than enough justification for this process.

[Anonymous]

And note - IIUC the changes to middle school boundaries are due not only to the Deal overcrowding issue, but to a decision to demphasize EC's. The combination means many changes, including the new middle schools EOTP. So wrt to MS's the overcrowding can't really be seperated from other changes.

[Anonymous]

If I were a cynical person I'd say this fake meme is a way to drum up page views!

[Anonymous]

If there are 5 schools that were overcrowded, the goal was to solve overcrowding, and the plan does so, then the plan is a success. You might not like the plan--heaven knows you don't, and as someone whose neighborhood was also kicked out of Wilson I don't either--but it solved the problem. And overcrowding isn't a made-up problem, even if it only affects a few schools. Any money spent on trailers in Upper NW is money that can't be spent on kids with fewer advantages.

There was a second problem DME explicitly wanted to address, and she mentioned it throughout the process: the fact that some neighborhoods had rights to multiple schools or to one school via feeder pattern and a different one via neighborhood (Shepherd Park with Wilson and Coolidge; parts of SE and SW with Eastern and Wilson). That problem was also solved.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's one: Amidon-Bowen. It's not overcrowded now, but 82% of the kids there are from in-boundary, and its current boundary has literally thousands of housing units under construction. They had to add a 3rd section of 2nd graders this year and take over classrooms that had been used by Appletree. PK3 and PK4 had waitlists including in-bounds students (not sure how much these waitlists cleared after the second round of the lottery) and since it's a Title 1 school, all the in-bound families would have a right to attend PK there in 2015-6. Shrinking its boundaries was a good choice because it prevents overcrowding and allowed for a school to open in the Navy Yard area.

Thank you. I don't know a thing about this school so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

They shrunk Amidon's boundaries so that they would have enough kids to make Van Ness viable (says so quite clearly in the dme report). Regardless, any growth at amidon is probably due to more competition for oob/charter spots and people having to give up and go their inbound school. Let's be honest, the navy yard was never going to make amidon overenrolled, since nobody would have sent their kids there in the first place. Amidon's high in-bound rate is purely a function of all the public housing in the neighborhood, nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's one: Amidon-Bowen. It's not overcrowded now, but 82% of the kids there are from in-boundary, and its current boundary has literally thousands of housing units under construction. They had to add a 3rd section of 2nd graders this year and take over classrooms that had been used by Appletree. PK3 and PK4 had waitlists including in-bounds students (not sure how much these waitlists cleared after the second round of the lottery) and since it's a Title 1 school, all the in-bound families would have a right to attend PK there in 2015-6. Shrinking its boundaries was a good choice because it prevents overcrowding and allowed for a school to open in the Navy Yard area.

Thank you. I don't know a thing about this school so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

They shrunk Amidon's boundaries so that they would have enough kids to make Van Ness viable (says so quite clearly in the dme report). Regardless, any growth at amidon is probably due to more competition for oob/charter spots and people having to give up and go their inbound school. Let's be honest, the navy yard was never going to make amidon overenrolled, since nobody would have sent their kids there in the first place. Amidon's high in-bound rate is purely a function of all the public housing in the neighborhood, nothing else.

Regardless of what reasons the DME gave, Amidon is filling up and this plan keeps it from getting over-full. Even if Amidon is not everyone's first choice, there are enough kids enrolling that shrinking the boundary prevented overcrowding, which was the question asked. It will be worth seeing how many kids stay past the early grades and how test scores move in the next few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's one: Amidon-Bowen. It's not overcrowded now, but 82% of the kids there are from in-boundary, and its current boundary has literally thousands of housing units under construction. They had to add a 3rd section of 2nd graders this year and take over classrooms that had been used by Appletree. PK3 and PK4 had waitlists including in-bounds students (not sure how much these waitlists cleared after the second round of the lottery) and since it's a Title 1 school, all the in-bound families would have a right to attend PK there in 2015-6. Shrinking its boundaries was a good choice because it prevents overcrowding and allowed for a school to open in the Navy Yard area.

Thank you. I don't know a thing about this school so I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

They shrunk Amidon's boundaries so that they would have enough kids to make Van Ness viable (says so quite clearly in the dme report). Regardless, any growth at amidon is probably due to more competition for oob/charter spots and people having to give up and go their inbound school. Let's be honest, the navy yard was never going to make amidon overenrolled, since nobody would have sent their kids there in the first place. Amidon's high in-bound rate is purely a function of all the public housing in the neighborhood, nothing else.

Regardless of what reasons the DME gave, Amidon is filling up and this plan keeps it from getting over-full. Even if Amidon is not everyone's first choice, there are enough kids enrolling that shrinking the boundary prevented overcrowding, which was the question asked. It will be worth seeing how many kids stay past the early grades and how test scores move in the next few years.

Wasn't it not even 10 years ago that they shut down Bowen, and combined the 2 schools because they were underenrolled with almost the exact same boundaries? I would suspect that this will end up creating 2 underenrolled title 1 schools where the middle to high ses families will seek out other alternatives (i.e. no change from the status quo). I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to have 2 schools for this general area or what the right answer for either of those neighborhoods is, but trying to say that this proposal fixed an overcrowding issue at Amidon is ridiculous. If anything it will hurt the school, since there will be less students there, which equals less money/resources, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch is overcrowded. Three new class sections were added this year in order to avoid having class sizes exceeding 30 students per room. New trailers were brought onto the property and placed on the bluetop and in the staff parking. Staff parking went from 45 parking spaces to 15. Arrangements are still being made to find parking in the neighborhood for the staff.

The Murch property is one small block with no room to expand into additional parcels. Part of that block is actually National Park Service land and so building on it may be problematic. Expanding beyond the current footprint would necessarily take away staff parking and/or playground space. So, more students, more staff, less parking and smaller playground.

Murch is overcrowded.

Can you clarify in which grades? The lowest grades seem to be in much better shape, however I am not fully aware of the situation.

This year, there are 3 PK classes, 5 classes each of K, 1st, and 2nd, and 4 classes each of 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The three new classes are one each of K, 1, and 2.

As mentioned before, Murch also has a city-wide autism program, and I believe we have also added a new autism PK class this year.

The school feels so much more crowded compared to last year, with the new trailers (there were already quite a few, but the new ones take up most of the parking lot and part of the play area). I believe the entire 4th and 5th grades are now in trailers. We got an email from the school asking people not to drive to school if at all possible, because parking will be tighter in the neighborhood due to the loss of the staff parking lot.

As a PP mentioned, there are almost no OOB students in the lower grades. The growth in enrollment, and the addition of new classes, is because of growth of IB demand.

A 5th grade parent last year told me more than 90% of the 5th grade was going on to Deal.

Few other things. Don't you think that five classes per grade is too big for an elementary school? With kids in the older grades as well as younger I still see children who I've never seen before and we've been there 5 years+. It is insane.

Secondly as someone mentioned our enrollment is expected to increase mainly because the apartment buildings along Connecticut provide a more affordable way for people to get in a decent school district. Which gives us some diversity. Also, we have a fair number of embassies who have rotating staff so children come and go every few years. Again - great for diversity and International Night - hard for planning. Hopefully, other schools will improve across the city and relieve the crush on Murch and other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murch is very overcrowded, but it's slated for expansion, which might address the issue. Janney just finished its second expansion and is over-capacity upon opening. There was a lot of static from Janney families whose houses would have been moved into Hearst and the advisory committee made up an expected enrollment number that is low by about 10 percent even in the first year, and said there was no need for redrawing boundaries. Thats what happens when you have an advisory committee made up with people with aspirations for higher office.

This is a misconception. Murch's renovation now is needed simply to bring up to code the space for the amount of children who are enrolled. We would need to almost triple the size of the school to fit in the students. Murch will not have additional space and given the constraints of most of our land being NPS - we are not even sure we can renovate to properly fit our current enrollment. We really need our boundaries redrawn!

[Anonymous]

I can't address the overcrowding issue, as you've framed it, but a significant issue that affected my neighborhood was addressed by the new boundary plan.

I live in Bloomingdale. After the Gage-Eckington school was closed and demolished, some parts of the neighborhood (including my family) were in-boundary for Garrison AND Langley elementary schools. Other parts of the neighborhood were in-boundary for Seaton AND Langley.

A working group for our neighborhood requested that the DME keep the neighborhood together and assign it to a single school.

The plan assigns the whole neighborhood to Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch is overcrowded. Three new class sections were added this year in order to avoid having class sizes exceeding 30 students per room. New trailers were brought onto the property and placed on the bluetop and in the staff parking. Staff parking went from 45 parking spaces to 15. Arrangements are still being made to find parking in the neighborhood for the staff.

The Murch property is one small block with no room to expand into additional parcels. Part of that block is actually National Park Service land and so building on it may be problematic. Expanding beyond the current footprint would necessarily take away staff parking and/or playground space. So, more students, more staff, less parking and smaller playground.

Murch is overcrowded.

Can you clarify in which grades? The lowest grades seem to be in much better shape, however I am not fully aware of the situation.

This year, there are 3 PK classes, 5 classes each of K, 1st, and 2nd, and 4 classes each of 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The three new classes are one each of K, 1, and 2.

As mentioned before, Murch also has a city-wide autism program, and I believe we have also added a new autism PK class this year.

The school feels so much more crowded compared to last year, with the new trailers (there were already quite a few, but the new ones take up most of the parking lot and part of the play area). I believe the entire 4th and 5th grades are now in trailers. We got an email from the school asking people not to drive to school if at all possible, because parking will be tighter in the neighborhood due to the loss of the staff parking lot.

As a PP mentioned, there are almost no OOB students in the lower grades. The growth in enrollment, and the addition of new classes, is because of growth of IB demand.

A 5th grade parent last year told me more than 90% of the 5th grade was going on to Deal.

Few other things. Don't you think that five classes per grade is too big for an elementary school? With kids in the older grades as well as younger I still see children who I've never seen before and we've been there 5 years+. It is insane.

Secondly as someone mentioned our enrollment is expected to increase mainly because the apartment buildings along Connecticut provide a more affordable way for people to get in a decent school district. Which gives us some diversity. Also, we have a fair number of embassies who have rotating staff so children come and go every few years. Again - great for diversity and International Night - hard for planning. Hopefully, other schools will improve across the city and relieve the crush on Murch and other schools.

As a Murch parent, my primary concern is appropriate space and safety. How many kids are in the school doesn't really concern me; I have friends in Arlington, and their ESs are similarly large. As long as class sizes are under control (which they are at Murch now that they added the fifth sections in the early grades), I don't feel like I need to know everyone I see on the playground.

But on the premise that the Murch expansion might not be able to accommodate all of the IB kids, there's still a problem...and one that redrawing boundaries alone probably won't fix. How long before Hearst inevitably attracts more IB kids--as Eaton has--and becomes overcrowded?