Constructive ways to decrease Janney class size

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not want my children split between 2 schools and I am sure I am not the only one.

Was it Eaton, Hearst or Murch that used to only go through 3rd grade? They have moved to a consistent model for a reason.

Maybe it is time to reduce the number of PreK classes and make K smaller?

I'm beginning to think that decreasing the number of pre-K classes is the way to go. The school will receive a bit less money, I guess, but I'm confident the school could make do. It only had 3 pre-K classes last year (and the few years before that) and the school functioned just fine so I can't imagine that bit of extra money is truly critical.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]"The best thing would be to twin Hearst and Janney with one being the lower and the other the upper elementary school. Run a shuttle school bus between the two to facilitate dropping off and picking up siblings. You could cut class size, right-size the program to the boundary area and have a common curriculum."

I love this idea. We would still retain walkability because we could do drop off at the school closest to our homes with the proposed shuttle. If implemented in the relatively short term it would be a win-win for both schools. Greater OOB for Janney and greater IB for Hearst. I would love to have my child in a school dedicated to young children. [/quote]

This could totally be seen as a win-win situation. Maybe as an olive branch the Janney PTA could ask to hear thoughts from the Hearst PTA?


[/quote]

Strangely, the real opposition to this could come from some in the Hearst community, as the result over time probably would be a sharp reduction in OOB spots.[/quote]

Sadly, this is true. Just look at the lack of support for a PS3 class. [/quote]

What do these two issues have to do with each other? Adding a PK3 would not have impacted the number of OOB spots in the long term.

[Anonymous]

^^And no one at Hearst was against PS3, DCPS did not give them the funds in their infinite wisdom. The principal supports it and the school has a room picked out and everything. Also, this has nothing to do with anything on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Splitting all Janney and Hearst kids between the two schools is insane. The only people in favor of this could be those afraid they will be moved from Janney to Hearst.

Politically it is stupid, too, because Hearst DID only go to 3rd grade, and repudiated that model. Not going to happen. You can go after residency cheaters, but they will be replaced with new at-risk kids. Redistricting has to happen and it is going to be uncomfortable for those who are redistricted, but they'll make Hearst an even better school than it is now, and everybody will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Why was the model abandoned at Hearst?

[Anonymous]

It is my understanding that the Principal took OOB kids at the lower grades the last few years b/c they had siblings already at the school.

She had a choice not to open those spots and keep class size smaller. Go chat with her around why she decided to allow families who moved OOB to stay as well as allowed siblings off OOB current students to be admitted.

[Anonymous]

^^ Pre-k 4 seems to be contributing significantly to the overcrowding problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^And no one at Hearst was against PS3, DCPS did not give them the funds in their infinite wisdom. The principal supports it and the school has a room picked out and everything. Also, this has nothing to do with anything on this thread.[/quote

How many letters did the Hearst PTA write in support of PS3? How many meetings were held to gauge interest? There was an unrelated meeting in September and one parent asked the principal directly if parents should be lobbying for PS3 and they were told not to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^And no one at Hearst was against PS3, DCPS did not give them the funds in their infinite wisdom. The principal supports it and the school has a room picked out and everything. Also, this has nothing to do with anything on this thread.[/quote

How many letters did the Hearst PTA write in support of PS3? How many meetings were held to gauge interest? There was an unrelated meeting in September and one parent asked the principal directly if parents should be lobbying for PS3 and they were told not to do so.

Parents should ignore this request. The principal has a bureaucratic tendency not to rock the boat. It's the job of parents to rock it, to get DCPS' attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ Pre-k 4 seems to be contributing significantly to the overcrowding problem.

All of those in PK4 will eventually be in K. And K is guaranteed for all studnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^And no one at Hearst was against PS3, DCPS did not give them the funds in their infinite wisdom. The principal supports it and the school has a room picked out and everything. Also, this has nothing to do with anything on this thread.[/quote

How many letters did the Hearst PTA write in support of PS3? How many meetings were held to gauge interest? There was an unrelated meeting in September and one parent asked the principal directly if parents should be lobbying for PS3 and they were told not to do so.

Parents should ignore this request. The principal has a bureaucratic tendency not to rock the boat. It's the job of parents to rock it, to get DCPS' attention.

I am a parent at Hearst who had no strong opinion about PK3. I have no kids that would have benefited from it, so while I was never opposed to it, I also had no reason to dedicate myself to making it happen. Those who wanted to make it happen should have organized something. Did you organize a meeting to gauge interest? Did you create a letter of interest for others to sign? I would have happily signed a petition, sent a letter of support, etc., but no one asked me to. I'm not sure I understand why you think everyone at the school, most of whom would not benefit from a PK3 in any way, was going to rise up around this without some organizing force. And no, the PTA should not have been that force, they have enough to do already and this was not their battle to fight.

And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Had there been a PK3, it would have filled up with IB kids, who would have started in PK4 or K regardless. It would have had no impact on the OOB community so they had no reason to oppose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Pre-k 4 seems to be contributing significantly to the overcrowding problem.

All of those in PK4 will eventually be in K. And K is guaranteed for all studnets.

Yes, but it would free up 4 classrooms. Physical space you could use to split up the larger k classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The best thing would be to twin Hearst and Janney with one being the lower and the other the upper elementary school. Run a shuttle school bus between the two to facilitate dropping off and picking up siblings. You could cut class size, right-size the program to the boundary area and have a common curriculum."

I love this idea. We would still retain walkability because we could do drop off at the school closest to our homes with the proposed shuttle. If implemented in the relatively short term it would be a win-win for both schools. Greater OOB for Janney and greater IB for Hearst. I would love to have my child in a school dedicated to young children.

This is a great idea. This exact plan happened in my suburban nj town in the 70s. One school was in a fancier neighborhood of the same town so those parents complained a little but it all worked fine. One school was k-3, the other was 4-6.
If janney want smaller classes, this is a way to do it, mesh the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The best thing would be to twin Hearst and Janney with one being the lower and the other the upper elementary school. Run a shuttle school bus between the two to facilitate dropping off and picking up siblings. You could cut class size, right-size the program to the boundary area and have a common curriculum."

I love this idea. We would still retain walkability because we could do drop off at the school closest to our homes with the proposed shuttle. If implemented in the relatively short term it would be a win-win for both schools. Greater OOB for Janney and greater IB for Hearst. I would love to have my child in a school dedicated to young children.

This is a great idea. This exact plan happened in my suburban nj town in the 70s. One school was in a fancier neighborhood of the same town so those parents complained a little but it all worked fine. One school was k-3, the other was 4-6.
If janney want smaller classes, this is a way to do it, mesh the schools.

While I don't know whether the Hearst building would be better for the lower or upper elementary grades, they do have the Hearst rec center fields and tennis courts adjacent to the school.

[Anonymous]

I just don't understand this "merge Janney and Hearst" argument and make one pK-2 and the other 3-5. All that would do is make EVERYONE have to travel longer for at least a few years.

Janney doesn't need to take over Hearst for Hearst to be a good school. Just help both schools thrive (as well as others around) and that will (with time) help reduce the overcrowding problem at Janney especially as parents see value in smaller classes and smaller schools in general.