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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Because: (1) Foxhall lacks a neighborhood school; (2) the school that currently serves Foxhall families is chronically overcrowded: (3) if the city wants to allow at-risk children from Wards 7 and 8 to attend a school in Ward 3, then Foxhall is the most (or least worst) convenient location (a long commute to be sure, but very similar to the one that kids from JB Anacostia-Bolling do to get to Hyde-Addison ES in Gtown).

If that is so, than why does every workable proposed plan for enrollment draw heavily from the Stoddert area? If this was simply about Key being divided, than why not say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Because: (1) Foxhall lacks a neighborhood school; (2) the school that currently serves Foxhall families is chronically overcrowded: (3) if the city wants to allow at-risk children from Wards 7 and 8 to attend a school in Ward 3, then Foxhall is the most (or least worst) convenient location (a long commute to be sure, but very similar to the one that kids from JB Anacostia-Bolling do to get to Hyde-Addison ES in Gtown).

If that is so, than why does every workable proposed plan for enrollment draw heavily from the Stoddert area? If this was simply about Key being divided, than why not say that?

Every workable proposed plan? You sure are making a whole lot out of one "example" map that all the CWG members bar one have disowned and said is not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Jelleff is under long-term obligation to the Maret School. Guy Mason is under long-term obligation to Georgetown University. At least at Hardy only part of the site has been given away to a private entity.

It never stops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.


Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Because: (1) Foxhall lacks a neighborhood school; (2) the school that currently serves Foxhall families is chronically overcrowded: (3) if the city wants to allow at-risk children from Wards 7 and 8 to attend a school in Ward 3, then Foxhall is the most (or least worst) convenient location (a long commute to be sure, but very similar to the one that kids from JB Anacostia-Bolling do to get to Hyde-Addison ES in Gtown).

If that is so, than why does every workable proposed plan for enrollment draw heavily from the Stoddert area? If this was simply about Key being divided, than why not say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Because: (1) Foxhall lacks a neighborhood school; (2) the school that currently serves Foxhall families is chronically overcrowded: (3) if the city wants to allow at-risk children from Wards 7 and 8 to attend a school in Ward 3, then Foxhall is the most (or least worst) convenient location (a long commute to be sure, but very similar to the one that kids from JB Anacostia-Bolling do to get to Hyde-Addison ES in Gtown).

If that is so, than why does every workable proposed plan for enrollment draw heavily from the Stoddert area? If this was simply about Key being divided, than why not say that?

"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Jelleff is under long-term obligation to the Maret School. Guy Mason is under long-term obligation to Georgetown University. At least at Hardy only part of the site has been given away to a private entity.

It never stops.

Er, Hardy has been given away to the Lab School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

It seems like nobody in GP cares for the foxhall school, but the foxhall school can’t make the numbers work without GP. The only plan put forth by anybody involved GP kids. It seems kinda careless to spend 40$ million on a new school with even a sketch of a plan of the ‘old’ plan has been thrown out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

This is yet another load of crap. I simply don't know how to engage with someone whose definition of a wild personal attack is a CWG member asking direct, clearly articulated questions of the elected official posting misinformation. To make matters worse, said elected official responsible for posting misinformation replied to the listserv, saying "These are great questions to ask." He then stated that the source of his claims is "the Chancellor's announcement about the new school." Finally, he asked that this discussion being handled privately instead of on the listserv.

The CWG member then replied to the listserv that the elected official's reply was unsatisfactory. He posted the actual language from the Chancellor's announcement and asked directly -- again clearly articulated -- how this language could be construed to support the initial misinformation the elected official led off with. He further said that since the misinformation was spread on the listserv, understanding that it is, in fact, misinformation is important for the entire listserv readership to read.

Bottom line, the elected official was revealed to be regaling his readers with straight misinformation for the purposes of fear-mongering. The CWG member did not engage in "wild personal attacks" but, rather, provided an incredibly valuable, albeit uncomfortable, public service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s the same person. The person on the GP listserv clearly knows this issue inside and out. Since this board is anonymous, I get the sense that lots of people masquerade as knowing more than they do.

But this is the usual aggrieved playbook: claim the process was rigged, or nobody listened to you, or the decision makers have an agenda. How about, instead, your arguments were heard but failed to persuade. Or, your arguments are persuasive at the micro level, but they are hollow when the bigger picture is considered. Or, they reek of rank hypocrisy and self-entitlement. But, sure, it’s Mary Cheh’s fault, or some guy who sometimes treats ignorant yet assertive posters on a listserv as punching bags.

Not sure who you are responding to, but GP seems to pretty united in keeping a walkable school and just want Stoddert made bigger so more students can attend, even if it means more OOB kids come to the neighborhood. They are being surprisingly YIMBY. They literally want building in their backyards.

If Foxhall wants a new school so kids in that neighborhood can walk to school, good for them. Don't drag Glover Park into that fight. They even killed their only grocery store.

Honestly, why not build the new ES in Guy Mason or Jelleff? Those sites are as big as the Foxhall site.

Jelleff is under long-term obligation to the Maret School. Guy Mason is under long-term obligation to Georgetown University. At least at Hardy only part of the site has been given away to a private entity.

It never stops.

Er, Hardy has been given away to the Lab School.

Only 1+ acres of the five acres there. At Jelleff and Guy Mason the entire sites have been committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

It seems like nobody in GP cares for the foxhall school, but the foxhall school can’t make the numbers work without GP. The only plan put forth by anybody involved GP kids. It seems kinda careless to spend 40$ million on a new school with even a sketch of a plan of the ‘old’ plan has been thrown out.

"The only plan put forward by anybody involved GP kids."

No plan has been put forward by anyone. An example map was floated at a meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

At the CWG, DCPS said there were enough existing DCPS kids living within 1.1 miles of Foxhall to fill the school. So stop your fearmongering, the new school works without Stoddert kids.

And what is this "DCPS/CWG" entity you refer to in four of your bullet points?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

At the CWG, DCPS said there were enough existing DCPS kids living within 1.1 miles of Foxhall to fill the school. So stop your fearmongering, the new school works without Stoddert kids.

And what is this "DCPS/CWG" entity you refer to in four of your bullet points?

CWG included students having to cut through glover park and some who live .1 mi from stoddert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

At the CWG, DCPS said there were enough existing DCPS kids living within 1.1 miles of Foxhall to fill the school. So stop your fearmongering, the new school works without Stoddert kids.

And what is this "DCPS/CWG" entity you refer to in four of your bullet points?

CWG included students having to cut through glover park and some who live .1 mi from stoddert.

Enough nonsense. CWG had nothing to do with this map. Someone asked DCPS to put together some possible boundaries. They quickly produced the example map just for illustrative purposes. The example map was panned and they never produced another one, having learned that even a silly response to a request will be used as cannon fodder.

NO BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN REMOTELY PROPOSED. Stop claiming otherwise Lauren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Every workable plan"? Give me a f*ing break. More beggar-thy-neighbor fearmongering, absolutely divorced from the facts.

You got your school, let the kids in Foxhall have theirs.

The main fact here is that no one knows what the catchment area for the new school will be, until DCPS puts it forward. It's also a fact that the money for Stoddert is an expansion in space, but not students. There's no 'you got yours' going on here.

On the 'will split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-The number of students for Foxhall doesn't work without the Glover Park kids
-DCPS/CWG 'example' catchment did so
-DCPS/CWG was dishonest about the distance from Glover Park to the new school (hike through the park, not on streets)
-DCPS/CWG defended this catchment at all meetings
-The DCPS/CWG analysis of the proposed schools used this catchment
-Stoddert's renovation money was originally moved to fund the purchase of Foxhall

On the 'will not split Glover Park and Stoddert' side:
-Anonymous CWG members on this board, and CWG members hurling wild personal attacks on listservs, say it won't
-Stoddert had the money for renovation put back in, but it's not an expansion, it just moves students from trailers to a building

Everyone can decide which side is more likely to be right.

So yes, I'm happy for the kids in Foxhall to have a school, don't do it at the expense of Glover Park!

At the CWG, DCPS said there were enough existing DCPS kids living within 1.1 miles of Foxhall to fill the school. So stop your fearmongering, the new school works without Stoddert kids.

And what is this "DCPS/CWG" entity you refer to in four of your bullet points?

CWG included students having to cut through glover park and some who live .1 mi from stoddert.

It wasn't CWG, it was DCPS. And they didn't include any specific students. In fact they were studious not to, because they know that people with a propensity to panic would lose their shit if they started talking about boundaries in even broad generalities.