Why is Janney getting another million dollar renovation……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Janney parent, nor a prospective Janney parent.

But the cold, hard reality is that Janney's projected numbers demand an addition. Period. If you can't acknowledge that, then there is no possibility for a rational discussion.

Do other schools' projections warrant additions too? Yes. Mann is a worse situation than Janney. It is getting an addition. Murch and Lafayette are also severely overcrowded. I believe they're both on the docket for additions too.

People crowing "but what about my neighborhood school that's old but under capacity..." deserve little more than "sorry, but money is tight and we have to spend it where the enrollment dictates the best value. Goodbye."

This isn't hard to understand, folks. And it ain't no scandal either.

Again, I am not and will not be a Janney parent, so I'm arguably in the same shoes as the negative Nancies here.

Boundary review needed, period. THEN spend the money after the revised projections. That is how you manage a cash-strapped public school system. Trailers would have done just fine until the boundary review. That is reasonable by every stretch. Janney doesn't want to pave their garden for trailers? Other schools have trailers and gardens, they manage.

Boundary review doesn't solve anything if we take as given grandfathering. I agree with you if DCPS hadn't announced a commitment to maintain the "rights" for all students currently enrolled. Without grandfathering, boundary changes could solve the immediate problem. As it is, with grandfathering the immediate problem will remain.

Personally, I don't think DCPS should corner itself into maintaining grandfathering.

But, to all those who oppose this addition and say boundary changes should solve the problem, know that boundary changes ONLY solve the problem if DCPS abandons grandfathering. Are you prepared to abandon grandfathering? That means your OOB kid at Hearst may not be able to maintain his slot and his feeder "rights." You may not want to cut your nose to spite your face.

[Anonymous]

By the way, looking at the projections in the Master Facilities Plan (page 55ish of http://dc.gov/DC/DME/Media%20Releases/newsroom_archive/Press%20Releases/Final%202013%20DC%20Public%20Education%20Plan.pdf)

Holy shiite Spring Valley, Wesley Heights and Palisades are predicted to explode with small children (clusters 14 and 15). They're predicted to go from 1592 small children today to 4122 in 2022. My god that's crazy. Almost a 3-fold increase within a decade. Umm, paging the Old Hardy school. Old Hardy School, you're needed at the delivery room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Janney parent, nor a prospective Janney parent.

But the cold, hard reality is that Janney's projected numbers demand an addition. Period. If you can't acknowledge that, then there is no possibility for a rational discussion.

Do other schools' projections warrant additions too? Yes. Mann is a worse situation than Janney. It is getting an addition. Murch and Lafayette are also severely overcrowded. I believe they're both on the docket for additions too.

People crowing "but what about my neighborhood school that's old but under capacity..." deserve little more than "sorry, but money is tight and we have to spend it where the enrollment dictates the best value. Goodbye."

This isn't hard to understand, folks. And it ain't no scandal either.

Again, I am not and will not be a Janney parent, so I'm arguably in the same shoes as the negative Nancies here.

I'm sorry. I know that you think you are making a reasonable argument. I appreciate that.

But in the short term, if Janney has to have a few trailers so be it. Other schools even those scheduled for renovation have large numbers of trailers. About half of my school is in trailers. We've had to fight hard to get our renovation to even move forward. Janney is scheduled to break ground on its second renovation before our first even begins.

And over the longer term, the project numbers don't demand an addition, they demand boundary changes. That is the entire point of boundary changes -- matching enrollment projections to resources. To make the point in the extreme, if the enrollment projected 10,000 kids in Janney's district, you wouldn't build a skyscraper, you'd change the boundaries.

So yes, we are all reacting negatively, and perhaps with the usual DCUM abruptness. But the points are still valid and still quite reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Janney parent, nor a prospective Janney parent.

But the cold, hard reality is that Janney's projected numbers demand an addition. Period. If you can't acknowledge that, then there is no possibility for a rational discussion.

Do other schools' projections warrant additions too? Yes. Mann is a worse situation than Janney. It is getting an addition. Murch and Lafayette are also severely overcrowded. I believe they're both on the docket for additions too.

People crowing "but what about my neighborhood school that's old but under capacity..." deserve little more than "sorry, but money is tight and we have to spend it where the enrollment dictates the best value. Goodbye."

This isn't hard to understand, folks. And it ain't no scandal either.

Again, I am not and will not be a Janney parent, so I'm arguably in the same shoes as the negative Nancies here.

I'm sorry. I know that you think you are making a reasonable argument. I appreciate that.

But in the short term, if Janney has to have a few trailers so be it. Other schools even those scheduled for renovation have large numbers of trailers. About half of my school is in trailers. We've had to fight hard to get our renovation to even move forward. Janney is scheduled to break ground on its second renovation before our first even begins.

And over the longer term, the project numbers don't demand an addition, they demand boundary changes. That is the entire point of boundary changes -- matching enrollment projections to resources. To make the point in the extreme, if the enrollment projected 10,000 kids in Janney's district, you wouldn't build a skyscraper, you'd change the boundaries.

So yes, we are all reacting negatively, and perhaps with the usual DCUM abruptness. But the points are still valid and still quite reasonable.

+1 I second this reasonable response. Trailers should have been done until boundary changes. Underlying the anger here is a rational argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Janney parent, nor a prospective Janney parent.

But the cold, hard reality is that Janney's projected numbers demand an addition. Period. If you can't acknowledge that, then there is no possibility for a rational discussion.

Do other schools' projections warrant additions too? Yes. Mann is a worse situation than Janney. It is getting an addition. Murch and Lafayette are also severely overcrowded. I believe they're both on the docket for additions too.

People crowing "but what about my neighborhood school that's old but under capacity..." deserve little more than "sorry, but money is tight and we have to spend it where the enrollment dictates the best value. Goodbye."

This isn't hard to understand, folks. And it ain't no scandal either.

Again, I am not and will not be a Janney parent, so I'm arguably in the same shoes as the negative Nancies here.

Boundary review needed, period. THEN spend the money after the revised projections. That is how you manage a cash-strapped public school system. Trailers would have done just fine until the boundary review. That is reasonable by every stretch. Janney doesn't want to pave their garden for trailers? Other schools have trailers and gardens, they manage.

Boundary review doesn't solve anything if we take as given grandfathering. I agree with you if DCPS hadn't announced a commitment to maintain the "rights" for all students currently enrolled. Without grandfathering, boundary changes could solve the immediate problem. As it is, with grandfathering the immediate problem will remain.

Personally, I don't think DCPS should corner itself into maintaining grandfathering.

But, to all those who oppose this addition and say boundary changes should solve the problem, know that boundary changes ONLY solve the problem if DCPS abandons grandfathering. Are you prepared to abandon grandfathering? That means your OOB kid at Hearst may not be able to maintain his slot and his feeder "rights." You may not want to cut your nose to spite your face.

If you don't give up grandfathering, then a PS3 kid can graduate from Wilson in 15 years even after you've removed his school from the feeder. Or a PK4 kid from Janney 7 years from now even after the boundaries switch. The overcrowding problem over the interim will be quite bad. In other school districts, you change the boundaries and the kids switch schools the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is ridiculous. With so many other pressing needs on the capital side around the city even at schools that are doing quite well, spending this kind of money at a practically brand spanking new school is insane. Murch construction is just a twinkle in DGS' eye at this point in time. Hearst and Mann haven't even begun yet and they are going to start this in the next few weeks. Families from around the city want to improve middle schools so Deal and maybe Stuart-Hobson and Hardy are not the only acceptable choices (in their view). Maybe build a new middle school "EOTP".

I am a Ward 3 voter and I will vote against Mary Cheh if this goes through.

Well it is a completely done deal. Was as of last spring. Construction begins in a few days.

It is news to the rest of us! How on earth did this school get two renovations above other more needy sites?

So was the extension of the lease of the Old Hardy School to the Lab School. Call and email.

Besides even if it does go through it still makes sense to have your voice heard. The next time I hear that we don't have money for X, I am going to remind them of the almost $5 million additional renovation they did for a school that already has two gyms (2!!!) and an underground parking garage.

Why on earth does it make sense to continue to pour resources into only one school in all of the city? Does the school really have two gyms?

Some people here seem to be a bit hard of hearing. A previous post mentioned that Dunbar just unveiled a new shiny building for $122 million dollars. As in, TWENTY FIVE TIMES MORE than the $5 million Janney renovation (based on what people say here, I'm not a Janney parent).

People, I am a bit mystified here. Why the apparent outrage over a $5 million renovation at a school that is clearly working well and needs to prepare to accommodate more students, vs the radio silence over a $122 million new building for a failing school with unclear prospects?

I am outraged that own own school doesn't get the facilities we need and deserve. But that has much more to do with the Dunbars than with the Janneys.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I don't think DCPS should corner itself into maintaining grandfathering.

But, to all those who oppose this addition and say boundary changes should solve the problem, know that boundary changes ONLY solve the problem if DCPS abandons grandfathering. Are you prepared to abandon grandfathering? That means your OOB kid at Hearst may not be able to maintain his slot and his feeder "rights." You may not want to cut your nose to spite your face.

If you don't give up grandfathering, then a PS3 kid can graduate from Wilson in 15 years even after you've removed his school from the feeder. Or a PK4 kid from Janney 7 years from now even after the boundaries switch. The overcrowding problem over the interim will be quite bad. In other school districts, you change the boundaries and the kids switch schools the next year.

^^ You cannot maintain that everything said once will continue in the future. Grandfathering might be okay for a year or two, but NOT for all kids to then continue onto the feeders for 15 years. That is not rational and DCPS needs to fix this now and not keep using bandaids.

[Anonymous]

And why are Janney parents ok with changing Deal boundaries but not their own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you don't give up grandfathering, then a PS3 kid can graduate from Wilson in 15 years even after you've removed his school from the feeder. Or a PK4 kid from Janney 7 years from now even after the boundaries switch. The overcrowding problem over the interim will be quite bad. In other school districts, you change the boundaries and the kids switch schools the next year.

The motto of DCPS:
"We don't do things here like other places do."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's much worse that they just spend $120 million on Roosevelt with no plan on how to fill the school.

+1. Exactly. That is the money that could have funded a dozen more valuable renovations.

Ideally this will get feeders with boundary review, so will not be a waste...

Yes, and ideally I could commute by helicopter.

Do you think that a school that ant educate X number of kids can magically educate 2X number of kids, simply because it has a shiny new building?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's much worse that they just spend $120 million on Roosevelt with no plan on how to fill the school.

+1. Exactly. That is the money that could have funded a dozen more valuable renovations.

Ideally this will get feeders with boundary review, so will not be a waste...

Yes, and ideally I could commute by helicopter.

Do you think that a school that ant educate X number of kids can magically educate 2X number of kids, simply because it has a shiny new building?

+1

$120 million on Roosevelt, $122 million on Dunbar. Is there somewhere a ranked list of investments per school? That would help us see what's going on and not get obsessed with little "anecdotes" such as a $5 million renovation.

[Anonymous]

The point here is that a number of schools that are suffering from severe overcrowding -- and that everyone agrees need to be rennovated -- have been delayed. Meanwhile, Janney which thanks to its previous rennovation is, on any objective basis, facing less severe overcrowding has been accelerated with very little transparency. Parents need to get organized and seek an immediate freeze on this project until work on the other schools is completed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point here is that a number of schools that are suffering from severe overcrowding -- and that everyone agrees need to be rennovated -- have been delayed. Meanwhile, Janney which thanks to its previous rennovation is, on any objective basis, facing less severe overcrowding has been accelerated with very little transparency. Parents need to get organized and seek an immediate freeze on this project until work on the other schools is completed.

+1

I am writing Mary Cheh this morning. Transparency is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is ridiculous. With so many other pressing needs on the capital side around the city even at schools that are doing quite well, spending this kind of money at a practically brand spanking new school is insane. Murch construction is just a twinkle in DGS' eye at this point in time. Hearst and Mann haven't even begun yet and they are going to start this in the next few weeks. Families from around the city want to improve middle schools so Deal and maybe Stuart-Hobson and Hardy are not the only acceptable choices (in their view). Maybe build a new middle school "EOTP".

I am a Ward 3 voter and I will vote against Mary Cheh if this goes through.

Well it is a completely done deal. Was as of last spring. Construction begins in a few days.

It is news to the rest of us! How on earth did this school get two renovations above other more needy sites?

So was the extension of the lease of the Old Hardy School to the Lab School. Call and email.

Besides even if it does go through it still makes sense to have your voice heard. The next time I hear that we don't have money for X, I am going to remind them of the almost $5 million additional renovation they did for a school that already has two gyms (2!!!) and an underground parking garage.

Why on earth does it make sense to continue to pour resources into only one school in all of the city? Does the school really have two gyms?

Some people here seem to be a bit hard of hearing. A previous post mentioned that Dunbar just unveiled a new shiny building for $122 million dollars. As in, TWENTY FIVE TIMES MORE than the $5 million Janney renovation (based on what people say here, I'm not a Janney parent).

People, I am a bit mystified here. Why the apparent outrage over a $5 million renovation at a school that is clearly working well and needs to prepare to accommodate more students, vs the radio silence over a $122 million new building for a failing school with unclear prospects?

I am outraged that own own school doesn't get the facilities we need and deserve. But that has much more to do with the Dunbars than with the Janneys.

+1 Million.
Sour grapes here.

[Anonymous]

I know everybody here thinks you can slap a few trailers on the playground in a matter of weeks and for little expense but that is not actually true. Current building codes require things like bathrooms where there is no connection to the main building. These requirements may or may not have been there when other schools got their trailers. The fact is the trailers would have been very expensive and the infrastructure currently exists that allows building up. Money was going to be spent to add space. What is the rationale for putting up trailers when this is an available permanent solution? Is this solution actually holding up any other school construction project when considered in terms of the money that would have to be spent to add space regardless of how the space is added?