Constructive ways to decrease Janney class size

[Anonymous]

If your objective is to make Janney class sizes smaller - you need to make a decision to:
1. Take a room the is currently allocated for something else and make it a classroom
2. Have fewer students
3. both 1 and 2

What space is currently vacant that could be used for a classroom?
Which students do not have IB rights to Janney?
What programs are not required?

Janney had 2 preK classrooms in the fall of 2009. Leadership decided it was best to expand this. Stoddert last year reduced the number of PreK classes to accommodate other needs. Janney can as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nice thought, but the reality is that no one from the Janney district is going to apply out of bounds to Hearst. Only by twinning or merging the schools so that Hearst provides the Janney experience, would that happen. Just sayin.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nice thought, but the reality is that no one from the Janney district is going to apply out of bounds to Hearst. Only by twinning or merging the schools so that Hearst provides the Janney experience, would that happen. Just sayin.'

Well Janney will just have to deal with the overcrowding. Hearst is doing well without them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nice thought, but the reality is that no one from the Janney district is going to apply out of bounds to Hearst. Only by twinning or merging the schools so that Hearst provides the Janney experience, would that happen. Just sayin.'

Well Janney will just have to deal with the overcrowding. Hearst is doing well without them.

I can assure you that most people at Hearst have no interest in merging with Janney. We love our small school, diverse environment, and tight-knit community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was Hearst that only went to the 3rd grade. My now 9th grader at Wilson attended Janney afterwards.

At the time didn't Hearst feed Eaton / Murch?

Some went to both and others stayed. That was the year they added a 4th grade. Families like our was unsure of what it would look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nice thought, but the reality is that no one from the Janney district is going to apply out of bounds to Hearst. Only by twinning or merging the schools so that Hearst provides the Janney experience, would that happen. Just sayin.'

Well Janney will just have to deal with the overcrowding. Hearst is doing well without them.

I can assure you that most people at Hearst have no interest in merging with Janney. We love our small school, diverse environment, and tight-knit community.

And 80 percent OOB enrollment....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nice thought, but the reality is that no one from the Janney district is going to apply out of bounds to Hearst. Only by twinning or merging the schools so that Hearst provides the Janney experience, would that happen. Just sayin.'

Well Janney will just have to deal with the overcrowding. Hearst is doing well without them.

I can assure you that most people at Hearst have no interest in merging with Janney. We love our small school, diverse environment, and tight-knit community.

And 80 percent OOB enrollment....

Your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nice thought, but the reality is that no one from the Janney district is going to apply out of bounds to Hearst. Only by twinning or merging the schools so that Hearst provides the Janney experience, would that happen. Just sayin.'

Well Janney will just have to deal with the overcrowding. Hearst is doing well without them.

I can assure you that most people at Hearst have no interest in merging with Janney. We love our small school, diverse environment, and tight-knit community.

And 80 percent OOB enrollment....

Who cares? There are plenty of DC charters with small classes, diverse enrollment and a tight-knit community. High IB numbers aren't the be all and end all.
-not a Hearst parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nice thought, but the reality is that no one from the Janney district is going to apply out of bounds to Hearst. Only by twinning or merging the schools so that Hearst provides the Janney experience, would that happen. Just sayin.'

Well Janney will just have to deal with the overcrowding. Hearst is doing well without them.

I can assure you that most people at Hearst have no interest in merging with Janney. We love our small school, diverse environment, and tight-knit community.

And 80 percent OOB enrollment....

Sure. Not an issue for us (we are IB).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The parents who cared about PS3 were new and future parents and obviously naïve. The prior principal told them it was a "done deal." So when the current principal told them not to "rock the boat" as a PP has said, they took that as a good faith sign that things were heading in the right direction. In retrospect, they showed the principal too much courtesy and did not want to step on her toes because she was new and just getting started. Next time, the principal will not get that courtesy. This whole episode was poorly communicated to say the least, and is not good for IB/OOB relations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your objective is to make Janney class sizes smaller - you need to make a decision to:
1. Take a room the is currently allocated for something else and make it a classroom
2. Have fewer students
3. both 1 and 2

What space is currently vacant that could be used for a classroom?
Which students do not have IB rights to Janney?
What programs are not required?

Janney had 2 preK classrooms in the fall of 2009. Leadership decided it was best to expand this. Stoddert last year reduced the number of PreK classes to accommodate other needs. Janney can as well.

This is basically it. Moving of boundaries just isn't going to happen. Boundary review just finished and it's not going to be done again for ten years. Don't look for future boundary reviews to accomplish any more than the last one. So number two, "have fewer students," isn't going to happen from moving boundaries. The only way it can realistically happen is by limiting the number of pre-K spots, every other spot in the school is by-right.

In terms of adding more classrooms, I read in the NW Current that their adding another story with six classrooms at a cost of like $4 million. Is that not happening, or is it already done and there are still too many kids?

[Anonymous]

To answer your question, OP, I think the most constructive way to work on this issue would be to involved in discussions within the Janney community, as opposed to on an anonymous board. I think you will learn that accommodating the growing student population has been well-discussed and considered for at least the last six years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your objective is to make Janney class sizes smaller - you need to make a decision to:
1. Take a room the is currently allocated for something else and make it a classroom
2. Have fewer students
3. both 1 and 2

What space is currently vacant that could be used for a classroom?
Which students do not have IB rights to Janney?
What programs are not required?

Janney had 2 preK classrooms in the fall of 2009. Leadership decided it was best to expand this. Stoddert last year reduced the number of PreK classes to accommodate other needs. Janney can as well.

This is basically it. Moving of boundaries just isn't going to happen. Boundary review just finished and it's not going to be done again for ten years. Don't look for future boundary reviews to accomplish any more than the last one. So number two, "have fewer students," isn't going to happen from moving boundaries. The only way it can realistically happen is by limiting the number of pre-K spots, every other spot in the school is by-right.

In terms of adding more classrooms, I read in the NW Current that their adding another story with six classrooms at a cost of like $4 million. Is that not happening, or is it already done and there are still too many kids?

It is already done and they have too many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your objective is to make Janney class sizes smaller - you need to make a decision to:
1. Take a room the is currently allocated for something else and make it a classroom
2. Have fewer students
3. both 1 and 2

What space is currently vacant that could be used for a classroom?
Which students do not have IB rights to Janney?
What programs are not required?

Janney had 2 preK classrooms in the fall of 2009. Leadership decided it was best to expand this. Stoddert last year reduced the number of PreK classes to accommodate other needs. Janney can as well.

This is basically it. Moving of boundaries just isn't going to happen. Boundary review just finished and it's not going to be done again for ten years. Don't look for future boundary reviews to accomplish any more than the last one. So number two, "have fewer students," isn't going to happen from moving boundaries. The only way it can realistically happen is by limiting the number of pre-K spots, every other spot in the school is by-right.

In terms of adding more classrooms, I read in the NW Current that their adding another story with six classrooms at a cost of like $4 million. Is that not happening, or is it already done and there are still too many kids?

It is already done and they have too many kids.

So how do they get rid of kids / limit incoming kids? When a family moves OOB not allowing them to stay, identifying families that enrolled fraudulently and getting rid of them, encouraging families to look at Private/Charters or OOB lottery.

[Anonymous]

I'm new this year with a K child. I read the emails from the Principal and she seems to feel that co teaching is some kind of magic bullet to fix the problem of large class sizes. I can't say to know the principal well, but I am starting to think that her leaving might be a good thing. If she doesn't think there is a problem - then she isn't going to address it. Perhaps the new principal will consider reducing PK classes. FWIW, my younger is in the lottery for PK this year, so yes, it would suck if we didn't get in - but I think this is the most reasonable and quick solution available to the school. In one of her recent emails she said enrollment next year will be 730, up from 700 this year.