Banneker and Shaw to co-locate at Shaw?

[Anonymous]

(From the Save Shaw Coalition)

Save Shaw MS Coalition Opposes Mayor Bowser's Proposal
to Build Two Schools on Shaw Site

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a closed-door meeting yesterday with ANC 6E Commissioner Alex Padro, the Mayor proposed a plan to build both Shaw Middle School and Banneker High School on the Shaw JHS site.
The Save Shaw Middle School Coalition strongly opposes this plan. "This proposal is a profound disservice to both the Shaw Middle School and the Banneker High School communities", declared Alex Padro, ANC 6E Commissioner.
The Council has consistently voted for the modernization of Banneker at Euclid Street and has supported the rebuilding of Shaw at Shaw. These decisions are consistent with the educational facility master plans, the approved capital budgets, and the recommendations on feeder patterns and student assignment that then Mayor Gray accepted and the Council approved in 2014 and should not be delayed.
A high school with a middle school like the one designed and built in Ward 4 to include Roosevelt High School and MacFarland Middle School involves about 17.5 acres for a middle and high school with total capacity for 1800 students.


Another public school campus is the Columbia Heights Education Campus, built in 2006 with a 1400 student capacity for both an application high school and a neighborhood middle school sites on a tight 8 acres. The Columbia Heights Education building is 325,248 gross square feet, a building that is larger than is permitted to be built on the Shaw site. In addition, the Columbia Heights Education Campus schools were constructed and opened at the same time, which was the only way to fit on their small site.
Maggie Koziol, parent at Seaton Elementary DCPS said "Building two schools on this small site would deprive children and community critical access to outdoor and athletic facilities. I don't understand why Banneker would want to make this move to the Shaw site. We have no tennis courts, no track, no baseball or softball fields. There are only 6.1 acres for the Shaw school and recreation areas, but there are 13.1 acres of school and athletic areas at the historic Banneker site."

[Anonymous]

This is whacked.

[Anonymous]

Rumors have been flying round that the reason the Mayor is digging in her heels is that she wants to give Banneker to a developer. That's the only explanation that makes sense given this development.

[Anonymous]

I know I’ve read some Shaw parents on this site suggesting co-location.
You all don’t know how to take yes for an answer.

[Anonymous]

Colocation was definitely initially offered by Save Shaw people... which was strange because their main critique of Cardozo was... collocation.

That being said, I think upon further study people realized this wasn’t practical given the space.

Still- it sounds like there is an opportunity to find a compromise solution. I hope they can find one all parties can find appealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colocation was definitely initially offered by Save Shaw people... which was strange because their main critique of Cardozo was... collocation.

That being said, I think upon further study people realized this wasn’t practical given the space.

Still- it sounds like there is an opportunity to find a compromise solution. I hope they can find one all parties can find appealing.

Colocation with Banneker would include being a separate school with a separate principal, and Banneker is a well-functioning school. Colocation with Cardozo means a constant churn of APs and the middle school always coming second to the overwhelming demands of the high school. The middle school would never get enough attention or be allowed to keep its own budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colocation was definitely initially offered by Save Shaw people... which was strange because their main critique of Cardozo was... collocation.

That being said, I think upon further study people realized this wasn’t practical given the space.

Still- it sounds like there is an opportunity to find a compromise solution. I hope they can find one all parties can find appealing.

Colocation with Banneker would include being a separate school with a separate principal, and Banneker is a well-functioning school. Colocation with Cardozo means a constant churn of APs and the middle school always coming second to the overwhelming demands of the high school. The middle school would never get enough attention or be allowed to keep its own budget.

So you’ll be fine with staying at Cardozo provided you have your own principal right? That seems like the best and cheapest solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rumors have been flying round that the reason the Mayor is digging in her heels is that she wants to give Banneker to a developer. That's the only explanation that makes sense given this development.

She can't "give" Banneker to a developer. First it has to designated as excess by DCPS. Then it has to be offered to charters. Then if they don't want it, there would be an RFP disposition process, and the Council has to approve the final disposition. The mayor has some political power over parts of those processes, but by no means absolute power.

[Anonymous]

I would prefer Garnett Patterson being renovated for Shaw MS than colocating Shaw and Banneker. Yes GP has no green space but it’s so close to Cardozo, maybe there can be joint use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colocation was definitely initially offered by Save Shaw people... which was strange because their main critique of Cardozo was... collocation.

That being said, I think upon further study people realized this wasn’t practical given the space.

Still- it sounds like there is an opportunity to find a compromise solution. I hope they can find one all parties can find appealing.

Colocation with Banneker would include being a separate school with a separate principal, and Banneker is a well-functioning school. Colocation with Cardozo means a constant churn of APs and the middle school always coming second to the overwhelming demands of the high school. The middle school would never get enough attention or be allowed to keep its own budget.

So you’ll be fine with staying at Cardozo provided you have your own principal right? That seems like the best and cheapest solution.

Stop with the Cardozo obsession. If you want to send your kids there, great. Do so. Otherwise, we’ve talked about Cardozo many times and you’re not even adding anything, you’re just being inflammatory for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colocation was definitely initially offered by Save Shaw people... which was strange because their main critique of Cardozo was... collocation.

That being said, I think upon further study people realized this wasn’t practical given the space.

Still- it sounds like there is an opportunity to find a compromise solution. I hope they can find one all parties can find appealing.

Colocation with Banneker would include being a separate school with a separate principal, and Banneker is a well-functioning school. Colocation with Cardozo means a constant churn of APs and the middle school always coming second to the overwhelming demands of the high school. The middle school would never get enough attention or be allowed to keep its own budget.

So you’ll be fine with staying at Cardozo provided you have your own principal right? That seems like the best and cheapest solution.

No, it has to be fully a separate school so that the high school cannot have access to the middle school's funding.

Also, Cardozo EC as it currently exists is projected to hit its building capacity in 10 years. If the middle school were to improve, more IB kids would attend and the cap would be reached even faster. So staying in that building is not a long-term plan. If the process for Shaw MS starts now, then the building will be ready when it is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumors have been flying round that the reason the Mayor is digging in her heels is that she wants to give Banneker to a developer. That's the only explanation that makes sense given this development.

She can't "give" Banneker to a developer. First it has to designated as excess by DCPS. Then it has to be offered to charters. Then if they don't want it, there would be an RFP disposition process, and the Council has to approve the final disposition. The mayor has some political power over parts of those processes, but by no means absolute power.

That's not what's happening with Old Hardy. If the Council passes a bill they can do it however they want. The Mayor just needs seven votes on the Council.

[Anonymous]

The mayor needs to come clean about what she really wants to do with Banneker before anyone agrees to any of this. I wouldn’t support this until there’s a plan for that perfectly lovely building and location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumors have been flying round that the reason the Mayor is digging in her heels is that she wants to give Banneker to a developer. That's the only explanation that makes sense given this development.

She can't "give" Banneker to a developer. First it has to designated as excess by DCPS. Then it has to be offered to charters. Then if they don't want it, there would be an RFP disposition process, and the Council has to approve the final disposition. The mayor has some political power over parts of those processes, but by no means absolute power.

That's not what's happening with Old Hardy. If the Council passes a bill they can do it however they want. The Mayor just needs seven votes on the Council.

Hardy was excessed years ago. And with a current user of the school there is no need for an RFP. No dog in the fight, its just a different fact pattern.

Counting to seven is indeed the key, as I think John A. Wilson (who the Wilson Building is named after) used to say. But it isn't exactly an easy thing to do if you don't have many natural allies on the Council, which this Mayor does not have anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumors have been flying round that the reason the Mayor is digging in her heels is that she wants to give Banneker to a developer. That's the only explanation that makes sense given this development.

She can't "give" Banneker to a developer. First it has to designated as excess by DCPS. Then it has to be offered to charters. Then if they don't want it, there would be an RFP disposition process, and the Council has to approve the final disposition. The mayor has some political power over parts of those processes, but by no means absolute power.

That's not what's happening with Old Hardy. If the Council passes a bill they can do it however they want. The Mayor just needs seven votes on the Council.

Hardy was excessed years ago. And with a current user of the school there is no need for an RFP. No dog in the fight, its just a different fact pattern.

Counting to seven is indeed the key, as I think John A. Wilson (who the Wilson Building is named after) used to say. But it isn't exactly an easy thing to do if you don't have many natural allies on the Council, which this Mayor does not have anymore.

She has a few natural allies. Maybe 5? Not 7.