Brent rebuild details to know before you accept that lottery spot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is this hour bus ride coming from? It would take an hour to walk the three miles.

North Capitol during rush hour is among the worst traffic in the city. It legitimately took CHML ECEers 45 minutes+ every morning and CHML is on G St NE already! The afternoon commute isn’t as bad because it’s not also rush hour.

Could this not be solved by having the busses leave Brent earlier? Or would the early start be too much for the little snowflakes?

you're a jerk (but you know that already) but for others who are trying to understand the issue, it's worth addressing but there are two problems with this.

The biggest, and most expensive, is expanded hours for aftercare. Starting an hour earlier doesn't mean parents are off work an hour earlier, and all of the sudden they've got to pay for 30% more aftercare. Of course, DCPS nor Brent admin have addressed this yet.

Second, a 4 year old should not have to get up at 6am or whatever hour just because DCPS can't find the will to solve this problem more effectively. It's punative on some level, which is why people are upset.

Not OP here, honest question: Brent's aftercare is not hourly/is by the day and admin has already said there will be an aftercare bus. Why would it cost more?

Because it's longer. Adding an hour to aftercare adds an hour of costs.

Sorry: still don't get it. Aftercare charges by the day not by the hour, and if the bus is leaving an hour before aftercare ends now, isn't that less expensive/fewer hours anyway?

Presumably the bus would leave when school gets out, not when aftercare gets out.

Ah got it--this one's easy then, school already said there'd be an aftercare bus, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not good at DCUM clearly - replying to another post:

My question is - what is the alternative? I agree Meyer is far, but I have not yet seen a viable alternative proposed. RFK isn’t one. Garfield isn’t one. People have spent a lot of time looking. I wouldn’t call accepting Meyer defeatist - it is realist. If someone comes up with a legitimate alternative that doesn’t cost a lot, I’d advocate all day for it. But until then, I’d rather focus on making Meyrr work and providing input into the new Brent.

If they moved the start of renovation to fall of 2026, they could have the NE cottages (by TR Young).

I get there are budgeting concerns about this, but I think they could be worked around. It still a commute. And it's the closest thing there is to a Ward 6 swing space -- technically in Ward 5, but actually much more accessible by all of Ward 6 than the vast majority of Ward 5 (and rarely used by Ward 5 schools for this reason). It's where SWS did their swing space, and I think maybe Maury as well? JOW is up next but why not do Brent after that?

I'd rather wait an extra year for a new school than commute to Columbia Heights for 2 years. Especially if I had a kid in ECE. The older kids could make it work but who is going to want to put their 3 or 4 year old on a bus 2 hours a day? That's crazy.

Maury’s swing space was a “village” of trailers on the Eliot-Hines playground. The footprint was pretty small (maybe 300 kids?) and the trailer complex was actually quite nice. I think DCPS can find the space for it. Agree that waiting is far preferable to an hour long bus ride for ECE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, you say that commute would typically take 35-40 minutes… in your car. Buses are typically slower, so this isn’t very far of the 45 minute+ estimate folks gave. And that’s ignoring the 1 day every 2 weeks with a massive traffic issue and a bunch of 3 year olds wetting themselves & others vomiting (which is exactly what happened with CHML; seriously, 50% of the class left during the first month.

60 3 year olds on a bus sounds horrific. and there’s zero way it would be staffed appropriately to keep them safe. it’s an astonishingly bad a idea. at a minimum, find a local swing space for the ECE.

Brent doesn't have 60 3 year olds. It has three mixed age ECE classrooms with half 3/4 year olds and half 4/5 year olds. Exaggerating isn't helping your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

Did not know that! sounds like a fair solution but I’m not sure it’s that easy to put in the electric & water there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, you say that commute would typically take 35-40 minutes… in your car. Buses are typically slower, so this isn’t very far of the 45 minute+ estimate folks gave. And that’s ignoring the 1 day every 2 weeks with a massive traffic issue and a bunch of 3 year olds wetting themselves & others vomiting (which is exactly what happened with CHML; seriously, 50% of the class left during the first month.

I don’t speed. Buses are only slower because they make stops along the way, which a Brent bus would not.

Have folks tried plugging Meyer into their GPS? I live right near Garfield Park and right now (during the mid-afternoon) it says 19 minutes, taking the 395 North tunnel from 695. I drive that tunnel every day during commuting hours and know what I’m talking about.

Anyway, my family did two years at the trailer park near Two Rivers Young. Getting there is a pain too
and that hill is a MASSIVE car bottleneck. Careful what you wish for. Meyer does not sound much worse.

[Anonymous]

Garfield Park is still owned by the federal government. DC has administrative control through a transfer of jurisdiction, and is limited to using it for recreational purposes. Not a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

Did not know that! sounds like a fair solution but I’m not sure it’s that easy to put in the electric & water there.

The community would fight this.

[Anonymous]

What about the field across from Jefferson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

and no busses! think of the savings!

seriously, what's the argument against? People keep saying the PTA knows, but nobody has really said why? Is it a secret or something?

I think the argument against is the anticipated opposition to tearing up a neighborhood park to install a trailer city for 400+ kids/teachers/staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

Did not know that! sounds like a fair solution but I’m not sure it’s that easy to put in the electric & water there.

The community would fight this.

the “community” can suck it. I’ve been at ANC meetings where the “neighbors”
whine about elementary schools, and it’s pathetic. remember when they *sued* to stop Appletree? ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

and no busses! think of the savings!

seriously, what's the argument against? People keep saying the PTA knows, but nobody has really said why? Is it a secret or something?

I think the argument against is the anticipated opposition to tearing up a neighborhood park to install a trailer city for 400+ kids/teachers/staff.

400+ kids/teachers/staff whose school district is offering them a real school building 3 miles away with busses to get there and back. Do you people hear yourselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

Did not know that! sounds like a fair solution but I’m not sure it’s that easy to put in the electric & water there.

The community would fight this.

the “community” can suck it. I’ve been at ANC meetings where the “neighbors”
whine about elementary schools, and it’s pathetic. remember when they *sued* to stop Appletree? ludicrous.

That particular incident was insane. And now that AT location has become a vital pre-K overflow for Maury families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

Did not know that! sounds like a fair solution but I’m not sure it’s that easy to put in the electric & water there.

The community would fight this.

the “community” can suck it. I’ve been at ANC meetings where the “neighbors”
whine about elementary schools, and it’s pathetic. remember when they *sued* to stop Appletree? ludicrous.

That particular incident was insane. And now that AT location has become a vital pre-K overflow for Maury families.

And literally no impact that I can tell on traffic/parking - which was the “neighbors” stated concern. (Actually I’m sure their real concern was that black children might enroll in Appletree.)

[Anonymous]

As much as we'd love Garfield, I can understand the issues. And even RFK, though I think that's far more workable than some are admitting.

But there are two extremely credible alternatives here that DCPS seems to be ignoring for some reason.

1. The TR/Young campus that SWS used, which will be used by JOW but would be available just one year later. I guess it's a budget gamble but that absolutely seems worth it. I suppose I understand the scheduling issue, but as others have said, this doesn't seem worth the pain of Meyer.

2. If you don't want to take the budget gamble or delay for just a year, the second option would be what Maury did at Elliot-Hine. E-H has since been modernized and has a lovely turf field there now, and while that could still work if DCPS chose to make it happen, right next to it sits a wildly underused field for Eastern HS. That field at Eastern addresses some of the issues an RFK site would need to have addressed, primarily fencing/security. It has a fence, it's on DCPS property, it's even closer to Brent by a couple of blocks. It's just off East Capitol so it's very accessible to parents.

Why not focus on Eastern's field? It's perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obvious solution is a trailer village in Garfield Park. The park hasn’t been Federal land since 1969, when DC took it over. The PTA, Norah, the mayor’s office and DCPS could make it work.

and no busses! think of the savings!

seriously, what's the argument against? People keep saying the PTA knows, but nobody has really said why? Is it a secret or something?

I think the argument against is the anticipated opposition to tearing up a neighborhood park to install a trailer city for 400+ kids/teachers/staff.

400+ kids/teachers/staff whose school district is offering them a real school building 3 miles away with busses to get there and back. Do you people hear yourselves?

I do, I hear myself wondering, "Garfield isn't an actual option and I don't understand why people won't identify one that might actually pan out instead of engaging in magical thinking." The argument isn't Meyer vs. Garfield; it's Meyer vs. finding something that the district will agree to use.