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

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
Thanks for taking the time to post these sources. I had not seen them before or, if I had, I hadn't given them the necessary attention. Whoever drew that example map either wanted to sabotage Foxhall ES or was very naïve. So, yes, with due apologies to the FCCA, this is nothing but an own-goal by DCPS/CWG.

All of that said, it is just one example and one that I would bet my life savings would never be implemented by DCPS because, well, it is just stone-cold crazy. If you find any candidates that endorse this example, please feel free to scream from the hilltops.

And, to the point, the badly-conceived example does not suggest that Foxhall ES cannot be filled with students from the area, nor even that it would be a good idea to build a much smaller school than what is proposed (particularly given the increases in density called for by the Comp Plan and families will inevitably move to where the schools are).

It certainly is not justification for rejecting a new school building next to Old Hardy in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreams (like LAB opting to abandon their sweetheart lease and move to the River School). [/quote]

Thank you, as you can tell, I am fairly exercised about all this!  I clearly don't have your faith that DCPS will come to its senses, but here's hoping.  Whether a [i]new[/i] council member will have enough sway to change DCPS's course is also unclear to me.  Hopefully whoever wins doesn't retain Cheh's education staff.

I agree with you that the best outcome is a smaller-than-currently-planned Foxhall ES that pulls from the nearby area, takes up less of Hardy park to boot, along with a Stoddert expansion (and maybe sending the Russians out!).  This is what Frumin understands, and is the main option he's pushing, hence my (and I theorize what will be the rest of Glover Park's) overwhelming support.

You right LAB won't give up their sweetheart deal without an equally sweetheart buyout.  No one will use their political power for that, and draw new attention to the situation.[/quote]

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

[u]Demographics[/u]
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

[u]Existing Elementary School Infrastructure[/u]
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

[u]Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert [/u]
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

[u]Frumin's "Ideas"[/u]
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

[u]The Bigger Picture[/u]
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics