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]

I was on the CWG, and I agree with almost everything you said.

"I wasn't on the CWG but I would presume (or at least like to presume) that the map was never intended to propose intended boundaries but rather to demonstrate a school of that size could be supported by the current demographics (even without an OOB enrolment)."

Bingo. What they were trying to demonstrate was that were enough existing DCPS students within a mile of the school to fill it.

"I imagine that GP families' concerns about the map weren't given due attention because the boundaries on that example weren't ever intended to be taken that seriously."  More specifically, the DCPS representatives kept saying, "this isn't the actual map, it's just an example." But the Stoddert reps refused to hear it.

"Whoever is elected should certainly try, but it would be an absolute disaster were we to forgo the proposed project (and even a smaller building next to Old Hardy) for that Hail Mary. If the Mayor pulls the funding for Foxhall ES in response to what she perceives as NIMBYism or whatever on behalf of the local community, the Hardy feeder pattern is in deep shit."  This is exactly the problem I have with what Frumin is saying. He gives the mayor an out to not build a new school, which she doesn't really want to do and is only doing to cover up what happened with Old Hardy.

"But if we are serious about relieving overcrowding at Key, Mann and Stoddert and if families in Ward 3 are ever going to have a hope of getting the guaranteed access to Pre-K that the rest of the city enjoys, you need as a large a Foxhall ES as the city will fund. " Agree completely.

"Access to WoTP schools of OOB students is a political imperative (and one that isn't going away whoever is elected mayor)." Yep, nailed it.

" But anyone else who cares about access to Pre-K and/or overcrowding in Ward 3 schools should absolutely be advocating for a 550 capacity Foxhall ES. " This.

Now let add one more tidbit. At the first CWG meeting, we were asked to keep our discussions in the working group and off of social media. What was frustrating was there were two groups that essentially refused to engage in the process, refused to believe what knowledgeable people in the working group told them, refused to learn the facts themselves, and flew immediately onto social media spreading misinformation about the working group and what was being discussed. And that was the Stoddert reps and the Foxhall reps. [/quote]

Was attempted confidentiality a good idea?

I can't speak about the Stoddert rep (because I don't know, and didn't hear from them), but your defense of the CWG rings hollow to me.  View it from Glover Park's perspective: the CWG is told to keep the meetings private.  There's no representative for Glover Park (Stoddert is not Glover Park, no ANC member despite other ANCs being there).  DCPS proposes, or provides as an example, boundaries that the new school will split Glover Park, and be made up of ~40% Glover Park kids.  Glover Park hears about this and demands representation.  Cheh finally asks for/provides it after the decisions have been narrowed down to those that in the CWG's own materials, split Glover Park.

What you insist were only example boundaries were defended and justified by multiple DCPS representatives at every meeting Glover Park could attend.  The necessity of these borders was emphasized every time, otherwise there wouldn't be enough kids to fill the school.  To me (and clearly to the rest of GP), calling it an example sounded like a fig leaf to divert attention.  Especially because the boundaries had been proposed and decisions made before GP had representation on the CWG.  And this came after DCPS mysteriously pulled funding for the Stoddert expansion (which is now back, though smaller).

Check slide 17 from the last CWG meeting that are online.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1p2opcZs6ZzD9ohhrfAJ_Cm_PDuNRTMKn
Or directly
https://ibb.co/KKp621X

The very first challenge/concern is the boundary change to Stoddert.  (Again with the hiking measurement rather than an honest route via roads.)  The second advantage/benefit is the Glover Park kids who will have to leave Stoddert.  The decisions are made based on those boundaries, whatever we may call them.  In fairness, the boundary is also the first implementation consideration, but they already took that into account when they provided, defended, and forced the boundary earlier.  That's why Slide 31 shows the meeting with the Stoddert community had the highest attendance (and slide 34 shows the same concerns, and the survey results).  The CWG and DCPS had time to think about other boundaries, but the entire proposal is based on the ones already provided.

What's annoying to me is that I agree with the previous posters about the necessity building more schools.  I'm sure overall we'd agree on the Ward 3 school situation 98% of the time.  But we disagree on attempting to solve the issue by splitting Glover Park.  Solomonic, eh?

[/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