Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

Are you saying that DC shouldn't invest in buildings or programs in poor neighborhoods? I don't think that's what you meant, directly, but that is the implication of what you are saying.

I think one of the reasons DC has invested so much money even in underperforming schools is that it cannot -- morally or politically -- only invest in "up and coming" gentrifying schools. I do agree that we need better planning. But in the end we do need excellent school facilities in every area of the city, full stop.

We should certainly have more honest conversations about what schools are working, however, and maybe we should allow high-performing charters to co-locate with some of these under enrolled DCPS schools. If Ballou continues to be under enrolled, maybe Thurgood Marshall could move or replicate there? And perhaps DCI should have been placed in Dunbar or Roosevelt?

Sorry, sounds like more money for charter operators, after providing more money to the building trade. how about more money directed specifically at kids education within the DCPS framework.

Anonymous wrote:People are expecting a surge in enrollment once Garrison's renovations are done too.

I hope so. We got in last year OOB but just couldn't do it. We liked the principal and the teachers but the facilities were terrible.

I would say that the "men" to "acceptable" is really true for the middle of the pack schools. Like Takoma for example -- a fire in 2012 forced an early renovation from a crappy 70s open classroom building to a pretty nicely designed renovated building. It's made that school much more attractive. Over time it will probably become a neighborhood school. Younger grades are attracting IB families.

Anonymous wrote:Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

Are you saying that DC shouldn't invest in buildings or programs in poor neighborhoods? I don't think that's what you meant, directly, but that is the implication of what you are saying.

I think one of the reasons DC has invested so much money even in underperforming schools is that it cannot -- morally or politically -- only invest in "up and coming" gentrifying schools. I do agree that we need better planning. But in the end we do need excellent school facilities in every area of the city, full stop.

We should certainly have more honest conversations about what schools are working, however, and maybe we should allow high-performing charters to co-locate with some of these under enrolled DCPS schools. If Ballou continues to be under enrolled, maybe Thurgood Marshall could move or replicate there? And perhaps DCI should have been placed in Dunbar or Roosevelt?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Washimgton Business Journal = my go to source for DCPS-related educational reporting

It actually serves as a good reminder that school renovations have been treated by too often by decision-makers as business and development projects rather than educational efforts.

yes -- a good investment for the building trade, not so much for kids' education.

Anonymous wrote:The Washimgton Business Journal = my go to source for DCPS-related educational reporting

It actually serves as a good reminder that school renovations have been treated by too often by decision-makers as business and development projects rather than educational efforts.

The Washimgton Business Journal = my go to source for DCPS-related educational reporting

Anonymous wrote:A new building is not a panacea, but an old, shitty building is definitely a "Stop" sign to middle class parents. No one on this site would have sent their kid to a rat trap like Roosevelt was even if Maria Montessori herself was the kindergarten teacher.

"Build it and they will come" is not true.

Basically, you need both 1) an acceptable building and 2) a good principal/program. For years, DCPS didn't have either 1 or 2. It has spent a ton of money to get more of 1. It is still working on 2.

100% agreed. What's frustrating is what appears to be the lack of understanding of this seemingly obvious point. There doesn't appear to be enough coordination match strong programs with new buildings so that they can be full and useful. Some of it is just tilting at windmills, even if the ideas are good, like Walker Jones and their Reggio program. I don't care what that building looks like, the demographics of that neighborhood are so against you in trying to create a good program that they were almost bound to fail.

And once again, all of this planning and spending is being done with little coordination with DCPS on the programming side, and no coordination with charters who now house 44% of public school students.

A new building is not a panacea, but an old, shitty building is definitely a "Stop" sign to middle class parents. No one on this site would have sent their kid to a rat trap like Roosevelt was even if Maria Montessori herself was the kindergarten teacher.

"Build it and they will come" is not true.

Basically, you need both 1) an acceptable building and 2) a good principal/program. For years, DCPS didn't have either 1 or 2. It has spent a ton of money to get more of 1. It is still working on 2.

Both Deal and Wilson hit the inflection point from "Meh" to "Acceptable" when their renovations were finished.

People are expecting a surge in enrollment once Garrison's renovations are done too.

but would there be the same surge if the renovation weren't done? if it was a $25 mil instead of $55 million renovation?

What if the city spent $55 million on some of the family homeless prevention/support goals here http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Helping-Families-Home-Final-5.5.14.pdf ...would that lead to more families willing to attend in-boundary schools in mixed-income areas?

May not make a difference at schools full of poor kids in poor neighborhoods, but I think it could for schools that are somewhere in between. Bancroft elementary is a good example. It's slated for a $55 million renovation. It already attracts a growing number of middle class families from the neighborhood, and I predict there will be a surge once the renovation is done.

Not sure I find this article factual from my perspective. Walker Jones and Dunbar would be the two IB schools for us that would be two schools I would point out. Shiny, new, and yet...

We are in a brand new building at my school, and I agree that it hasn't done anything to increase enrollment from middle-class families. You know what makes a difference? A good program, strong principal, great teachers. I would definitely rather be in a run-down school with a high-quality program than in a new school with a mediocre program.

This article is an overview of the recent construction and renovation of many of the DCPS buildings, including upcoming work. I think the writer is approaching from a design perspective, which is fine, but really doesn't know a lot about schools in particular. This section was, well, just wrong:

"Build a new school and the children will come. The new high schools are designed for larger student populations than they currently serve, but some modernized elementary schools like Stoddert Elementary in Glover Park, another Perkins Eastman design, are already feeling the squeeze of soaring enrollments. The community will come, too, for adult education classes, recreation, performances and public meetings in spaces designed into the new and remodeled schools."

None of the new buildings EOTP have shown increased enrollment at all. And in many of the neighborhoods the public spaces have ended up being closed to the public or severely curtailed because of staffing and security issues. There is also no mention of the potential need to balance all this spending with some sort of unified approach to what is done with charter building.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2014/05/02/forget-facelifts-architects-are-giving-d-cpublic.html?ana=twt&page=all