Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 new middle schools are in ($&# yeah!)

Where is the 3rd? I only see the new North MS and new Center City MS.

I think it's the reopening of Macfarland.

Post has its boundary map up, which is much easier to read/interpret than what's in the report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/proposed-school-zones/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

Deal's always had Mt. Pleasant. Why would that be odd ball?

Odd by it's shape on the map.

For those interested, Murch boundaries mostly reverted, except:

-a couple of blocks at the southern boundary go to Hearst
-north of Military and west of Connecticut goes to Lafayette (which makes sense, since Lafayette is projected to shrink over time and Murch is predicted to grow)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

Deal's always had Mt. Pleasant. Why would that be odd ball?

It is only odd in that the map now looks very gerrymandered.

Anonymous wrote:The 3 new middle schools are in ($&# yeah!)

Where is the 3rd? I only see the new North MS and new Center City MS.

Someone explain this (the recommendations don't). How do you square by-right IB attendance with 10 per cent set asides for OOB if that adds up to more than 100 per cent of capacity?

Can't open the map. Are the proposed changes to ES boundaries still in? Or new ones?

I don't quite understand how those elementary schools that are full or overcrowded are supposed to set aside 10 percent of their seats for OOB students starting 2015 without turning away in boundary students. I am not opposed to the OOB set aside, but wish there was more discussion of how it will work in schools that are full already.

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

Deal's always had Mt. Pleasant. Why would that be odd ball?

Why would CHEC, which is dual-language only for middle school with no English track, have as its only 2 feeder schools Tubman and Cooke, neither of which is a dual-language school? Especially when there are other dual language schools close by (Bancroft, Powell, Bruce Monroe@Park View).

The 3 new middle schools are in ($&# yeah!)

Anonymous wrote:Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

Maps will be discussed by others. I like that they fully rationalized the zones, so a middle school zone is the sum of its feeder elementary zones, and the same for high schools.

Essentially nothing regarding coordination or planning with charters, other than:

"The city and relevant stakeholders should address key issues related to information sharing and coordination between the two public school sectors"

That's a bold statement that a 5 year could make.

Too bad I have to walk out the door now. So far, so good on the maps though. Cap Hill is a big winner with Eastern.

Deal's gerrymandering to capture Mt. Pleasant is odd ball.

Save some observations for me!!!

http://dme.dc.gov/page/advisory-committee-draft-proposal-and-boundaries-june-2014