Obviously the situation at Deal and Wilson is unsustainable. Did that account for most of the drive behind the boundary assignments? I don't know. But a lot of other stuff got lumped in at the same time. We have a few overcrowded schools where everyone wants to send their own child and lots and lots of under-enrolled schools. The answer is to obviously make the under-enrolled schools more attractive to families in those neighborhoods but nobody (apparently) is willing to make their children the guinea pigs. Catania speaks to a lot of these issues and it isn't just talk, he gets it and he might possibly be able to get the city over the next few hurdles. I do not see Bowser doing any of that. Mostly because she is an empty suit shouting slogans.

jsteele wrote:It seems that a number of boundary changes that were included in the Advisory Committee recommendations were not included in the final recommendations. Yet, no complaining about wealthy whiners. It's starting to look to me as if the entire city is getting new boundary maps because of Deal and Wilson overcrowding.

And gentrification and the Deal/Wilson boundaries were ridiculous and that the gentrification was largely occurring in those same ridiculous dragon-shaped areas...oh, and it's also occurring in capitol hill, but isn't that a mess now isn't it?

jsteele wrote:It seems that a number of boundary changes that were included in the Advisory Committee recommendations were not included in the final recommendations. Yet, no complaining about wealthy whiners. It's starting to look to me as if the entire city is getting new boundary maps because of Deal and Wilson overcrowding.

Well, as Wilson covered 1/2 the city, it is a big issue.

Murch is overcrowded. Three new class sections were added this year in order to avoid having class sizes exceeding 30 students per room. New trailers were brought onto the property and placed on the bluetop and in the staff parking. Staff parking went from 45 parking spaces to 15. Arrangements are still being made to find parking in the neighborhood for the staff.

The Murch property is one small block with no room to expand into additional parcels. Part of that block is actually National Park Service land and so building on it may be problematic. Expanding beyond the current footprint would necessarily take away staff parking and/or playground space. So, more students, more staff, less parking and smaller playground.

Murch is overcrowded.

It seems that a number of boundary changes that were included in the Advisory Committee recommendations were not included in the final recommendations. Yet, no complaining about wealthy whiners. It's starting to look to me as if the entire city is getting new boundary maps because of Deal and Wilson overcrowding.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought all the elementary schools located in Ward 3 had overcrowding issues (of course, Deal and Wilson being the most abused post-elementary schools because of stupidly wide boundaries, before the changes). The boundary changes were designed to expand and contract in order to address that.

You would think that from reading the forums. But, Hearst exchanged roughly equal-sized plots of land, Key, Mann, and Janney stayed the same. Lafayette and Eaton expanded. I see that Stoddert's boundaries were reduced. So, add that to the list. Not a lot of changes.

Then I guess the main objects of scrutiny (at least in Ward 3) were Deal and Wilson: without narrowing their boundaries to be consistent with their feeder schools, Deal and Wilson saw no end in sight to the glut of students. Also moving a feeder from Deal to Hardy helped take one slot out of Deal and grow Hardy. The victims of the contraction were understandably unhappy, but something very close to the lines recommended for cutting was necessary. Some of the geography formerly in Deal and Wilson's boundaries may not send a ton of students to those schools RIGHT NOW, but with gentrification in DC clearly increasing, there would have been no way to control the population growth because of the inventory of homes in those areas. That is, the best way to control growth in the student population at any given school is to control geography. I think the DME also knew that the same areas cut from Deal/Wilson have extremely fertile potential for high-SES students in the near future: hence the promise to build new middle schools close-by, which would automatically become "new Deals"...as long as they are created and sold properly.

Overcrowding can only be addressed by expanding schools if the population consist of IB families. OOB students aren't really the issue. If a school has space, why can't they offer a spot?

Anonymous wrote:I thought all the elementary schools located in Ward 3 had overcrowding issues (of course, Deal and Wilson being the most abused post-elementary schools because of stupidly wide boundaries, before the changes). The boundary changes were designed to expand and contract in order to address that.

You would think that from reading the forums. But, Hearst exchanged roughly equal-sized plots of land, Key, Mann, and Janney stayed the same. Lafayette and Eaton expanded. I see that Stoddert's boundaries were reduced. So, add that to the list. Not a lot of changes.

I thought all the elementary schools located in Ward 3 had overcrowding issues (of course, Deal and Wilson being the most abused post-elementary schools because of stupidly wide boundaries, before the changes). The boundary changes were designed to expand and contract in order to address that.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I think it depends on what overcrowding means. They have been adding trailers for years to JKLMM schools. Does that mean they are over capacity or just right? I'd say the former.

Do the final recommendations include boundary changes that will address this? If so, which schools?

I'm not sure. I know they are increasing the boundries of Lafayette and Hearst to deal with Murch crowding -- add to that the redo of Murch and Lafayette and I think that's where they are going with it.

No idea what the plan is for Janney.

Doesn't Murch still have a substantial number of OOB students? If so, why not let the current group graduate while not taking more OOB students? It seems strange to shrink Murch's neighborhood boundaries if it is still accepting OOB.

Anonymous wrote:Well, I think it depends on what overcrowding means. They have been adding trailers for years to JKLMM schools. Does that mean they are over capacity or just right? I'd say the former.

But now they have spent or are spending millions of $$ to expand the school buildings and sunset the trailers. Even Hearst is being expanded and it has only a modest IB population. If the overcrowded facilities is not a red herring, it is largely yesterday's problem. I suppose a different question is whether the new, expanded schools are too large or the right size, but if the former, the school communities shouldn't have clammered for their expensive building programs.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I think it depends on what overcrowding means. They have been adding trailers for years to JKLMM schools. Does that mean they are over capacity or just right? I'd say the former.

Do the final recommendations include boundary changes that will address this? If so, which schools?

I'm not sure. I know they are increasing the boundries of Lafayette and Hearst to deal with Murch crowding -- add to that the redo of Murch and Lafayette and I think that's where they are going with it.

No idea what the plan is for Janney.

Anonymous wrote:Well, I think it depends on what overcrowding means. They have been adding trailers for years to JKLMM schools. Does that mean they are over capacity or just right? I'd say the former.

Do the final recommendations include boundary changes that will address this? If so, which schools?

Well, I think it depends on what overcrowding means. They have been adding trailers for years to JKLMM schools. Does that mean they are over capacity or just right? I'd say the former.

In discussions about boundary and feeder changes, I keep seeing posts saying that these changes need to go through -- imperfect or not -- because there is massive over-crowding that needs to be addressed. But, most schools in DC are under-enrolled. Some of the more crowded schools either didn't have their boundaries changed (Janney) or actually had them expanded (Lafayette). I am only aware of two, possibly three, schools that have overcrowding issues that are supposed to be addressed by the boundary changes. These are Wilson, Deal, and Murch. I am not even confident that Murch belongs on this list so maybe others can argue either way. Can anyone identify additional schools that will have overcrowding relieved by the boundary and feeder changes?