Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people in Ward 3 pay a disproportionate share of DC income and property taxes. Yet when they get the slightest return on their tax dollars, it's derided as favoritism.

Please. Get off your ass, quit complaining, roll up your sleeves, work your heart out for your school, and stop resenting - and trying to free ride - on the effort of others!

This is so wrong headed. Janney and other successful upper NW schools (ehhklmmos) are not getting more than other DCPS schools nor should they. There are quality renovations/rehabs/additions happening all over the city. The vitriol on this thread appears to be amongst upper NW schools, as it reflects resentment by parents (or other interested community members) that their also very successful and overcrowded school has not yet had its promised expansion and renovation.

There is not an entitlement to better facilities that comes from higher tax payments and I do not think this is a common sentiment from upper NW, at least not mong my neighbors. That is not how the system is supposed to work. The whole city should get good services. That said, choices do have to be made and often people will be unhappy regardless of what choice s made, so here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hearst families IBs and OOBs fought for our renovations, even as some on this board discounted us. (Yes it is possible to have a racially diverse student population from every ward in the city [b]and still have an incredibly committed, caring and active community

And don't forget the Hearst students from PG County, too!

+1
There seem to be a noticeable number of Hearst students who arrive daily in cars with MD license plates. Makes you wonder.

Anonymous wrote:The people in Ward 3 pay a disproportionate share of DC income and property taxes. Yet when they get the slightest return on their tax dollars, it's derided as favoritism.

Please. Get off your ass, quit complaining, roll up your sleeves, work your heart out for your school, and stop resenting - and trying to free ride - on the effort of others!

Anonymous wrote:The people in Ward 3 pay a disproportionate share of DC income and property taxes. Yet when they get the slightest return on their tax dollars, it's derided as favoritism.

Please. Get off your ass, quit com roll up your sleeves, work your heart out for your school, and stop resenting - and trying to free ride - on the effort of others.

Anonymous wrote:

Hearst families IBs and OOBs fought for our renovations, even as some on this board discounted us. (Yes it is possible to have a racially diverse student population from every ward in the city [b]and still have an incredibly committed, caring and active community

And don't forget the Hearst students from PG County, too!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hold the Janney jealousy. After the immediate Janney baby boom subsides, the new renovation will effectively open up a lot of out of bounds spots in Janney. Within 5-6 years, the OOB population in Janney will climb. Thus families from wards outside Ward 3 will also benefit by gaining more access to this desirable school!

It's not Janney jealousy. It's outrage at the mis-allocation of resources and the way a school with connections gets resources that - if it's about demonstrated need and length of time since last renovation and seriousness of building problems- that money would go to at least 5+ schools before anyone even thought about Janney.

It's not jealousy, it's outrage at impracticality, politics, and nepotism.

Anonymous wrote:Hold the Janney jealousy. After the immediate Janney baby boom subsides, the new renovation will effectively open up a lot of out of bounds spots in Janney. Within 5-6 years, the OOB population in Janney will climb. Thus families from wards outside Ward 3 will also benefit by gaining more access to this desirable school!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Janney parent, nor a prospective Janney parent.

But the cold, hard reality is that Janney's projected numbers demand an addition. Period. If you can't acknowledge that, then there is no possibility for a rational discussion.

Do other schools' projections warrant additions too? Yes. Mann is a worse situation than Janney. It is getting an addition. Murch and Lafayette are also severely overcrowded. I believe they're both on the docket for additions too.

People crowing "but what about my neighborhood school that's old but under capacity..." deserve little more than "sorry, but money is tight and we have to spend it where the enrollment dictates the best value. Goodbye."

This isn't hard to understand, folks. And it ain't no scandal either.

Again, I am not and will not be a Janney parent, so I'm arguably in the same shoes as the negative Nancies here.

I'm sorry. I know that you think you are making a reasonable argument. I appreciate that.

But in the short term, if Janney has to have a few trailers so be it. Other schools even those scheduled for renovation have large numbers of trailers. About half of my school is in trailers. We've had to fight hard to get our renovation to even move forward. Janney is scheduled to break ground on its second renovation before our first even begins.

And over the longer term, the project numbers don't demand an addition, they demand boundary changes. That is the entire point of boundary changes -- matching enrollment projections to resources. To make the point in the extreme, if the enrollment projected 10,000 kids in Janney's district, you wouldn't build a skyscraper, you'd change the boundaries.

So yes, we are all reacting negatively, and perhaps with the usual DCUM abruptness. But the points are still valid and still quite reasonable.

+1 I second this reasonable response. Trailers should have been done until boundary changes. Underlying the anger here is a rational argument.

Anonymous wrote:I am not a Janney parent, nor a prospective Janney parent.

But the cold, hard reality is that Janney's projected numbers demand an addition. Period. If you can't acknowledge that, then there is no possibility for a rational discussion.

Do other schools' projections warrant additions too? Yes. Mann is a worse situation than Janney. It is getting an addition. Murch and Lafayette are also severely overcrowded. I believe they're both on the docket for additions too.

People crowing "but what about my neighborhood school that's old but under capacity..." deserve little more than "sorry, but money is tight and we have to spend it where the enrollment dictates the best value. Goodbye."

This isn't hard to understand, folks. And it ain't no scandal either.

Again, I am not and will not be a Janney parent, so I'm arguably in the same shoes as the negative Nancies here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Given that close to half of the full student body at Wilson is out-boundary, Wilson is overcrowded, and Dunbar has a $122 million bright shiny new school without the students to fill it, perhaps the city has a rational plan in place so that a significant portion of potential Wilson OOBs end up in Dunbar instead?

How is that plan "rational"? " Magical" perhaps?

Well, it would be perfectly rational for the system as a whole, given not only the $122-million new building at Dunbar but also the $120-million new building at Roosevelt High. Either the major and Kaya want those buildings to become eternal empty mausoleums in honor of their incompetence...or they have a plan to fill them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, looking at the projections in the Master Facilities Plan (page 55ish of http://dc.gov/DC/DME/Media%20Releases/newsroom_archive/Press%20Releases/Final%202013%20DC%20Public%20Education%20Plan.pdf)

Holy shiite Spring Valley, Wesley Heights and Palisades are predicted to explode with small children (clusters 14 and 15). They're predicted to go from 1592 small children today to 4122 in 2022. My god that's crazy. Almost a 3-fold increase within a decade. Umm, paging the Old Hardy school. Old Hardy School, you're needed at the delivery room.

Private schools duh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know everybody here thinks you can slap a few trailers on the playground in a matter of weeks and for little expense but that is not actually true. Current building codes require things like bathrooms where there is no connection to the main building. These requirements may or may not have been there when other schools got their trailers. The fact is the trailers would have been very expensive and the infrastructure currently exists that allows building up. Money was going to be spent to add space. What is the rationale for putting up trailers when this is an available permanent solution? Is this solution actually holding up any other school construction project when considered in terms of the money that would have to be spent to add space regardless of how the space is added?

Actually, other schools had trailers slapped on the playgrounds this summer -- no bathrooms, no connection to main building. I would think that those schools have an available permanent solution which they have been waiting in line for most likely for years as they continue to get pushed back. Now for some reason a school which just received $30 million is going to get an additional $5 million? Our overcrowded school would gladly take $1 million simply to replace leaking windows and do a bit of rodent removal. Think Janney would like to spread the wealth?