Anonymous wrote:Are Eaton parents petitioning to be rezoned to Hearst because of the middle school changes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, as a future Hearst parent I would tell the Murch parents that are concerned to visit Hearst. Ask for a meeting with the principal. Meet real parents and kids at the school, I think you will be impressed and heartened by the strong community. Please come and see for yourself, even if it is a bit of a walk or a short drive for you.

I know you love your school and I am genuinely pleased for you. I want for all families to be happy with their neighborhood schools and have easy commutes. We are happy with our neighborhood school and it is Murch. We looked at schools before we purchased - including school visits - my preference for Murch is not based on a lack of information about Hearst. I have that preference and I purchased a house in that neighborhood, just 2 blocks from the school. I would not be unhappy about these changes if I thought it would bring about better schools for everyone in the city. But I fail to see how slicing up the pie in arbitrary ways helps achieve this. And as others have pointed out, this will not go very far to alleviate crowding in Murch... some renters will move apartment buildings to stay in-bounds or rent in a different building to begin with; siblings might get grandfathered; and there is the possibility of a minimum set aside for OOB kids..... I cannot see how these will make Murch less over-crowded.

And before anyone jumps on me for my last sentence above - I fully support grandfathering of siblings. On OOB set asides - I feel like the city is using this to compensate for having had a poor housing policy for years and years so there is insufficient geographic diversity of incomes in the city and we are using kids and families to fix this and giving families long commutes and less family time which gives poorer education outcomes. Traffic is already awful in this city. On the other hand, we need to deal with the realities on the ground and on the whole, OOB set asides have a place .... but my family are going to be pushed away from a school two blocks from our house - too young to have started there yet so no grandfathering - in order to alleviate over-crowding..... but probably won't do much.

All this energy is targeted in the wrong direction. I would like to see an end to the infighting - lets band together and let the DME know we reject all of this plan in its entirety and to go back to the beginning and come up with plans that will actually fix schools, provide high quality opportunities for all the kids of the city, and support families with decent schools in their neighborhoods, with lots of extra resources in the neighborhoods that need it. And that we value diversity in our schools but our children deserve better than to have to commute across the city to fix their housing policy - we need affordable housing in all neighborhoods.

14:48 above, and I stand by what I said. It's flat out wrong for you to be pushed out of your school.

So,?is your position that real estate provides and entitlement to a particular school that can never be. Banged for any reason?

School zones get moved all the time in different regions for a variety of reasons, Fairfax County VA is pretty notorious for it to keep schools the right size. Parents don't like it and changes need to make sense, but an entitlement?

No. I'm fine with boundaries being changed on the margins. If you are 6 blocks from one school and 7 from another, then there may be reasons to be zoned for the 7 block school. That's fine. What is not fine is to be 2 blocks from a neighborhood school and not be allowed to attend it. Most of the students at the school will be coming from more than 2 blocks away. It is beyond ridiculous that PP shouldn't be zoned for a neighborhood school she could see from her roof.

If this is not true, then there is really no point to having neighborhood schools at all.

But there are families IB for Hearst that can see Janney from their front porches, they do not even need to climb up on their roofs to meet the new "roof standard", shoudl we be expanding the Janney boundary at this point? Of course not. The standard should be boundaries that make sense in light of all circumstances, of which walkability (or viewability) may be AN important factor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, as a future Hearst parent I would tell the Murch parents that are concerned to visit Hearst. Ask for a meeting with the principal. Meet real parents and kids at the school, I think you will be impressed and heartened by the strong community. Please come and see for yourself, even if it is a bit of a walk or a short drive for you.

I know you love your school and I am genuinely pleased for you. I want for all families to be happy with their neighborhood schools and have easy commutes. We are happy with our neighborhood school and it is Murch. We looked at schools before we purchased - including school visits - my preference for Murch is not based on a lack of information about Hearst. I have that preference and I purchased a house in that neighborhood, just 2 blocks from the school. I would not be unhappy about these changes if I thought it would bring about better schools for everyone in the city. But I fail to see how slicing up the pie in arbitrary ways helps achieve this. And as others have pointed out, this will not go very far to alleviate crowding in Murch... some renters will move apartment buildings to stay in-bounds or rent in a different building to begin with; siblings might get grandfathered; and there is the possibility of a minimum set aside for OOB kids..... I cannot see how these will make Murch less over-crowded.

And before anyone jumps on me for my last sentence above - I fully support grandfathering of siblings. On OOB set asides - I feel like the city is using this to compensate for having had a poor housing policy for years and years so there is insufficient geographic diversity of incomes in the city and we are using kids and families to fix this and giving families long commutes and less family time which gives poorer education outcomes. Traffic is already awful in this city. On the other hand, we need to deal with the realities on the ground and on the whole, OOB set asides have a place .... but my family are going to be pushed away from a school two blocks from our house - too young to have started there yet so no grandfathering - in order to alleviate over-crowding..... but probably won't do much.

All this energy is targeted in the wrong direction. I would like to see an end to the infighting - lets band together and let the DME know we reject all of this plan in its entirety and to go back to the beginning and come up with plans that will actually fix schools, provide high quality opportunities for all the kids of the city, and support families with decent schools in their neighborhoods, with lots of extra resources in the neighborhoods that need it. And that we value diversity in our schools but our children deserve better than to have to commute across the city to fix their housing policy - we need affordable housing in all neighborhoods.

14:48 above, and I stand by what I said. It's flat out wrong for you to be pushed out of your school.

So,?is your position that real estate provides and entitlement to a particular school that can never be. Banged for any reason?

School zones get moved all the time in different regions for a variety of reasons, Fairfax County VA is pretty notorious for it to keep schools the right size. Parents don't like it and changes need to make sense, but an entitlement?

No. I'm fine with boundaries being changed on the margins. If you are 6 blocks from one school and 7 from another, then there may be reasons to be zoned for the 7 block school. That's fine. What is not fine is to be 2 blocks from a neighborhood school and not be allowed to attend it. Most of the students at the school will be coming from more than 2 blocks away. It is beyond ridiculous that PP shouldn't be zoned for a neighborhood school she could see from her roof.

If this is not true, then there is really no point to having neighborhood schools at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, as a future Hearst parent I would tell the Murch parents that are concerned to visit Hearst. Ask for a meeting with the principal. Meet real parents and kids at the school, I think you will be impressed and heartened by the strong community. Please come and see for yourself, even if it is a bit of a walk or a short drive for you.

I know you love your school and I am genuinely pleased for you. I want for all families to be happy with their neighborhood schools and have easy commutes. We are happy with our neighborhood school and it is Murch. We looked at schools before we purchased - including school visits - my preference for Murch is not based on a lack of information about Hearst. I have that preference and I purchased a house in that neighborhood, just 2 blocks from the school. I would not be unhappy about these changes if I thought it would bring about better schools for everyone in the city. But I fail to see how slicing up the pie in arbitrary ways helps achieve this. And as others have pointed out, this will not go very far to alleviate crowding in Murch... some renters will move apartment buildings to stay in-bounds or rent in a different building to begin with; siblings might get grandfathered; and there is the possibility of a minimum set aside for OOB kids..... I cannot see how these will make Murch less over-crowded.

And before anyone jumps on me for my last sentence above - I fully support grandfathering of siblings. On OOB set asides - I feel like the city is using this to compensate for having had a poor housing policy for years and years so there is insufficient geographic diversity of incomes in the city and we are using kids and families to fix this and giving families long commutes and less family time which gives poorer education outcomes. Traffic is already awful in this city. On the other hand, we need to deal with the realities on the ground and on the whole, OOB set asides have a place .... but my family are going to be pushed away from a school two blocks from our house - too young to have started there yet so no grandfathering - in order to alleviate over-crowding..... but probably won't do much.

All this energy is targeted in the wrong direction. I would like to see an end to the infighting - lets band together and let the DME know we reject all of this plan in its entirety and to go back to the beginning and come up with plans that will actually fix schools, provide high quality opportunities for all the kids of the city, and support families with decent schools in their neighborhoods, with lots of extra resources in the neighborhoods that need it. And that we value diversity in our schools but our children deserve better than to have to commute across the city to fix their housing policy - we need affordable housing in all neighborhoods.

14:48 above, and I stand by what I said. It's flat out wrong for you to be pushed out of your school.

So,?is your position that real estate provides and entitlement to a particular school that can never be. Banged for any reason?

School zones get moved all the time in different regions for a variety of reasons, Fairfax County VA is pretty notorious for it to keep schools the right size. Parents don't like it and changes need to make sense, but an entitlement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New boundary decisions should be driven on boundaries that make sense for commuting, and natural mobility patterns in neighborhoods. The 1968 boundaries were clearly designed to respond to the riots and tensions of 1968. For example, the boundaries are often inclusive of areas closest to Maryland, to prevent suburban flight, which is a short sighted flawed political consideration not necessarily a geographical one.

Good planning should establish a radius around school boundaries as a logical first start. Individuals who live within a specified limit (less than one mile for example) from the school should have access to their neighborhood school in boundary in order to promote walkability and limit congestion. I understand that many of the current boundaries place the school at the outermost limits of a community to create artificial boundaries which likely was done to exclude families within a natural radius around a school.

I am very interested in walkability as a DC resident who believes strongly in pedestrian friendly solutions. Many of the current boundaries seem to go against these principals in Ward 3, and the proposal actually aggravates the situation. For example, I have noticed that in Tenleytown, one of the most walkable areas of the city, students who live blocks away from schools would be further excluded from the closest schools to their homes in order to favor commuters who drive from regions at the outer limits of the city.

It is key that to advocate for decisions that are based on sound planning principles -- walkability seems like the best place to start.

We don't want to repeat or exacerbate the mistakes of the past.

We also want to actually provide schools for all kids. Where exactly would you place the children that live between Janney and Murch and the DC border with Maryland since they are apparently tier two in your utopian world. There are no other schools. Have you looked at a map? We are not starting form scratch and these schools were all built before the tensions and riots of 1968.

If the one mile radius is your criterion, this whole discussion is moot. ALL of the Murch area that is proposed to be shifted is within a mile of Hearst. In fact, Murch Elementary itself is a 1 mile walk from Hearst.

And I just google mapped it, Hearst is .8 miles from Janney, I expect less as the crow flies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New boundary decisions should be driven on boundaries that make sense for commuting, and natural mobility patterns in neighborhoods. The 1968 boundaries were clearly designed to respond to the riots and tensions of 1968. For example, the boundaries are often inclusive of areas closest to Maryland, to prevent suburban flight, which is a short sighted flawed political consideration not necessarily a geographical one.

Good planning should establish a radius around school boundaries as a logical first start. Individuals who live within a specified limit (less than one mile for example) from the school should have access to their neighborhood school in boundary in order to promote walkability and limit congestion. I understand that many of the current boundaries place the school at the outermost limits of a community to create artificial boundaries which likely was done to exclude families within a natural radius around a school.

I am very interested in walkability as a DC resident who believes strongly in pedestrian friendly solutions. Many of the current boundaries seem to go against these principals in Ward 3, and the proposal actually aggravates the situation. For example, I have noticed that in Tenleytown, one of the most walkable areas of the city, students who live blocks away from schools would be further excluded from the closest schools to their homes in order to favor commuters who drive from regions at the outer limits of the city.

It is key that to advocate for decisions that are based on sound planning principles -- walkability seems like the best place to start.

We don't want to repeat or exacerbate the mistakes of the past.

We also want to actually provide schools for all kids. Where exactly would you place the children that live between Janney and Murch and the DC border with Maryland since they are apparently tier two in your utopian world. There are no other schools. Have you looked at a map? We are not starting form scratch and these schools were all built before the tensions and riots of 1968.

If the one mile radius is your criterion, this whole discussion is moot. ALL of the Murch area that is proposed to be shifted is within a mile of Hearst. In fact, Murch Elementary itself is a 1 mile walk from Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New boundary decisions should be driven on boundaries that make sense for commuting, and natural mobility patterns in neighborhoods. The 1968 boundaries were clearly designed to respond to the riots and tensions of 1968. For example, the boundaries are often inclusive of areas closest to Maryland, to prevent suburban flight, which is a short sighted flawed political consideration not necessarily a geographical one.

Good planning should establish a radius around school boundaries as a logical first start. Individuals who live within a specified limit (less than one mile for example) from the school should have access to their neighborhood school in boundary in order to promote walkability and limit congestion. I understand that many of the current boundaries place the school at the outermost limits of a community to create artificial boundaries which likely was done to exclude families within a natural radius around a school.

I am very interested in walkability as a DC resident who believes strongly in pedestrian friendly solutions. Many of the current boundaries seem to go against these principals in Ward 3, and the proposal actually aggravates the situation. For example, I have noticed that in Tenleytown, one of the most walkable areas of the city, students who live blocks away from schools would be further excluded from the closest schools to their homes in order to favor commuters who drive from regions at the outer limits of the city.

It is key that to advocate for decisions that are based on sound planning principles -- walkability seems like the best place to start.

We don't want to repeat or exacerbate the mistakes of the past.

We also want to actually provide schools for all kids. Where exactly would you place the children that live between Janney and Murch and the DC border with Maryland since they are apparently tier two in your utopian world. There are no other schools. Have you looked at a map? We are not starting form scratch and these schools were all built before the tensions and riots of 1968.

Anonymous wrote:New boundary decisions should be driven on boundaries that make sense for commuting, and natural mobility patterns in neighborhoods. The 1968 boundaries were clearly designed to respond to the riots and tensions of 1968. For example, the boundaries are often inclusive of areas closest to Maryland, to prevent suburban flight, which is a short sighted flawed political consideration not necessarily a geographical one.

Good planning should establish a radius around school boundaries as a logical first start. Individuals who live within a specified limit (less than one mile for example) from the school should have access to their neighborhood school in boundary in order to promote walkability and limit congestion. I understand that many of the current boundaries place the school at the outermost limits of a community to create artificial boundaries which likely was done to exclude families within a natural radius around a school.

I am very interested in walkability as a DC resident who believes strongly in pedestrian friendly solutions. Many of the current boundaries seem to go against these principals in Ward 3, and the proposal actually aggravates the situation. For example, I have noticed that in Tenleytown, one of the most walkable areas of the city, students who live blocks away from schools would be further excluded from the closest schools to their homes in order to favor commuters who drive from regions at the outer limits of the city.

It is key that to advocate for decisions that are based on sound planning principles -- walkability seems like the best place to start.

We don't want to repeat or exacerbate the mistakes of the past.

Anonymous wrote:Where would a charter even go in ward 3? I don't see that as a priority at all.