Anonymous wrote:But does this new plan actually solve the problem of overcrowding at Murch? I don't think so.

(And BTW whoever said that Murch isn't overcrowded is wrong -- it is one of the most, if not THE most, overcrowded school in the district, with more students per square foot than any school. There is one bathroom for all teachers and staff, a third of the kids are in trailers.)

And of all ESs in DCPS, Murch is expected have the greatest increase in number of students in the upcoming school year. They are adding a new section for K, 1st and 2d next year to accommodate the increases. Yet the physical plant won't be finished renovation for at least another 2 years. Overcrowding is not a myth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

Look at the Washington Post map. They did it again!

I don't know the blocks by heart, but posters upthread suggested that they had greatly reduced the Murch/Hearst swap.

They pushed some Murch families to Lafayette, which makes a lot more sense geographically than the original Murch-to-Hearst proposal did.

That is correct that they reduced the Murch-Hearst swap, though they added a Hearst to Murch swap, which is crazy. How can you look anyone at Murch in the eye and say you have to go, but someone else gets to come in. And if no one lives in the Hearst to Murch swap, why do it?

The Murch to Lafayette swap doesn't make all that much sense geographically, but is easier for the Murch parents to swallow because of their irrational fear of Hearst.

If you look at a map of the area that's proposed to move from Hearst to Murch, it's maybe 15-20 houses on the south side of Albemarle down to Audubon Terrace. I doubt many, if any, would send their kids to DCPS no matter what, and it kind of makes sense because those couple of blocks seem to be more connected to the neighborhood to the north, rather than the one to the south--there aren't any through-streets to the south but there are going north. But they've left in the Hearst boundary what appear to be a handful of apartment buildings fronting Connecticut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is odd language about selective schools. Is this a threat to schools like Duke Ellington and Walls?

If DCPS needs capacity for in-zone students in a particular boundary, then the DCPS citywide schools — lottery or selective schools — located in that boundary may be required to:
• Relocate to provide capacity for students in that neighborhood, or
• Convert to a neighborhood school and offer a non-specialized strand alongside the specialized
program, or
• Convert to a neighborhood school and pair with a non-specialized school to offer the traditional grade
level program, or
• Provide neighborhood priority in the citywide lottery.

Will the specialized schools have the space for IB families? Or will their be set aside seats for "OOB"/ "Application" students.

Likely yes and yes and also likely mainstream tracks within selective schools; and why be concerned about that? Make the selective schools share a little, IF they have excess capacity; it makes practical sense imo.

Sounds like this is language to justify trying to force Duke Ellington out of their building? The line about making sure that spots in DCPS schools don't go to non-residents seems aimed straight at Duke. A lot has been said on this forum about how DCPS is undermining successful selective schools like SWW - why would the advisory board endorse this?

But does this new plan actually solve the problem of overcrowding at Murch? I don't think so.

(And BTW whoever said that Murch isn't overcrowded is wrong -- it is one of the most, if not THE most, overcrowded school in the district, with more students per square foot than any school. There is one bathroom for all teachers and staff, a third of the kids are in trailers.)

If they are going to get rid of the PS-8 model because it doesn't work, why are they hanging on to it at Walker Jones?

The city really screwed up by building a new school there, and now they're tying themselves in knots to pretend that it makes any kind of sense.

I'd like to see that zone broken up into adjacent elementary schools and the new, nice W-J building used for one of the new middle schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

Look at the Washington Post map. They did it again!

I don't know the blocks by heart, but posters upthread suggested that they had greatly reduced the Murch/Hearst swap.

They pushed some Murch families to Lafayette, which makes a lot more sense geographically than the original Murch-to-Hearst proposal did.

That is correct that they reduced the Murch-Hearst swap, though they added a Hearst to Murch swap, which is crazy. How can you look anyone at Murch in the eye and say you have to go, but someone else gets to come in. And if no one lives in the Hearst to Murch swap, why do it?

The Murch to Lafayette swap doesn't make all that much sense geographically, but is easier for the Murch parents to swallow because of their irrational fear of Hearst.

Murch to Lafayette makes sense because those people mostly drive to Murch so now they can drive about the same distance to Lafayette = minimal impact on traffic.
The Murch to Hearst switch didn't and doesn't make sense because those blocks walk to Murch but would now drive to Hearst = more traffic. Good that the new proposal mentions walkability as a positive goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

Look at the Washington Post map. They did it again!

I don't know the blocks by heart, but posters upthread suggested that they had greatly reduced the Murch/Hearst swap.

They pushed some Murch families to Lafayette, which makes a lot more sense geographically than the original Murch-to-Hearst proposal did.

That is correct that they reduced the Murch-Hearst swap, though they added a Hearst to Murch swap, which is crazy. How can you look anyone at Murch in the eye and say you have to go, but someone else gets to come in. And if no one lives in the Hearst to Murch swap, why do it?

The Murch to Lafayette swap doesn't make all that much sense geographically, but is easier for the Murch parents to swallow because of their irrational fear of Hearst.

Well, that's one way to look at it. But if you look at the map, you'll have trouble justifying it. Families who live two blocks from Murch get to stay rather than going to school a mile away. Families who already lived relatively far from Murch move to a school that is essentially equidistant.

Anonymous wrote:All these discussions of OOB set asides always focus on what happens to the overcrowded Ward 3 schools. That is certainly understandable, but the better question is what happens to the Ward 7/8 type schools that lose more students? That's the key part of the question that never gets discussed, at least not nearly enough.

What happens to the at-risk families that don't have the means or ability or desire to leave their in-bounds school? Does this lead to more school closings and fewer neighborhood options? Is helping some, while leaving some in even worse shape worth it? And have they done any studies to see how many will be worse off compared to how many will be better off by pulling more kids out of neighborhood schools?

To me, this the important systemic question - much more important to the overall health of the school system than how Janney and Lafayette absorb the 10% OOB set aside because we may be making a policy choice to widen the education gap instead of close it and raise up all schools.

This. Plus the fact that the proposal doesn't really get the charters to be part of an improved DCPS. This proposal is going to lead to more school closings in Wards 6,7,8 and more charters.

Anonymous wrote:All these discussions of OOB set asides always focus on what happens to the overcrowded Ward 3 schools. That is certainly understandable, but the better question is what happens to the Ward 7/8 type schools that lose more students? That's the key part of the question that never gets discussed, at least not nearly enough.

What happens to the at-risk families that don't have the means or ability or desire to leave their in-bounds school? Does this lead to more school closings and fewer neighborhood options? Is helping some, while leaving some in even worse shape worth it? And have they done any studies to see how many will be worse off compared to how many will be better off by pulling more kids out of neighborhood schools?

To me, this the important systemic question - much more important to the overall health of the school system than how Janney and Lafayette absorb the 10% OOB set aside because we may be making a policy choice to widen the education gap instead of close it and raise up all schools.

That's right. I think you're right that we can rest reasonably assured that the JKLM schools can successfully incorporate students, even if the capacity constraints are real. (They are.) You're also right that this could hamper progress at failing schools.

That said, I believe it beats the alternative.

As an aside, I think the OOB set-asides are well-designed. 10% in elementary school. These can be spread throughout multiple grades. Another 10% get added in 6th grade for middle school. There should be greater capacity to incorporate more students then, since some students would just be peeling off to privates. And, introducing the new students in 6th grade gives them 3 years to be brought up to speed (if need be) before sending them off to high school. (A persistent concern from within and without ward 3 parents is that the new students may not be adequately prepared, and that could hurt the incumbent students and the new student.) The same cycle repeats for 9th grade.

If you're going to do OOB set-asides, I think this is the way to do it. I was opposed to OOB set-asides before. I am no longer opposed to them.

All these discussions of OOB set asides always focus on what happens to the overcrowded Ward 3 schools. That is certainly understandable, but the better question is what happens to the Ward 7/8 type schools that lose more students? That's the key part of the question that never gets discussed, at least not nearly enough.

What happens to the at-risk families that don't have the means or ability or desire to leave their in-bounds school? Does this lead to more school closings and fewer neighborhood options? Is helping some, while leaving some in even worse shape worth it? And have they done any studies to see how many will be worse off compared to how many will be better off by pulling more kids out of neighborhood schools?

To me, this the important systemic question - much more important to the overall health of the school system than how Janney and Lafayette absorb the 10% OOB set aside because we may be making a policy choice to widen the education gap instead of close it and raise up all schools.

Anonymous wrote:I like the cap hill feeder patterns. I think the JO, Peabody/Watkins, and Ludlow taylor feed is especially appealing (if, and a big if, these schools can keep attracting and attaining neighborhood families).

KEEP IB families? Watkins is 80% OOB, and Stuart Hobson is 87% OOB. Personally, I am dissapointed by the solidification of the Peabody to Watkins feed. It is not working now. It does not make geographic sense, and Hill families are abandoning public school in droves because of it. See thread under "Peabody to Maury or Ludlow-Taylor - dump the cluster" = interesting reading.

Why is Lafayette bounds project a population decrease of 34%? I see families with young kids moving in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

Look at the Washington Post map. They did it again!

I don't know the blocks by heart, but posters upthread suggested that they had greatly reduced the Murch/Hearst swap.

They pushed some Murch families to Lafayette, which makes a lot more sense geographically than the original Murch-to-Hearst proposal did.

That is correct that they reduced the Murch-Hearst swap, though they added a Hearst to Murch swap, which is crazy. How can you look anyone at Murch in the eye and say you have to go, but someone else gets to come in. And if no one lives in the Hearst to Murch swap, why do it?

The Murch to Lafayette swap doesn't make all that much sense geographically, but is easier for the Murch parents to swallow because of their irrational fear of Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it interesting that the Committee charged with examining boundaries passed on the opportunity to address systemic overcrowding issues at Ward 3 elementaries even though those same schools are now expected to enroll the equivalent of 10 percent of their seats for OOB/at risk students. Why doesn't this seem to add up?

They got crucified for the tiny W3 changed they suggested...why would they go down that route again?

Look at the Washington Post map. They did it again!

I don't know the blocks by heart, but posters upthread suggested that they had greatly reduced the Murch/Hearst swap.

They pushed some Murch families to Lafayette, which makes a lot more sense geographically than the original Murch-to-Hearst proposal did.

Anonymous wrote:Because the Ward 3 schools are not really overcrowded. They keep getting resources to expand and then are able to meet IB demand with the subsequent expansion, but more importantly they add new optional programming outlined in 00:52.

The plea of "overcrowding" is a resource mobilization strategy that has been working for decades. If you look at the historical documentation the DME provided you will see that Janney has been called "overcrowded" practically since it opened. How else can the city justify concentrating resources in this one school.

I can see why Janney's renovation and re-renovation would make people suspicious, although they haven't added "new optional programming"--except a fourth PK section that is filled with IB kids. Its original reno seems to have been poorly planned, but the school is undoubtedly bursting.

The idea that Murch is the beneficiary of an ongoing "resource mobilization" strategy is pretty nuts if you look at the facts. It was built in 1929 and has never been renovated. Bathrooms and closets have been turned into offices. It got a temporary demountable-type building in the late 1980s that became permanent. It was built for 400 kids and will have close to 700 next year; that's why the principal is planning for 750.

Lafayette is also long-overdue for renovation, especially when you consider what a terribly inefficient space the 70s reno left them with.

None of these schools is talking about adding new programming. The school adding programming is Hearst, which is undercrowded and should be a pressure valve for Murch and Janney.