Anonymous
11/30/2013 10:06
Subject: Re:Surplussing the old Hardy School
Anonymous wrote:
Lab only serves students with diagnosed learning disabilities who have not, or cannot, be served in public schools as required by federal disabilities law.
Do you have a cite for that? Nothing on the Lab website that I can find supports that assertion. They are selective about which disabilities they treat but I see nothing about having to be unserved by public schools.
Anonymous
11/30/2013 10:03
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
Considering that Mary Cheh's most recent proposal for school expansion was to take DPR land at Palisades to build a school, I don't see why taking some DPR land at Hardy is outlandish. When she proposed the Palisades site Cheh made much of the possibilities of synergy with a combined DCPS/DPR site. That's what was done with Stoddert and what's planned for Hearst. Don't the same synergies exist at Hardy?
Clearly Hardy is a much better site. The site of just the school is over an acre, the rec center is another five acres. The building is the same design as the original parts of Key, Mann and Stoddert. All of those schools were successfully expanded and modernized.
Clearly the argument that the school is unusable doesn't hold water. Is the site perfect? No. But what are the alternatives? Is there any better alternative anywhere nearby? No. Do we need more schools west of the park? Yes.
Clearly Hardy is a much better site. The site of just the school is over an acre, the rec center is another five acres. The building is the same design as the original parts of Key, Mann and Stoddert. All of those schools were successfully expanded and modernized.
Clearly the argument that the school is unusable doesn't hold water. Is the site perfect? No. But what are the alternatives? Is there any better alternative anywhere nearby? No. Do we need more schools west of the park? Yes.
Anonymous
11/30/2013 05:13
Subject: Re:Surplussing the old Hardy School
Anonymous wrote:Let's take it down a few notches people. The Lab School elementary (old Hardy) space may look great when you drive by it on Foxhall (assuming there's no Key Bridge traffic or GDS MacArthur spillover).
But the coveted field, tennis courts, and community center building are DC Parks and Rec properties. Not DCPS.
The DCPS building itself has a small footprint. More than 100 elementary kids and you're talking serious trailer park minus the parking lot. It hasn't been used as an open enrollment/no limit on students school in over 15 years for good reason. It's an old building with major repair needs (it doesn't have a cafeteria) in a small space with limited street access. DCPS and DGA want nothing to do with it. Private developers aren't exactly chomping at the bit to get space with little parking, zoning restrictions, and very involved residential neighbors who like tennis.
By the way, it's a private and selective SPECIAL EDUCATION school. It's not like the city is giving Sidwell a free ride.
Lab only serves students with diagnosed learning disabilities who have not, or cannot, be served in public schools as required by federal disabilities law. When the mayor mandated 50% cuts in special education private placements, the school had to enroll more kids from MD, VA, other states and even other countries to subsidize DC residents without cutting the quality of services.
As a Ward 3 resident, yes, I think it would be good to avoid larger classes. But the small Lab School elementary building doesn't address that problem in any practical or sustainable way. Any public or charter school cannot be operated effectively with fewer than 150 students. And that's more than the Foxhall location can handle without getting DPR to give away ground.
We need other options.
You deftly missed the point: we need that -land-. DCPS is exploding at the seams in that sides of town and there's NO other parcel of land in the area under DCPS control.
Doesn't matter if the sweetheart deal beneficiary is Sidwell, the Arabic-Only School for Saudi Princes, or the hearstring-tugging private school for kids with learning disabilities from Maryland and Virginia. The poor (rich), sad disabled kids argument is a red herring.
Also, there's plenty of land there to build up, not out, and still widen Foxhall a little. A 3-story building (with underground parking) is allowed as a zoning matter of right. See Oyster's building as an example of how to build upward at the elementary level.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 22:40
Subject: Re:Surplussing the old Hardy School
Let's take it down a few notches people. The Lab School elementary (old Hardy) space may look great when you drive by it on Foxhall (assuming there's no Key Bridge traffic or GDS MacArthur spillover).
But the coveted field, tennis courts, and community center building are DC Parks and Rec properties. Not DCPS.
The DCPS building itself has a small footprint. More than 100 elementary kids and you're talking serious trailer park minus the parking lot. It hasn't been used as an open enrollment/no limit on students school in over 15 years for good reason. It's an old building with major repair needs (it doesn't have a cafeteria) in a small space with limited street access. DCPS and DGA want nothing to do with it. Private developers aren't exactly chomping at the bit to get space with little parking, zoning restrictions, and very involved residential neighbors who like tennis.
By the way, it's a private and selective SPECIAL EDUCATION school. It's not like the city is giving Sidwell a free ride.
Lab only serves students with diagnosed learning disabilities who have not, or cannot, be served in public schools as required by federal disabilities law. When the mayor mandated 50% cuts in special education private placements, the school had to enroll more kids from MD, VA, other states and even other countries to subsidize DC residents without cutting the quality of services.
As a Ward 3 resident, yes, I think it would be good to avoid larger classes. But the small Lab School elementary building doesn't address that problem in any practical or sustainable way. Any public or charter school cannot be operated effectively with fewer than 150 students. And that's more than the Foxhall location can handle without getting DPR to give away ground.
We need other options.
But the coveted field, tennis courts, and community center building are DC Parks and Rec properties. Not DCPS.
The DCPS building itself has a small footprint. More than 100 elementary kids and you're talking serious trailer park minus the parking lot. It hasn't been used as an open enrollment/no limit on students school in over 15 years for good reason. It's an old building with major repair needs (it doesn't have a cafeteria) in a small space with limited street access. DCPS and DGA want nothing to do with it. Private developers aren't exactly chomping at the bit to get space with little parking, zoning restrictions, and very involved residential neighbors who like tennis.
By the way, it's a private and selective SPECIAL EDUCATION school. It's not like the city is giving Sidwell a free ride.
Lab only serves students with diagnosed learning disabilities who have not, or cannot, be served in public schools as required by federal disabilities law. When the mayor mandated 50% cuts in special education private placements, the school had to enroll more kids from MD, VA, other states and even other countries to subsidize DC residents without cutting the quality of services.
As a Ward 3 resident, yes, I think it would be good to avoid larger classes. But the small Lab School elementary building doesn't address that problem in any practical or sustainable way. Any public or charter school cannot be operated effectively with fewer than 150 students. And that's more than the Foxhall location can handle without getting DPR to give away ground.
We need other options.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 17:41
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
Anonymous wrote:I would certainly like to learn more how in the world the City can be so close to considering such a sweetheart deal for the Lab school. If the deal goes through, it amounts to a private school receiving public tax money for support....which may get to the heart of the matter. Lab probably receives a lot of public money to support tuition for kids with special Ed needs. If Lab were forced to raise tuition to meet a higher, market rent, the City would have to pay them more money to take the subsidized kids. Considering the City has a really poor track record in supporting such kids in public school, the City may have a strong interest in keeping Lab where it is.
According to the resolution now moving through the council, "almost 21%" of the kids at Lab come from DCPS. Overwhelmingly, the kids are coming from MD and VA. The city would be way ahead charging market rent and paying higher tuition.
But the issue isn't really money. The land for a new school is irreplaceable. Once this site is given away, it's not like the city can just write a check and get another one.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 15:45
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
I would certainly like to learn more how in the world the City can be so close to considering such a sweetheart deal for the Lab school. If the deal goes through, it amounts to a private school receiving public tax money for support....which may get to the heart of the matter. Lab probably receives a lot of public money to support tuition for kids with special Ed needs. If Lab were forced to raise tuition to meet a higher, market rent, the City would have to pay them more money to take the subsidized kids. Considering the City has a really poor track record in supporting such kids in public school, the City may have a strong interest in keeping Lab where it is.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 14:50
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
I don't want Lab to have this property. When the idea of renewing the lease for 25 years and the the dollar for dollar refund and low rent for upper NW first came up last spring, the Palisades neighborhood definitely voiced their strong opposition to this. Mann is 140% capacity if you consider it trailers part of the potential student capacity, projections show that the number of DCPS and DcPCs kids in 20007 and 20016 will more than double in the next decade and Deal grows by 15% every year. Lab is not a free charter, so unless. It allows those taxpayers in the neighborhood to attend for free there is no reason I see them taking on the property in a 25 year lease for practically nothing to be advantageous to ward 3.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 14:30
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
Anonymous wrote:Anyone know where citizens can put in their two cents to say "no", a petition or something? DCPS needs more of these buildings, not less.
Email your councilmember. The lease needs to be approved by the Council.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 14:28
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
One irony is that in June 2011 Mary Cheh proposed another middle school for Ward 3. At that time the enrollment at Deal was 922. Now it's 1285. Yet Cheh seems bound and determined to give the last piece of DCPS property in Ward 3 away to a private school.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 14:23
Subject: Re:Surplussing the old Hardy School
Anonymous wrote:As a Ward 3 resident/parent, this story doesn't bother me -- that is, unless the Lab school is getting a below-market deal. Let the City make some money in its property.
My reaction would change if, indeed, there were a charter middle school waiting in the wings to take over the property. The heat being generated from parents in Ward 3 stems from the lack of a quality middle school option. Many of us aren't in-boundary for Deal. Hardy isn't academically challenging enough for many if not most Ward 3 parents. So a "test-in" charter middle school in Ward 3 would make a majority of parents happy. Heck, ANY charter middle school in Ward 3 would make parents happy -- there's definitely a need for another local school.
Lab is getting a way below market deal. Their rent starts at about $7 per square foot per year. No commercial property in the neighborhood starts at less than $35. On top of that, they get a dollar for dollar rent credit for any improvements made to the property, which is unheard of in commercial leases. Lab claims they intend to make several million dollars worth of improvements to the property, which means they would end up paying zero rent. For 50 years! It's economically indistinguishable from a give-away, with the exception that as the nominal owner the city retains liability. By way of contrast, Mundo Verde recently signed a similar lease, and they're getting about 40 cents on the dollar rent credit for capital improvements.
But Mundo Verde is a public school. When they pay rent it's just one part of the city government paying another part of the city government. Lab is a private school -- a selective admission, private school that charges a stiff tuition. It's students overwhelmingly come from Maryland and Virginia. We're giving up this land essentially forever so a bunch of suburban kids get a break on their tuition.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 12:06
Subject: Re:Surplussing the old Hardy School
As a Ward 3 resident/parent, this story doesn't bother me -- that is, unless the Lab school is getting a below-market deal. Let the City make some money in its property.
My reaction would change if, indeed, there were a charter middle school waiting in the wings to take over the property. The heat being generated from parents in Ward 3 stems from the lack of a quality middle school option. Many of us aren't in-boundary for Deal. Hardy isn't academically challenging enough for many if not most Ward 3 parents. So a "test-in" charter middle school in Ward 3 would make a majority of parents happy. Heck, ANY charter middle school in Ward 3 would make parents happy -- there's definitely a need for another local school.
My reaction would change if, indeed, there were a charter middle school waiting in the wings to take over the property. The heat being generated from parents in Ward 3 stems from the lack of a quality middle school option. Many of us aren't in-boundary for Deal. Hardy isn't academically challenging enough for many if not most Ward 3 parents. So a "test-in" charter middle school in Ward 3 would make a majority of parents happy. Heck, ANY charter middle school in Ward 3 would make parents happy -- there's definitely a need for another local school.
Anonymous
11/29/2013 11:33
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
according to this week's NW Current, DCPS is considering a 50-year lease!
It need not be converted into an ES. A MS or HS may work better.
It need not be converted into an ES. A MS or HS may work better.
Anonymous
04/22/2013 21:50
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
If the current lease was signed in 2008 for 12 years then it comes up in 2020. That should be right around when the demographic tsunami that's coming crests. Perfect timing for a new Ward 3 elementary school.
Expand Key? How? Where? It has already overwhelmed its location. Transportation is already a major issue, there's just no way to get the kids who go there today in and out, never mind increasing.
On the other hand, the old Hardy site has frontage on Foxhall Road and MacArthur Blvd, two major arteries, and it's on a bus route. There's plenty of city-owned land there to expand, and add parking. A lot of the current parking woes just come from the way the land is configured, which can be fixed.
Expand Key? How? Where? It has already overwhelmed its location. Transportation is already a major issue, there's just no way to get the kids who go there today in and out, never mind increasing.
On the other hand, the old Hardy site has frontage on Foxhall Road and MacArthur Blvd, two major arteries, and it's on a bus route. There's plenty of city-owned land there to expand, and add parking. A lot of the current parking woes just come from the way the land is configured, which can be fixed.
Anonymous
04/22/2013 21:42
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School
Anonymous wrote:Anyone know where citizens can put in their two cents to say "no", a petition or something? DCPS needs more of these buildings, not less.
Sigh. It's an extension on an existing lease made for 12 years in 2008. Protest all you want, but it's pretty doubtful the city would try to break a lease to completely rebuild a new elementary school when it's being sued for closing other elementary schools. Mary Cheh wants the space fore a DCPS middle school or charter(?). But until Deal loses all it's OOB students and Hardy has more than 20% in-boundary students, it would not be wise to hold one's breath for the conversion of a small, private, special education school building with about 100 students to a 400 student (the limit for a "small" school) elementary or even larger middle DCPS school on Foxhall Road. As it is, the battle for parking and drop off between Lab, GDS, and locals is sometimes a mess.
Seriously expanding and upgrading Key and filling Hardy with locals are better uses of DCPS resources in the next 5-10 years IMHO as ward 3 school parent. Is DCPS really willing and able to fight a traffic war on Foxhall to get land without an adequate building to be completely rebuilt based on the assumption that young, wealthy families will be willing to send their kids to a new public school in 2024 at the earliest?
If Georgetown University could set up a high-performing charter middle school on that location like Howard University did near its campus, then that might be a good investment of public funds.
In the meantime, I see no reason to keep taking money from Lab School and have them deal with the traffic headaches.
Anonymous
04/22/2013 20:33
Subject: Surplussing the old Hardy School