Oh I don't know. Maybe student could be studying, doing enrichment activities, sports, volunteering, etc. instead of waiting on an overcrowded platform for a delayed red line train and arriving home late, tired, and hungry. Or, we could just keep forcing them to an overcrowded Deal. You are right, the latter option makes much more sense.

Anonymous wrote:What's compassionate about making a kid commute 2+ hours a day on a failing transit system to attend Deal? Over the course of a school year that child could have received the equivalent of 3 weeks more school instruction at their neighborhood school. Enough with these OOB band aid solutions and let's fix the EocTP schools already!

I really don't 'get' this. All DCPS schools start and end at the same time. There won't be 'extra instruction days' in some schools vs others, for a multitude of reasons

Anonymous wrote:
Not all of it. But, you're right. A lot of it is

I should have said, that the >300K family can afford to live IB for Deal no matter where the new boundary ends up beaing drawn.

by renting, perhaps, but home-ownership, not so much.

Anonymous wrote:It's perfectly logical assuming you don't have a map.

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason there is any talk of "wanting out of bounds kids out of the schools" is because even with just IB kids, the schools are overcrowded, so basically, Janney parents are argument against overcrowded schools, not against, your kids.

You are for redistributing to solve the overcrowding problem as long as it doesn't involve any change in the status quo for you. Moving Hearst and Janney to Hardy is a logical solution to overcrowding at Deal. But Janney parents don't want this solution. No matter what you may say, it is absolutely about the kids. There is a limited supply of good established schools but overwhelming demand. I wish DCPS could reduce the corruption and get their act together to make all schools viable.

moving Janney to Hardy really isn't logical, it is the second closest elementary school to Deal

I don't know PPs. I'm assuming that because of their size, both Lafayette and Janney can't stay in the same feeder pattern. So the redrawing can't only be based on which ES closer. That rule doesn't work neatly in this scenario because of Lafayette's location. Where would Lafayette students go to MS and HS?

Anonymous wrote:It's perfectly logical assuming you don't have a map.

+1

PP is just being gratuitously provocative. Janney is the 2nd closest ES school to Deal itself, after Murch.

Np here trying to catch up on the issue. Have there been projections yet on how changing the boundaries would alter demographics, using different permutations?

It's perfectly logical assuming you don't have a map.

Anonymous wrote:The only reason there is any talk of "wanting out of bounds kids out of the schools" is because even with just IB kids, the schools are overcrowded, so basically, Janney parents are argument against overcrowded schools, not against, your kids.

You are for redistributing to solve the overcrowding problem as long as it doesn't involve any change in the status quo for you. Moving Hearst and Janney to Hardy is a logical solution to overcrowding at Deal. But Janney parents don't want this solution. No matter what you may say, it is absolutely about the kids. There is a limited supply of good established schools but overwhelming demand. I wish DCPS could reduce the corruption and get their act together to make all schools viable.

Anonymous wrote:Council of Governments shows Cluster 11 declining in elementary population. If you want to just go back to speculation, fine, but let me know whether anything scientific on this would convince you.

But they saw a new babies at the park

Council of Governments shows Cluster 11 declining in elementary population. If you want to just go back to speculation, fine, but let me know whether anything scientific on this would convince you.

DC office of planning is well known to cook data in order to justify preconceived notions (and decisions) based on current planning fads. They recently were irrefutably busted for cooking numbers on car ownership that seemed to support a done-deal decision (presented as a "proposal") related to parking.

I would never share your respectful deference to numbers coming out of that office. I have no idea if Janney PPs numbers are sound, either, but I've seen enough firsthand to know that the DC OP makes up shit in an academic way to further tregoning's agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason there is any talk of "wanting out of bounds kids out of the schools" is because even with just IB kids, the schools are overcrowded, so basically, Janney parents are argument against overcrowded schools, not against, your kids.

I have heard long term that the demographic turnover of older owners to families will result in over a thousand at Janney within the next 10 years. I do think for better or worse this redistricting will have to think through long term trends beyond our short term interests in Deal or Wilson. It seems a bit inevitable that their boundaries will have to be redrawn to spread those kids through the Deal/Wilson feeding pattern. I am not sure if there is any school slated to grow more than Janney, but the long term trends are really the issue.

Actually, the DC Office of Planning believes that Cluster 11, which includes Janney, will grow from 1,230 ages 3-11 in 2012 to 1,645 in 2022. And the Metropolitan Council of Governments more conservative estimate shows population in that cluster at that age range declining over that period.

There are many areas of the City that will have more dramatic growth both in absolute and relative terms according to long term trends. For example, Clusters 1, 2, 18, 25, and 26, east of the Park and on the Hill are all expected to grow by thousands in elementary age children. Please see the 2013 Master Facilities Plan at pages 55 and 56.

I understand that Janney is expected to grow, but your cited cause of inbound growth seems underwhelming in light of actual projections by professional planners rather than "I have heard" and "I am not sure, . . . but" sourcing circumlocutions.

Would you care to revise and extend your remarks?

Anonymous wrote:The only reason there is any talk of "wanting out of bounds kids out of the schools" is because even with just IB kids, the schools are overcrowded, so basically, Janney parents are argument against overcrowded schools, not against, your kids.

I have heard long term that the demographic turnover of older owners to families will result in over a thousand at Janney within the next 10 years. I do think for better or worse this redistricting will have to think through long term trends beyond our short term interests in Deal or Wilson. It seems a bit inevitable that their boundaries will have to be redrawn to spread those kids through the Deal/Wilson feeding pattern. I am not sure if there is any school slated to grow more than Janney, but the long term trends are really the issue.