Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:03 again. Let me highlight one sentence from what I already quoted.

DCPS shall then identify whether any action on boundaries, co-locations, consolidations, grade configuration changes, or educational interventions are required to address the utilization concerns coming out of Recommendations 35, 36, and 37.

Sure sounds to me like DCPS has the power under this language to make interim adjustments whenever capacity/utilization/participation requires it. No need to wait 10 years.

The question is whether DCPS will hear from enough people to think interim adjustment is necessary, and whether DCPS/DME will have the political willpower and support to make needed changes on an interim basis.

This mayor (and no future mayor) isn't going open this can of worms unless she decides not to run for re-election (or loses in a primary). The only reason it got done last time is because Gray lost the primary.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe one option for a school like Shepherd Elementary where the neighborhood is not supplying enough elementary students to keep the school occupied (only 34% in-bounds) is to convert it to a PK-8 school. The school infrastructure is already in place. If DCPS sends in some middle school teachers, them Shepherd could use its extra building capacity to truly serve that neighborhood's population of students all the way through high school. Could be implemented very quickly since the school and neighborhood infrastructure is already in place.

I know that's an outside-the-box idea, and people will probably hate it on principle. But what's wrong with it?

Shepherd is a small school that only has capacity of 360 students and is currently at 360 students. Where would these other grades be housed?

Only one-third of Shepherd is currently in-bounds students. With a shift, the in-bounds neighborhood students would fully occupy the school for PK-8, which means fewer OOB students would be needed to fill in the excess space. Making a shift like this takes pressure off Deal, and focuses Shepherd on its strong neighborhood. Why wouldn't Shepherd Park families want their children to have an option to attend middle school in their very own neighborhood? Seems like a huge win for Shepherd Park.

Anonymous wrote:13:03 again. Let me highlight one sentence from what I already quoted.

DCPS shall then identify whether any action on boundaries, co-locations, consolidations, grade configuration changes, or educational interventions are required to address the utilization concerns coming out of Recommendations 35, 36, and 37.

Sure sounds to me like DCPS has the power under this language to make interim adjustments whenever capacity/utilization/participation requires it. No need to wait 10 years.

The question is whether DCPS will hear from enough people to think interim adjustment is necessary, and whether DCPS/DME will have the political willpower and support to make needed changes on an interim basis.

This mayor (and no future mayor) isn't going open this can of worms unless she decides not to run for re-election (or loses in a primary). The only reason it got done last time is because Gray lost the primary.

Shepherd and Bancroft

Anonymous wrote:Maybe one option for a school like Shepherd Elementary where the neighborhood is not supplying enough elementary students to keep the school occupied (only 34% in-bounds) is to convert it to a PK-8 school. The school infrastructure is already in place. If DCPS sends in some middle school teachers, them Shepherd could use its extra building capacity to truly serve that neighborhood's population of students all the way through high school. Could be implemented very quickly since the school and neighborhood infrastructure is already in place.

I know that's an outside-the-box idea, and people will probably hate it on principle. But what's wrong with it?

Shepherd is a small school that only has capacity of 360 students and is currently at 360 students. Where would these other grades be housed?

Anonymous wrote:There's no timeline for North Middle.

Coolidge did get some modernization in the last decade - mostly of the athletic facilities but some interior work as well.

It should be closed/surplused. There isn't enough demand for it and Roosevelt.

-Coolidge neighbor

Agreed

13:03 again. Let me highlight one sentence from what I already quoted.

DCPS shall then identify whether any action on boundaries, co-locations, consolidations, grade configuration changes, or educational interventions are required to address the utilization concerns coming out of Recommendations 35, 36, and 37.

Sure sounds to me like DCPS has the power under this language to make interim adjustments whenever capacity/utilization/participation requires it. No need to wait 10 years.

The question is whether DCPS will hear from enough people to think interim adjustment is necessary, and whether DCPS/DME will have the political willpower and support to make needed changes on an interim basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kick Shepherd out of Deal, fine but they will NEVER turn it into a PK-8 campus. Never! It will go to Macfarland first. Horrible, horrible idea. DC will NEVER open a new EC in our lifetime. That's a fact.

Can you please explain why EC is a horrible, horrible idea? You keep saying that, but I don't understand your objection.

Actually I was a NP. No need for explanation. Just know it won't happen.

Anonymous wrote:Kick Shepherd out of Deal, fine but they will NEVER turn it into a PK-8 campus. Never! It will go to Macfarland first. Horrible, horrible idea. DC will NEVER open a new EC in our lifetime. That's a fact.

Can you please explain why EC is a horrible, horrible idea? You keep saying that, but I don't understand your objection.

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who want to zone various schools out of Deal, as far as I can tell you were somewhat active on DCUM during the DME process, who knows how many posters in reality, could have been a handful, could have been more.

Speaking personally, I don't necessarily want to zone schools out of Deal. I want to look at options to use the school assets effectively. Part of that is reducing the severe overcrowding at Deal and Wilson. Another part is fostering MacFarland and Roosevelt so they will be successful. There are several possible approaches to those problems. One is to adjust the feeder system further and perhaps remove certain schools from Deal's feeder pattern. Another is to fix problems in the OOB system.

But you were nowhere to be seen at the community meetings. I remember seeing posts like this on this forum and then going to the meetings and hearing none of these ideas expressed. And even if you sent these comments privately, DME obviously decided otherwise.

I unfortunately was able to attend only one meeting in person, and I found it an inefficient way to have views heard. I did have an active email exchange with DME staff, a number of phone calls, and participation in the DME's online community engagement tool (whatever it was called). I disagree that DME "decided otherwise," because I think DME's plan acknowledged the need for continuing changes. (See below.)

I would ask, why do you think you'd succeed this time when you failed last time, but that isn't even the correct question because there isn't even a "this time". There is no boundary review imminent.

Curious what you think you can gain now on the internet that you didn't during a recent real life political process. What has changed since 2 years ago when this issue was definitively settled for a generation or at least a decade, as a gift from an outgoing mayor to an incoming? What new information exists?

I do not think I "failed" at all. I offered several views, and DME's final recommendations actually matched many of them. (Of course, I seriously doubt though that my personal views held much sway in the grand scheme of things, so it's kind of a misstatement to suggest I succeeded or failed in any way. I'm sure I was just one "vote" among many.)

I also don't think the process is ever over. DME's recommendations rightfully acknowledged that it's an ongoing process with constant adjustments.

Recommendation 35: DCPS shall conduct a boundary study when:
• A zoned DCPS school has been utilized at 90 percent or more and has had an in-boundary
percentage of enrollment greater than 75 percent for three consecutive years; or
• A zoned DCPS school has been utilized at 60 percent or less for three consecutive years.

Recommendation 36: As part of the annual monitoring of school capacity and utilization, DCPS
shall undertake a more detailed study of the capacity, utilization, and in-boundary participation for
a zoned DCPS school that has enrollment capacity equal to or less than 45 percent of the age appropriate
public school population within the attendance zone.

Recommendation 37: As part of DCPS boundary studies, DCPS shall work with the local school
and community to secure input into the studies on school capacity, utilization and attendance
zones. This should include:
• Evaluating the school specific boundary population, in-boundary participation rates, and
charter enrollments in the vicinity;
• Obtaining five- to ten-year population projections for the boundary and its adjacent
boundaries;
• Identifying any school quality barriers that may be affecting school utilization; and
• Assessing the walkability and transportation concerns of students and families.
DCPS shall then identify whether any action on boundaries, co-locations, consolidations, grade
configuration changes, or educational interventions are required to address the utilization concerns
coming out of Recommendations 35, 36, and 37.

Recommendation 41: In 2022, and every ten years thereafter, the District shall undergo a
comprehensive review of student assignment policies, including school boundaries and feeder
patterns.

Although Recommendation 41 called for a comprehensive review every 10 years, there's no reason DCPS / DME cannot make interim adjustments to fix problems as they develop. Indeed, although I cannot find it right now, I recall there was some DME publication that made that exact point. Also, Mayor Bowser has already "tweaked" the process once, so the door is open to further "tweaks" to keep the system running efficiently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Takoma, Whittier and Brightwood will eventually feed to a brand new "North middle school" that would feed to Coolidge.

No timeline whatsoever for this, but Coolidge is getting some renovations, despite having only about 300 students (and capacity for 4 times that many).

No timeline whatsoever for this, but Coolidge is getting some renovations, despite having never been renovated since it was opened in the 1930s.

I think the Coolidge community was pushing for that space to be renovated into a MS & HS, so each would have roughly half the capacity. That really seems like a better use of money, and a more appropriate size for the schools.

Some neighbors want that. The Coolidge alumni community and leadership want a comprehensive high school and they are vocal.

DCPS is proceeding with a high school only renovation. It's on the short list to begin in the next year or so.

Nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would make most sense to shift Janney to Hardy for the following reasons: 1) most kids live along with Wisconsin Avenue corridor so there is existing and plentiful public transportation options to Hardy (all the 30 buses), 2) Hardy would be fully utilized by shifting Janney, 3) there would be no drop in diversity to Deal, as would be the case in moving the other ESs.

By 2020 Janney, Hearst, Lafayette and Murch will also have about the same about of diversity (little) making then all more vulnerable to potentially losing the feed than Bancroft or Shepherd.

Sure, let's increase traffic and have those kids be driven or bused to a school several miles away, rather than going to one they can walk to, all in the name of diversity. Insane.

Hearst to Hardy = 1.8 miles
Hearst to Deal = 1.1 miles

About 7-10 minutes longer on foot.

We attend Hearst and live on the East side of Conn Ave. I just mapped it. We live 1.5m from Deal and 2.9m from Hardy. Maybe when my parents attended school and walked uphill both ways, in the snow and in the dark, a 2.9 mile walk each way would be acceptable, but not today. Even if my kid could walk to Wisconsin Ave to jump on a 30 bus, it's still a 1.2m walk there. You can't just measure school to school distance. You need to think about the actual homes/buildings that people live in and that distance from each school.

There's no timeline for North Middle.

Coolidge did get some modernization in the last decade - mostly of the athletic facilities but some interior work as well.

It should be closed/surplused. There isn't enough demand for it and Roosevelt.

-Coolidge neighbor

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Takoma, Whittier and Brightwood will eventually feed to a brand new "North middle school" that would feed to Coolidge.

No timeline whatsoever for this, but Coolidge is getting some renovations, despite having only about 300 students (and capacity for 4 times that many).

No timeline whatsoever for this, but Coolidge is getting some renovations, despite having never been renovated since it was opened in the 1930s.

I think the Coolidge community was pushing for that space to be renovated into a MS & HS, so each would have roughly half the capacity. That really seems like a better use of money, and a more appropriate size for the schools.

Anonymous wrote:Takoma, Whittier and Brightwood will eventually feed to a brand new "North middle school" that would feed to Coolidge.

No timeline whatsoever for this, but Coolidge is getting some renovations, despite having only about 300 students (and capacity for 4 times that many).

No timeline whatsoever for this, but Coolidge is getting some renovations, despite having never been renovated since it was opened in the 1930s.