Anonymous wrote:Fox Hall elementary makes no sense unless it is part of a larger plan to shifting feeder elementary schools away from Deal to Hardy, Wells and McFarland. It’s the only thing that makes sense. If I was DCPS I would do it slowly so you are not fighting all of NW all at once.

If you are in NW do not be surprised when your middle is changes in the next few years.

Anonymous wrote:
Most importantly the new elementary school in Fox Hall does nothing to address over crowding and projected growth at Deal and its feeder elementary schools which is the Jackson-Reed(JR)pyramid. JR pyramid is projection to have 2,500 more students vs capacity by 2027. What is needed is two new elementary schools, a new middle school and a new high school in NW. The new elementary schools and middle school are needed in Deal’s boundary not Hardy’s boundary.

Anonymous wrote:
Fox Hall is not a densely populated area with projected growth in elementary age children and has a lot of large tracks of land taken up by universities, hospital, Georgetown Reservoir, etc. This will force the new elementary school to draw the majority of it students from farther away vs other elementary schools. The low number of elementary age students in Fox Hall area is easily accommodated within Key’s boundary. There is no need for a new elementary school in this area.

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that people are freaking out about this. It's a new school, and it will be great! Also, DCPS typically grandfathers in families, so people with kids already in school will get to choose.

When they moved around the Murch/Lafayette/Janney boundaries 8 years ago, it wasn't a huge deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The future kids aren't going to live in the same houses as the current kids. That would be a large gap between the ages of kids in a single household. And the Palisades allows no development other than loudly demanding a school as seen above. Any kids moving in will be matched by kids moving out.

More "Foxhaller Facts." The Office of Planning is predicting strong growth in the school-age population within the Key and Mann boundaries. For up to ten years out these predictions are very accurate because the kids have already been born. Their projections are based on existing housing.

The projections are entirely based on kids moving away from privates to public. Not from 'more families' moving to the Palisades. On the other hand, they do project housing growth on the Wisconsin corridor. But this school isn't exactly near that corridor.

This is entirely untrue. It is so far removed from the truth I'd have to characterize it as made up.

Here is the methodology the Office of Planning and DME use: the city is divided into 45 "neighborhood clusters," each one is about 15,000 people. For each cluster the Office of Planning uses US Census data to project the population out into the future. Included in the projections are numbers for school-age children. The DME's office takes the current enrollment for each school and breaks it down by cluster. They then apply the percentage growth that OOP is projecting for each cluster to each school's enrollment to get an enrollment projection for that school.

This methodology assumes that there is absolutely no change in behavior -- that everyone keeps going to the same schools in the same proportions as currently. Clearly that assumption isn't going to be true but it's probably the best assumption overall.

The backdrop to all of this is that city-wide the school-age population is growing rapidly. OOP is predicting by 2027 it will be over 130,000 for the first time since the baby boomers were in school, with over 120,000 of those kids in public school. In fact, one of the criticisms of the DME's projections is that they assumed that the share of kids going to private school is going to remain constant, at about 10%. However, that would require a massive increase in the number of private school seats, which those schools don't have the ability to create because for the most part they are constrained by zoning. And the projections assume that the charter schools will also be able to increase their seats quickly, which they probably won't be able to do either. So the likelihood is that DCPS -- which unlike the charters and privates can't turn anyone away -- will experience higher than projected growth.

Thanks! this is helpful. My google-fu sucks, do you have a link to the DCPS projections?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The future kids aren't going to live in the same houses as the current kids. That would be a large gap between the ages of kids in a single household. And the Palisades allows no development other than loudly demanding a school as seen above. Any kids moving in will be matched by kids moving out.

More "Foxhaller Facts." The Office of Planning is predicting strong growth in the school-age population within the Key and Mann boundaries. For up to ten years out these predictions are very accurate because the kids have already been born. Their projections are based on existing housing.

The projections are entirely based on kids moving away from privates to public. Not from 'more families' moving to the Palisades. On the other hand, they do project housing growth on the Wisconsin corridor. But this school isn't exactly near that corridor.

This is entirely untrue. It is so far removed from the truth I'd have to characterize it as made up.

Here is the methodology the Office of Planning and DME use: the city is divided into 45 "neighborhood clusters," each one is about 15,000 people. For each cluster the Office of Planning uses US Census data to project the population out into the future. Included in the projections are numbers for school-age children. The DME's office takes the current enrollment for each school and breaks it down by cluster. They then apply the percentage growth that OOP is projecting for each cluster to each school's enrollment to get an enrollment projection for that school.

This methodology assumes that there is absolutely no change in behavior -- that everyone keeps going to the same schools in the same proportions as currently. Clearly that assumption isn't going to be true but it's probably the best assumption overall.

The backdrop to all of this is that city-wide the school-age population is growing rapidly. OOP is predicting by 2027 it will be over 130,000 for the first time since the baby boomers were in school, with over 120,000 of those kids in public school. In fact, one of the criticisms of the DME's projections is that they assumed that the share of kids going to private school is going to remain constant, at about 10%. However, that would require a massive increase in the number of private school seats, which those schools don't have the ability to create because for the most part they are constrained by zoning. And the projections assume that the charter schools will also be able to increase their seats quickly, which they probably won't be able to do either. So the likelihood is that DCPS -- which unlike the charters and privates can't turn anyone away -- will experience higher than projected growth.

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that people are freaking out about this. It's a new school, and it will be great! Also, DCPS typically grandfathers in families, so people with kids already in school will get to choose.

When they moved around the Murch/Lafayette/Janney boundaries 8 years ago, it wasn't a huge deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The future kids aren't going to live in the same houses as the current kids. That would be a large gap between the ages of kids in a single household. And the Palisades allows no development other than loudly demanding a school as seen above. Any kids moving in will be matched by kids moving out.

More "Foxhaller Facts." The Office of Planning is predicting strong growth in the school-age population within the Key and Mann boundaries. For up to ten years out these predictions are very accurate because the kids have already been born. Their projections are based on existing housing.

The projections are entirely based on kids moving away from privates to public. Not from 'more families' moving to the Palisades. On the other hand, they do project housing growth on the Wisconsin corridor. But this school isn't exactly near that corridor.

This is entirely untrue. It is so far removed from the truth I'd have to characterize it as made up.

Here is the methodology the Office of Planning and DME use: the city is divided into 45 "neighborhood clusters," each one is about 15,000 people. For each cluster the Office of Planning uses US Census data to project the population out into the future. Included in the projections are numbers for school-age children. The DME's office takes the current enrollment for each school and breaks it down by cluster. They then apply the percentage growth that OOP is projecting for each cluster to each school's enrollment to get an enrollment projection for that school.

This methodology assumes that there is absolutely no change in behavior -- that everyone keeps going to the same schools in the same proportions as currently. Clearly that assumption isn't going to be true but it's probably the best assumption overall.

The backdrop to all of this is that city-wide the school-age population is growing rapidly. OOP is predicting by 2027 it will be over 130,000 for the first time since the baby boomers were in school, with over 120,000 of those kids in public school. In fact, one of the criticisms of the DME's projections is that they assumed that the share of kids going to private school is going to remain constant, at about 10%. However, that would require a massive increase in the number of private school seats, which those schools don't have the ability to create because for the most part they are constrained by zoning. And the projections assume that the charter schools will also be able to increase their seats quickly, which they probably won't be able to do either. So the likelihood is that DCPS -- which unlike the charters and privates can't turn anyone away -- will experience higher than projected growth.

Very informative, and not what either of the previous feuding posters described (private schools to public or kids already born). Sounds like it could be improved by taking into account neighborhood or cluster characteristics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The future kids aren't going to live in the same houses as the current kids. That would be a large gap between the ages of kids in a single household. And the Palisades allows no development other than loudly demanding a school as seen above. Any kids moving in will be matched by kids moving out.

More "Foxhaller Facts." The Office of Planning is predicting strong growth in the school-age population within the Key and Mann boundaries. For up to ten years out these predictions are very accurate because the kids have already been born. Their projections are based on existing housing.

The projections are entirely based on kids moving away from privates to public. Not from 'more families' moving to the Palisades. On the other hand, they do project housing growth on the Wisconsin corridor. But this school isn't exactly near that corridor.

This is entirely untrue. It is so far removed from the truth I'd have to characterize it as made up.

Here is the methodology the Office of Planning and DME use: the city is divided into 45 "neighborhood clusters," each one is about 15,000 people. For each cluster the Office of Planning uses US Census data to project the population out into the future. Included in the projections are numbers for school-age children. The DME's office takes the current enrollment for each school and breaks it down by cluster. They then apply the percentage growth that OOP is projecting for each cluster to each school's enrollment to get an enrollment projection for that school.

This methodology assumes that there is absolutely no change in behavior -- that everyone keeps going to the same schools in the same proportions as currently. Clearly that assumption isn't going to be true but it's probably the best assumption overall.

The backdrop to all of this is that city-wide the school-age population is growing rapidly. OOP is predicting by 2027 it will be over 130,000 for the first time since the baby boomers were in school, with over 120,000 of those kids in public school. In fact, one of the criticisms of the DME's projections is that they assumed that the share of kids going to private school is going to remain constant, at about 10%. However, that would require a massive increase in the number of private school seats, which those schools don't have the ability to create because for the most part they are constrained by zoning. And the projections assume that the charter schools will also be able to increase their seats quickly, which they probably won't be able to do either. So the likelihood is that DCPS -- which unlike the charters and privates can't turn anyone away -- will experience higher than projected growth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The future kids aren't going to live in the same houses as the current kids. That would be a large gap between the ages of kids in a single household. And the Palisades allows no development other than loudly demanding a school as seen above. Any kids moving in will be matched by kids moving out.

More "Foxhaller Facts." The Office of Planning is predicting strong growth in the school-age population within the Key and Mann boundaries. For up to ten years out these predictions are very accurate because the kids have already been born. Their projections are based on existing housing.

The projections are entirely based on kids moving away from privates to public. Not from 'more families' moving to the Palisades. On the other hand, they do project housing growth on the Wisconsin corridor. But this school isn't exactly near that corridor.

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that people are freaking out about this. It's a new school, and it will be great! Also, DCPS typically grandfathers in families, so people with kids already in school will get to choose.

When they moved around the Murch/Lafayette/Janney boundaries 8 years ago, it wasn't a huge deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The future kids aren't going to live in the same houses as the current kids. That would be a large gap between the ages of kids in a single household. And the Palisades allows no development other than loudly demanding a school as seen above. Any kids moving in will be matched by kids moving out.

More "Foxhaller Facts." The Office of Planning is predicting strong growth in the school-age population within the Key and Mann boundaries. For up to ten years out these predictions are very accurate because the kids have already been born. Their projections are based on existing housing.

Anonymous wrote:The future kids aren't going to live in the same houses as the current kids. That would be a large gap between the ages of kids in a single household. And the Palisades allows no development other than loudly demanding a school as seen above. Any kids moving in will be matched by kids moving out.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the actual chart from that document:



It doesn't at all support your analysis. In particular, there are a lot of kids who are in boundary for Key who will be a lot closer to Foxhall -- they'll go from a median of 1.9 miles today to a median of 0.4. That's the difference between walkable and unwalkable. I count 193 kids today from Mann and Key who would be affected by the boundary change. But both schools are predicted to grow substantially in the next decade, applying that same rate of growth you easily get to the 275 number that was the baseline in my post. In fact, you probably don't even need to move the boundary quite as aggressively as they suggested in that presentation.

So no, they don't need Stoddert kids to fill the new school. Please stop with the beggar-thy-neighbor attempts to scuttle a new school. Those kids deserve a walkable school as much as yours do.