Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushing Hearst & Eaton out does not really solve the long term issue of the neighborhood demographics. The problem is that schools like Janey & Murch are expected to grow so much that you are in the same over crowding mess. You have to address the whole distribution, meaning you have to spread those kids to the schools that have large oob populations now. My guess is that Hearst and Eaton stay but with Janey kids at least pulled into their school boundaries. It is the only way you deal with the underlying numbers problem.

How would that help with the Deal crowding issue if they still feed into Deal?

For the Hearst posters, if more IB students are attending Hearst, how is that different in regards to the diversity issue (which is a Hearst claim for keeping Hearst as a feeder) than having Heast feed into Hardy. Won't Deal be becoming higher SES (ie, white) either way-- if Hearst goes to Hardy OR if IB kids choose Hearst?

It helps deal by redistributing Janey kids & displacing oob kids.

Wait, so it would help Janney not Deal? Ha ok. The world does not revolve around Janney. Do Janney people know this?

Anonymous wrote:And no grandfathering unless entering grade 8

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushing Hearst & Eaton out does not really solve the long term issue of the neighborhood demographics. The problem is that schools like Janey & Murch are expected to grow so much that you are in the same over crowding mess. You have to address the whole distribution, meaning you have to spread those kids to the schools that have large oob populations now. My guess is that Hearst and Eaton stay but with Janey kids at least pulled into their school boundaries. It is the only way you deal with the underlying numbers problem.

How would that help with the Deal crowding issue if they still feed into Deal?

For the Hearst posters, if more IB students are attending Hearst, how is that different in regards to the diversity issue (which is a Hearst claim for keeping Hearst as a feeder) than having Heast feed into Hardy. Won't Deal be becoming higher SES (ie, white) either way-- if Hearst goes to Hardy OR if IB kids choose Hearst?

It helps deal by redistributing Janey kids & displacing oob kids.

Anonymous wrote:We are IB for Hearst and live in the northern part of the zone and east of Connecticut Avenue. So much closer to Deal than Hardy and just one metro stop away. It would be ridiculous for us to be rezoned for Hardy. We would definitely move, not even a tough decision. We are getting the house painted in March and doing repairs now in case we need to pull the rip cord when the maps come out in May.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushing Hearst & Eaton out does not really solve the long term issue of the neighborhood demographics. The problem is that schools like Janey & Murch are expected to grow so much that you are in the same over crowding mess. You have to address the whole distribution, meaning you have to spread those kids to the schools that have large oob populations now. My guess is that Hearst and Eaton stay but with Janey kids at least pulled into their school boundaries. It is the only way you deal with the underlying numbers problem.

How would that help with the Deal crowding issue if they still feed into Deal?

For the Hearst posters, if more IB students are attending Hearst, how is that different in regards to the diversity issue (which is a Hearst claim for keeping Hearst as a feeder) than having Heast feed into Hardy. Won't Deal be becoming higher SES (ie, white) either way-- if Hearst goes to Hardy OR if IB kids choose Hearst?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to OP, Murch feeder pattern looks solid. So long as your child is in K or higher next fall, you will be able to grandfather into Deal and Wilson in the next 5-10 years. The good news for your child is that there will be more high-performing charter options in the coming years. Your child will not be locked into just Deal/Wilson. More than 40% of public school students are in charters now and stricter accountability measures than DCPS moving forward, it's highly likely that secondary students will have more high quality options across out relatively small city than today.

You bring up a question I've been wondering about. If there is to be any progress in changing boundaries (in terms of overcrowding), wouldn't DCPS have to do away with grandfathering and/or sibling preferences? It seems to me that if one or both of those preferences are not cut, then nothing will really change in the next 10-15 years.

Is there something I'm missing in this?

Sadly, you're missing nothing. In fact, sadly you are more perceptive than the people who study this for a living seem to be.

Anonymous wrote:We are IB for Hearst and live in the northern part of the zone and east of Connecticut Avenue. So much closer to Deal than Hardy and just one metro stop away. It would be ridiculous for us to be rezoned for Hardy. We would definitely move, not even a tough decision. We are getting the house painted in March and doing repairs now in case we need to pull the rip cord when the maps come out in May.

Anonymous wrote:

Back to OP, Murch feeder pattern looks solid. So long as your child is in K or higher next fall, you will be able to grandfather into Deal and Wilson in the next 5-10 years. The good news for your child is that there will be more high-performing charter options in the coming years. Your child will not be locked into just Deal/Wilson. More than 40% of public school students are in charters now and stricter accountability measures than DCPS moving forward, it's highly likely that secondary students will have more high quality options across out relatively small city than today.

You bring up a question I've been wondering about. If there is to be any progress in changing boundaries (in terms of overcrowding), wouldn't DCPS have to do away with grandfathering and/or sibling preferences? It seems to me that if one or both of those preferences are not cut, then nothing will really change in the next 10-15 years.

Is there something I'm missing in this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushing Hearst & Eaton out does not really solve the long term issue of the neighborhood demographics. The problem is that schools like Janey & Murch are expected to grow so much that you are in the same over crowding mess. You have to address the whole distribution, meaning you have to spread those kids to the schools that have large oob populations now. My guess is that Hearst and Eaton stay but with Janey kids at least pulled into their school boundaries. It is the only way you deal with the underlying numbers problem.

How would that help with the Deal crowding issue if they still feed into Deal?

For the Hearst posters, if more IB students are attending Hearst, how is that different in regards to the diversity issue (which is a Hearst claim for keeping Hearst as a feeder) than having Heast feed into Hardy. Won't Deal be becoming higher SES (ie, white) either way-- if Hearst goes to Hardy OR if IB kids choose Hearst?

Anonymous wrote:Pushing Hearst & Eaton out does not really solve the long term issue of the neighborhood demographics. The problem is that schools like Janey & Murch are expected to grow so much that you are in the same over crowding mess. You have to address the whole distribution, meaning you have to spread those kids to the schools that have large oob populations now. My guess is that Hearst and Eaton stay but with Janey kids at least pulled into their school boundaries. It is the only way you deal with the underlying numbers problem.