most of this should rest on the shoulders of the former principal. she made decisions without teacher input and then told them it was a done deal. as often happened, teachers were not told their assignments until the last day of school or later. some had no choice. we can't make a blanket statement such as "my child was in a class with thirty children and it worked well." we have to look at the classroom size, school curriculum and the experience of the teachers. the principal did this once before and it was a mess. one teacher said she would not do it again, after three years and was told if she didn't like it she could leave. which she did.
many good, experienced teachers left because of her style of "running the school." so glad the new administration is more focused on the children. she has inherited a difficult situation and should be given an opportunity and support in trying to work through the mess left by the last principal. do you all know that she was not in the building during the last few days of school? she left her office a mess for the new principal to clean. how professional. good riddance to bad rubbish. PS- her comamndo style is not working at her new school with middle school parents and students. karma !!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really late to this party AND I am not going to read 29 pages of discussion. However, where I am ~30 is a normal class size for 3rd-6th grade. Maybe it's not idea, but it's not unusual.

Nobody cares that you showed up late to a party, because nobody invited you. Is there not a Rochester, Minn. parent website that needs you? Why are you even posting on a schools forum for the District of Columbia?

Somebody having a bad day?

Anonymous wrote:I am really late to this party AND I am not going to read 29 pages of discussion. However, where I am ~30 is a normal class size for 3rd-6th grade. Maybe it's not idea, but it's not unusual.

Nobody cares that you showed up late to a party, because nobody invited you. Is there not a Rochester, Minn. parent website that needs you? Why are you even posting on a schools forum for the District of Columbia?

I am really late to this party AND I am not going to read 29 pages of discussion. However, where I am ~30 is a normal class size for 3rd-6th grade. Maybe it's not idea, but it's not unusual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a Hearst rapid response team hanging on this Janney thread, ready to counter any statement about Hearst, like the suggestion that Janney twin with Hearst. Wondering how the other half lives?

Nope. Just amazed at how everyone thinks they can just take or annex or occupy our fantastic school without considering our kids' needs as if the Janney parents just say something and it's done. That false air of superiority won't fit it into our school environment.

This comment is pretty revealing. Much of the postings have been about redrawing boundaries so that Hearst becomes more of a neighborhood/IB school, thereby relieving overcrowding at Janney. But it's clear that the Hearst community would view this as an "occupation." They have no interest in Hearst becoming a primarily neighborhood-based school because they want Hearst to remain a Distrct-wide school that just happens to be located in the neighborhood.

Or, you are reading too much into a notoriously fickle and specious anonymous message board.

Many parents at Hearst, and parents in the neighborhood with kids entering soon, would of course love for the in-boundary zone to be increased. Zero parents I have spoken to at Hearst would see any downside to increasing the in-boundary zone. Any concern about an "occupation" is classic DCUM-spin (by you) that could not be further from the truth. I also believe and know to be true that any Janney parents I have met are nice people. Things are not always what they seem on DCUM.

Exactly. We are IB Hearst and most of DC's K class is IB now. Really nice. And more IB kids will come with the building being done. The point is that the conversation on here is that Janney parents breathe and get what they want, without regard to anyone else. If the schools are going to "twin" it should include the feedback of all parents. Not just the Janney ones. All kids would be impacted not just the ones who think they would be "stuck" attending a "lesser" school. Let's have a real, honest, inclusive conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a Hearst rapid response team hanging on this Janney thread, ready to counter any statement about Hearst, like the suggestion that Janney twin with Hearst. Wondering how the other half lives?

Nope. Just amazed at how everyone thinks they can just take or annex or occupy our fantastic school without considering our kids' needs as if the Janney parents just say something and it's done. That false air of superiority won't fit it into our school environment.

This comment is pretty revealing. Much of the postings have been about redrawing boundaries so that Hearst becomes more of a neighborhood/IB school, thereby relieving overcrowding at Janney. But it's clear that the Hearst community would view this as an "occupation." They have no interest in Hearst becoming a primarily neighborhood-based school because they want Hearst to remain a Distrct-wide school that just happens to be located in the neighborhood.

Or, you are reading too much into a notoriously fickle and specious anonymous message board.

Many parents at Hearst, and parents in the neighborhood with kids entering soon, would of course love for the in-boundary zone to be increased. Zero parents I have spoken to at Hearst would see any downside to increasing the in-boundary zone. Any concern about an "occupation" is classic DCUM-spin (by you) that could not be further from the truth. I also believe and know to be true that any Janney parents I have met are nice people. Things are not always what they seem on DCUM.

This comment is pretty revealing. Much of the postings have been about redrawing boundaries so that Hearst becomes more of a neighborhood/IB school, thereby relieving overcrowding at Janney. But it's clear that the Hearst community would view this as an "occupation." They have no interest in Hearst becoming a primarily neighborhood-based school because they want Hearst to remain a Distrct-wide school that just happens to be located in the neighborhood.

Exactly. If 100 new kids were zoned to Hearst from current Murch and Janney streets -- kids who in many cases could walk -- then that -could- mean 80-100 fewer kids from Mt. Pleasant, Crestwood, 14th St and Columbia Hts. And naturally, we can't turn off that cross-park tap for some reason. Historical established rights or somethin'

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a Hearst rapid response team hanging on this Janney thread, ready to counter any statement about Hearst, like the suggestion that Janney twin with Hearst. Wondering how the other half lives?

Nope. Just amazed at how everyone thinks they can just take or annex or occupy our fantastic school without considering our kids' needs as if the Janney parents just say something and it's done. That false air of superiority won't fit it into our school environment.

This comment is pretty revealing. Much of the postings have been about redrawing boundaries so that Hearst becomes more of a neighborhood/IB school, thereby relieving overcrowding at Janney. But it's clear that the Hearst community would view this as an "occupation." They have no interest in Hearst becoming a primarily neighborhood-based school because they want Hearst to remain a Distrct-wide school that just happens to be located in the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a Hearst rapid response team hanging on this Janney thread, ready to counter any statement about Hearst, like the suggestion that Janney twin with Hearst. Wondering how the other half lives?

Nope. Just amazed at how everyone thinks they can just take or annex or occupy our fantastic school without considering our kids' needs as if the Janney parents just say something and it's done. That false air of superiority won't fit it into our school environment.

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Janney parents all wish they were in private school.

Oh, right! I forgot it is a free private school. Good for them.

This is BS, but why shouldn't more public schools aspire to private school academic quality standards? For too long, folks in DC have come to expect that "good enough" is good enough.

Anonymous wrote:So 29 pages later ....

... Giant Class Rooms are AWESOME! Everyone should be like Janney and have them!

Ha! I'll pass and take my EOTP Charter School any day.

So 29 pages later ....

... Giant Class Rooms are AWESOME! Everyone should be like Janney and have them!

Looks like Janney parents all wish they were in private school.

Oh, right! I forgot it is a free private school. Good for them.

Anonymous wrote:Janney parent here again.

The sad reality is though that NONE of these changes mentioned up thread will be made. The only thing that will happen is that those who can afford it will leave Janney and the numbers will self-adjust down. We saw it last year with Deal--a larger number of kids than ever before in recent years from Janney went on to private instead of Deal. However, the number of families who can afford to pay for private school and choose to live in AU Park is small. Most who can already do. The rest of us have decent, 2 salary house hold incomes but don't have a spare $35K per kid hanging around each year. I'd say that for 90% of families at Janney, private school is not even remotely a financial option.

You make this assumption that the desirable private schools aren't already full. What makes you think there is more room at Sidwell, GDS, Sheridan etc for kids IB at Janney?

There seems to be a Hearst rapid response team hanging on this Janney thread, ready to counter any statement about Hearst, like the suggestion that Janney twin with Hearst. Wondering how the other half lives?