Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

MacArthur yes, Foxhall no.

Foxhall is meant to take pressure off of Key and Mann, and possibly over time allow some adjustment of the Janney and Eaton boundaries where they abut Mann to take some pressure off of those schools. It's actually exactly where it needs to be, it's a spot that had a DCPS school for 60 years. Over half of the kids at Key now are closer to Foxhall than they are to Key.

MacArthur is meant to be Hardy's destination school. Ideally it would be close to Hardy so that anyone who can get to Hardy can get to Mac, and families who have kids split between the two can still have their kids travel together. But there just isn't a site there. In 2014, before the renovation, Frumin suggested moving Ellington rather than renovating it and using that building for a high school -- which is also the historic way those two buildings were used. That plan was shot down by Vincent Gray. Goulet was working for Gray at the time.

The Fox Hall location is in the worst possible position location for an elementary school because of the low density, the difficulty of access from the East and distance away from Mann, Janney and Eaton. That is why it was closed. The numbers just not add up for an elementary school in Fox Hall. There is just no way to make it work.

I know that Foxhall Facts are resistant to real world facts, like any good conspiracy theory, but I'm going to try.

Foxhall isn't particularly low density.

There are 141 public elementary schools in DC. Roughly one for every 4,000 residents. A good high-level way of gauging the density of an area is to look at the ANC boundary map. By law, ANC commissions have to be roughly 2,000 residents. You can see a map of ANC 3D here: https://www.anc3d.org/anc-map

ANC 3D corresponds almost exactly with the boundaries of Mann and Key. It has ten commissions, which means that roughly 20,000 people live there. If it had elementary schools at the rate of the rest of the city it would have five public elementary schools. You can tell the relative density of an area by looking at the size of the ANC districts; the smaller the district the denser the population. The districts around Foxhall aren't particularly large, they aren't even the largest in ANC 3D. 3D06, which contains the school, is one of the smaller districts in the ANC. Yes, there are green patches that have no residents -- but those aren't the areas around the school. The map shows it clearly.

There is plenty of population to support an elementary school there.

Yeah, foxhall isn't terrible. A reasonable size school on the Lab site would have been great for the community. But Goulet's friends and the community association pushed for the lab school's lease renewal. So really this entire mess is partially their fault.

For the lease renewal push Lab hired two lobbyists, Ben Young and Clare Bloch.

Ben Young is Mendelson's campaign finance chair.

Clare Bloch is Goulet's campaign co-chair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

MacArthur yes, Foxhall no.

Foxhall is meant to take pressure off of Key and Mann, and possibly over time allow some adjustment of the Janney and Eaton boundaries where they abut Mann to take some pressure off of those schools. It's actually exactly where it needs to be, it's a spot that had a DCPS school for 60 years. Over half of the kids at Key now are closer to Foxhall than they are to Key.

MacArthur is meant to be Hardy's destination school. Ideally it would be close to Hardy so that anyone who can get to Hardy can get to Mac, and families who have kids split between the two can still have their kids travel together. But there just isn't a site there. In 2014, before the renovation, Frumin suggested moving Ellington rather than renovating it and using that building for a high school -- which is also the historic way those two buildings were used. That plan was shot down by Vincent Gray. Goulet was working for Gray at the time.

The Fox Hall location is in the worst possible position location for an elementary school because of the low density, the difficulty of access from the East and distance away from Mann, Janney and Eaton. That is why it was closed. The numbers just not add up for an elementary school in Fox Hall. There is just no way to make it work.

I know that Foxhall Facts are resistant to real world facts, like any good conspiracy theory, but I'm going to try.

Foxhall isn't particularly low density.

There are 141 public elementary schools in DC. Roughly one for every 4,000 residents. A good high-level way of gauging the density of an area is to look at the ANC boundary map. By law, ANC commissions have to be roughly 2,000 residents. You can see a map of ANC 3D here: https://www.anc3d.org/anc-map

ANC 3D corresponds almost exactly with the boundaries of Mann and Key. It has ten commissions, which means that roughly 20,000 people live there. If it had elementary schools at the rate of the rest of the city it would have five public elementary schools. You can tell the relative density of an area by looking at the size of the ANC districts; the smaller the district the denser the population. The districts around Foxhall aren't particularly large, they aren't even the largest in ANC 3D. 3D06, which contains the school, is one of the smaller districts in the ANC. Yes, there are green patches that have no residents -- but those aren't the areas around the school. The map shows it clearly.

There is plenty of population to support an elementary school there.

Yeah, foxhall isn't terrible. A reasonable size school on the Lab site would have been great for the community. But Goulet's friends and the community association pushed for the lab school's lease renewal. So really this entire mess is partially their fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

MacArthur yes, Foxhall no.

Foxhall is meant to take pressure off of Key and Mann, and possibly over time allow some adjustment of the Janney and Eaton boundaries where they abut Mann to take some pressure off of those schools. It's actually exactly where it needs to be, it's a spot that had a DCPS school for 60 years. Over half of the kids at Key now are closer to Foxhall than they are to Key.

MacArthur is meant to be Hardy's destination school. Ideally it would be close to Hardy so that anyone who can get to Hardy can get to Mac, and families who have kids split between the two can still have their kids travel together. But there just isn't a site there. In 2014, before the renovation, Frumin suggested moving Ellington rather than renovating it and using that building for a high school -- which is also the historic way those two buildings were used. That plan was shot down by Vincent Gray. Goulet was working for Gray at the time.

The Fox Hall location is in the worst possible position location for an elementary school because of the low density, the difficulty of access from the East and distance away from Mann, Janney and Eaton. That is why it was closed. The numbers just not add up for an elementary school in Fox Hall. There is just no way to make it work.

I know that Foxhall Facts are resistant to real world facts, like any good conspiracy theory, but I'm going to try.

Foxhall isn't particularly low density.

There are 141 public elementary schools in DC. Roughly one for every 4,000 residents. A good high-level way of gauging the density of an area is to look at the ANC boundary map. By law, ANC commissions have to be roughly 2,000 residents. You can see a map of ANC 3D here: https://www.anc3d.org/anc-map

ANC 3D corresponds almost exactly with the boundaries of Mann and Key. It has ten commissions, which means that roughly 20,000 people live there. If it had elementary schools at the rate of the rest of the city it would have five public elementary schools. You can tell the relative density of an area by looking at the size of the ANC districts; the smaller the district the denser the population. The districts around Foxhall aren't particularly large, they aren't even the largest in ANC 3D. 3D06, which contains the school, is one of the smaller districts in the ANC. Yes, there are green patches that have no residents -- but those aren't the areas around the school. The map shows it clearly.

There is plenty of population to support an elementary school there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

MacArthur yes, Foxhall no.

Foxhall is meant to take pressure off of Key and Mann, and possibly over time allow some adjustment of the Janney and Eaton boundaries where they abut Mann to take some pressure off of those schools. It's actually exactly where it needs to be, it's a spot that had a DCPS school for 60 years. Over half of the kids at Key now are closer to Foxhall than they are to Key.

MacArthur is meant to be Hardy's destination school. Ideally it would be close to Hardy so that anyone who can get to Hardy can get to Mac, and families who have kids split between the two can still have their kids travel together. But there just isn't a site there. In 2014, before the renovation, Frumin suggested moving Ellington rather than renovating it and using that building for a high school -- which is also the historic way those two buildings were used. That plan was shot down by Vincent Gray. Goulet was working for Gray at the time.

The Fox Hall location is in the worst possible position location for an elementary school because of the low density, the difficulty of access from the East and distance away from Mann, Janney and Eaton. That is why it was closed. The numbers just not add up for an elementary school in Fox Hall. There is just no way to make it work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC_MFP_2019_Feb%2021_Final_compressed.pdf

So ward 2 and 3 only have 10 schools each, but all the other wards have 20-40. Wow. Yeah, things are going to get really bad before they get better. As of 2018, there were on 7K students from W3. Ward 5 had 15K. (DCPS+PCS)

According to Fig 2.16, both new schools with have the worst transit access of ANY DCPS facility.

One note, their methodology takes the capture rate trends from 2015-2018 and extrapolates forward. So there is some element of diversion from private to DCPS baked in (at the neighborhood level).

Ward analysis is a bit misleading because ward boundaries don't align with school boundaries. The largest elementary school in the city is Lafayette, with 900+ students. It's in Ward 4, but in the sliver of Ward 4 that is west of the park. Most of its students live in Ward 3. Kids in the southern half of Ward 3 got to middle school at Hardy, which is in Ward 2. Both Deal and JR have attendance boundaries that includes Wards 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The facilities plan says that 94% of DCPS schools are within a half mile of a transit stop. Since both Foxhall and MacArthur are on a couple of bus lines I'd say they're better off than those schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

MacArthur yes, Foxhall no.

Foxhall is meant to take pressure off of Key and Mann, and possibly over time allow some adjustment of the Janney and Eaton boundaries where they abut Mann to take some pressure off of those schools. It's actually exactly where it needs to be, it's a spot that had a DCPS school for 60 years. Over half of the kids at Key now are closer to Foxhall than they are to Key.

MacArthur is meant to be Hardy's destination school. Ideally it would be close to Hardy so that anyone who can get to Hardy can get to Mac, and families who have kids split between the two can still have their kids travel together. But there just isn't a site there. In 2014, before the renovation, Frumin suggested moving Ellington rather than renovating it and using that building for a high school -- which is also the historic way those two buildings were used. That plan was shot down by Vincent Gray. Goulet was working for Gray at the time.

Anonymous wrote:To answer the question, no, Frumin no longer supports moving Ellington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

MacArthur yes, Foxhall no.

Foxhall is meant to take pressure off of Key and Mann, and possibly over time allow some adjustment of the Janney and Eaton boundaries where they abut Mann to take some pressure off of those schools. It's actually exactly where it needs to be, it's a spot that had a DCPS school for 60 years. Over half of the kids at Key now are closer to Foxhall than they are to Key.

MacArthur is meant to be Hardy's destination school. Ideally it would be close to Hardy so that anyone who can get to Hardy can get to Mac, and families who have kids split between the two can still have their kids travel together. But there just isn't a site there. In 2014, before the renovation, Frumin suggested moving Ellington rather than renovating it and using that building for a high school -- which is also the historic way those two buildings were used. That plan was shot down by Vincent Gray. Goulet was working for Gray at the time.

Is Frumin still in favor of moving Ellington? If so, he should be open about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

MacArthur yes, Foxhall no.

Foxhall is meant to take pressure off of Key and Mann, and possibly over time allow some adjustment of the Janney and Eaton boundaries where they abut Mann to take some pressure off of those schools. It's actually exactly where it needs to be, it's a spot that had a DCPS school for 60 years. Over half of the kids at Key now are closer to Foxhall than they are to Key.

MacArthur is meant to be Hardy's destination school. Ideally it would be close to Hardy so that anyone who can get to Hardy can get to Mac, and families who have kids split between the two can still have their kids travel together. But there just isn't a site there. In 2014, before the renovation, Frumin suggested moving Ellington rather than renovating it and using that building for a high school -- which is also the historic way those two buildings were used. That plan was shot down by Vincent Gray. Goulet was working for Gray at the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Though it seems like it'd be better if the Foxhall ES/Macarthur was closer to the population centers on Mass/Wisc. But DC gave away Guy Mason and Jelleff and screwed up ellington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC_MFP_2019_Feb%2021_Final_compressed.pdf

So ward 2 and 3 only have 10 schools each, but all the other wards have 20-40. Wow. Yeah, things are going to get really bad before they get better. As of 2018, there were on 7K students from W3. Ward 5 had 15K. (DCPS+PCS)

According to Fig 2.16, both new schools with have the worst transit access of ANY DCPS facility.

One note, their methodology takes the capture rate trends from 2015-2018 and extrapolates forward. So there is some element of diversion from private to DCPS baked in (at the neighborhood level).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Foxhall and MacArthur actually mesh with what the Crowding Working Group recommended. Four new schools: a high school, a middle and two new elementaries, one in the southern part of the ward and one in the northern. With the new high school Hardy rolls out of Jackson Reed and in 10 years instead of being 3,000 students JR is 2,000. All they need to do now is add a middle school somewhere in the Deal boundaries so they can split Deal, and an elementary somewhere near Lafayette so they can alleviate the crowding there.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DC_MFP_2019_Feb%2021_Final_compressed.pdf