Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

I know Stoddert parents are resistant to facts, but Foxhall is within the Key boundaries, and more than half of the kids currently at Key live closer to Foxhall than Key. So it's not at all true that "the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall."

I think the PP meant that the homes in GP closest to the new Foxhall are closest to Stoddert. Which also means anyone else from Stoddert moved to Foxhall would have an even longer trip to school and in many cases would literally drive past Stoddert on their way to Foxhall.

There is no good solution for how to fill this new ES. Some cohort of kids is going to have a significantly worse commute than they currently have and in most of those cases families who used to be able to walk to school will now be driving to a location they have to double back from to get to home or work.

But if DCPS doesn't fill the school with kids from another W3 elementary school the school population will be 75% OOB which means it will be heavily AA. Which means there is a real risk folks in Foxhall won't even send their kids to school there so we will have created a traffic cluster for no really benefit.

FWIW I don't live in GP and my kids are out of ES so I have no personal interest in how this school gets populated but I was very active in the boundary re-drawing 10 years ago.

We live in Burleith, so now our neighborhood is helping to anchor Hyde-Addison in Georgetown. Distance wise, our neighborhood is quite close and convenient to Foxhall. But I think removing us from Hyde-Addison would do a big disservice to the progress H-A has been making. Further, Burleith was removed from Stoddert just a few years ago to be re-routed to H-A. If they then moved Burleith again to Foxhall, it would absolutely demolish any potential uptake for public schools by Burleith residents (which is now trending heavily young families in the last few years).

Stoddert is about to go through some things. My guess is that the cohort north of Tunlaw might get lopped off to be sent to Foxhall.

I don't know where they will find the kids, but you're right that Burleith is the obvious -- closer than GP -- place. And you're also right that switching around Burleith, again, isn't going to fly. Additionally, the Ward 2/3 line separates Burleith/GP, and Pinto isn't going to allow the kids to be sent to a different Ward. Meanwhile in Ward 3, Cheh and Frumin have multiple competing constituencies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

I know Stoddert parents are resistant to facts, but Foxhall is within the Key boundaries, and more than half of the kids currently at Key live closer to Foxhall than Key. So it's not at all true that "the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall."

I think the PP meant that the homes in GP closest to the new Foxhall are closest to Stoddert. Which also means anyone else from Stoddert moved to Foxhall would have an even longer trip to school and in many cases would literally drive past Stoddert on their way to Foxhall.

There is no good solution for how to fill this new ES. Some cohort of kids is going to have a significantly worse commute than they currently have and in most of those cases families who used to be able to walk to school will now be driving to a location they have to double back from to get to home or work.

But if DCPS doesn't fill the school with kids from another W3 elementary school the school population will be 75% OOB which means it will be heavily AA. Which means there is a real risk folks in Foxhall won't even send their kids to school there so we will have created a traffic cluster for no really benefit.

FWIW I don't live in GP and my kids are out of ES so I have no personal interest in how this school gets populated but I was very active in the boundary re-drawing 10 years ago.

We live in Burleith, so now our neighborhood is helping to anchor Hyde-Addison in Georgetown. Distance wise, our neighborhood is quite close and convenient to Foxhall. But I think removing us from Hyde-Addison would do a big disservice to the progress H-A has been making. Further, Burleith was removed from Stoddert just a few years ago to be re-routed to H-A. If they then moved Burleith again to Foxhall, it would absolutely demolish any potential uptake for public schools by Burleith residents (which is now trending heavily young families in the last few years).

Stoddert is about to go through some things. My guess is that the cohort north of Tunlaw might get lopped off to be sent to Foxhall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

I know Stoddert parents are resistant to facts, but Foxhall is within the Key boundaries, and more than half of the kids currently at Key live closer to Foxhall than Key. So it's not at all true that "the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall."

I think the PP meant that the homes in GP closest to the new Foxhall are closest to Stoddert. Which also means anyone else from Stoddert moved to Foxhall would have an even longer trip to school and in many cases would literally drive past Stoddert on their way to Foxhall.

There is no good solution for how to fill this new ES. Some cohort of kids is going to have a significantly worse commute than they currently have and in most of those cases families who used to be able to walk to school will now be driving to a location they have to double back from to get to home or work.

But if DCPS doesn't fill the school with kids from another W3 elementary school the school population will be 75% OOB which means it will be heavily AA. Which means there is a real risk folks in Foxhall won't even send their kids to school there so we will have created a traffic cluster for no really benefit.

FWIW I don't live in GP and my kids are out of ES so I have no personal interest in how this school gets populated but I was very active in the boundary re-drawing 10 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

I know Stoddert parents are resistant to facts, but Foxhall is within the Key boundaries, and more than half of the kids currently at Key live closer to Foxhall than Key. So it's not at all true that "the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

You dramatically overstate how much any (or 9) Councilmember matters and how very little DCPS cares about what they have to say in press releases.

13 councilpersons

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

You dramatically overstate how much any (or 9) Councilmember matters and how very little DCPS cares about what they have to say in press releases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

The problem with Stoddert’s boundary is that the homes closest to Stoddert are also those closest to the new Foxhall. How the hell do you logically reroute kids who live two blocks from Stoddert to the new Foxhall? It’s madness.

And yes, it’s probably going to happen. DCPS will take advantage of the leadership vacuum between the Cheh-Frumin transition when he won’t have much institutional clout on the Council as the “new guy.” That’s precisely why Cheh is trying take a legislative approach right now; she doesn’t trust DCPS.

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert’s boundaries make perfect sense. It’s a triangle bounded on two sides by Natl Park land and one side by a major artery road. Those geographical features define neighborhoods as well as commuting convenience.

Old Hardy also has obvious geographic boundaries. The neighborhoods of Foxhall Crescent (per Apple Maps) and Foxhall are completely encircled by park land and the river. It’s probably why an elementary school was located there I the first place.

I have no idea how many potential students live in those two neighborhoods now. Perhaps it’s too few for today’s typical elementary.

Anonymous wrote:If you don't like there being a School Board, you're going to LOVE having a DC Council that votes to keep certain blocks inside of certain school boundaries. A Council that requires new boundaries on the Hill. A Council that tweaks the proximity preference. A Council that shrinks the JR boundary or doesn't allow the new high school to move forward.

This is an opening door. Best of luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The privileged seeking actual special privileges.

It is remarkable to watch it happen in real-time. No shame.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Stoddert is that the school is physically located in the far southwestern portion of its boundary, instead of the center. It creates all sorts of weird issues that we are now seeing with Foxhall.

Basically, a crappy boundary map instituted by DCPS many years ago is now having ramifications on how to populate Foxhall.

I suspect Cheh is introducing this legislation because she already knows what DCPS plans on doing to Foxhall. And it makes sense - W3 is about to lose their longtime incumbent Council Member and the new CM Frumin is going to get served a sh#t sandwich by DCPS while he's still a newbie and hasn't built up a power base on the Council.