Anonymous wrote:

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

Anonymous wrote:The Foxhall ES and the MacArthur HS are not gift horses in mouths. They are an illconceived $100M boondoggle that will balkanize the students of the west side of town into their own quasi-private school funded by DC taxpayers.

Horrible planning an potential execution.

Period.

Anonymous wrote:
The language was unclear. The point that was being made was not that the city's proposal to solve overcrowding at Lafayette was infeasible, but that the rejection of the option DCPS had came up with annoyed the mayor, who - per her testimony - is not going to be in any hurry to come up with another solutions. A similar process could well play out if Frumin (or someone else) is elected and looks the proverbial gift-horse in the mouth. That is, the mayor is going to infer that a rejection of the Foxhall ES proposal is borne of a NIMBY desire to keep OOBers out of the upper NW and will just let the overcrowding in Ward 3 fester rather than formulating alternative solutions. We all want perfection, but politics is the art of the possible. We have a perfectly feasible solution on the table that solves the most pressing issues facing public education in Ward 3 - let's not forsake that for some pipe dream.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to post these sources. I had not seen them before or, if I had, I hadn't given them the necessary attention. Whoever drew that example map either wanted to sabotage Foxhall ES or was very naïve. So, yes, with due apologies to the FCCA, this is nothing but an own-goal by DCPS/CWG.

All of that said, it is just one example and one that I would bet my life savings would never be implemented by DCPS because, well, it is just stone-cold crazy. If you find any candidates that endorse this example, please feel free to scream from the hilltops.

And, to the point, the badly-conceived example does not suggest that Foxhall ES cannot be filled with students from the area, nor even that it would be a good idea to build a much smaller school than what is proposed (particularly given the increases in density called for by the Comp Plan and families will inevitably move to where the schools are).

It certainly is not justification for rejecting a new school building next to Old Hardy in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreams (like LAB opting to abandon their sweetheart lease and move to the River School).

Thank you, as you can tell, I am fairly exercised about all this! I clearly don't have your faith that DCPS will come to its senses, but here's hoping. Whether a new council member will have enough sway to change DCPS's course is also unclear to me. Hopefully whoever wins doesn't retain Cheh's education staff.

I agree with you that the best outcome is a smaller-than-currently-planned Foxhall ES that pulls from the nearby area, takes up less of Hardy park to boot, along with a Stoddert expansion (and maybe sending the Russians out!). This is what Frumin understands, and is the main option he's pushing, hence my (and I theorize what will be the rest of Glover Park's) overwhelming support.

You right LAB won't give up their sweetheart deal without an equally sweetheart buyout. No one will use their political power for that, and draw new attention to the situation.

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

The solution that Lafayette rejected was perfectly feasible. They just didn't want to drive 10 minutes across the park for nine months or consider the possibility that more Black and Brown kids might get into Lafayette. Not sure that's the best example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to post these sources. I had not seen them before or, if I had, I hadn't given them the necessary attention. Whoever drew that example map either wanted to sabotage Foxhall ES or was very naïve. So, yes, with due apologies to the FCCA, this is nothing but an own-goal by DCPS/CWG.

All of that said, it is just one example and one that I would bet my life savings would never be implemented by DCPS because, well, it is just stone-cold crazy. If you find any candidates that endorse this example, please feel free to scream from the hilltops.

And, to the point, the badly-conceived example does not suggest that Foxhall ES cannot be filled with students from the area, nor even that it would be a good idea to build a much smaller school than what is proposed (particularly given the increases in density called for by the Comp Plan and families will inevitably move to where the schools are).

It certainly is not justification for rejecting a new school building next to Old Hardy in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreams (like LAB opting to abandon their sweetheart lease and move to the River School).

Thank you, as you can tell, I am fairly exercised about all this! I clearly don't have your faith that DCPS will come to its senses, but here's hoping. Whether a new council member will have enough sway to change DCPS's course is also unclear to me. Hopefully whoever wins doesn't retain Cheh's education staff.

I agree with you that the best outcome is a smaller-than-currently-planned Foxhall ES that pulls from the nearby area, takes up less of Hardy park to boot, along with a Stoddert expansion (and maybe sending the Russians out!). This is what Frumin understands, and is the main option he's pushing, hence my (and I theorize what will be the rest of Glover Park's) overwhelming support.

You right LAB won't give up their sweetheart deal without an equally sweetheart buyout. No one will use their political power for that, and draw new attention to the situation.

DCPS families who live in Foxhall and the Palisades understand your concern and will advocate on behalf of Stoddert families that no part of Glover Park is re-zoned to Foxhall ES. It would set a horrible precedent for DCPS that none of us have any interest in seeing happen.

But if you view Frumin's proposals as a "win" for you and your neighbors, I do believe you are mistaken. I'll explain why below.

Demographics
The number of families in Ward 3 - and particularly in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area - is ballooning. The CWG process documented that thoroughly, so I won't revisit it. With the announcement of the opening of MacArthur Blvd (whether it is a 500, 700, or 1,000 student school), the balloon will further inflate. There are hundreds of low-rent apartments along MacArthur Blvd. that are either empty or inhabited by couples or singles. The demographics of these buildings will change very quickly. In addition, further developments along the MacArthur Blvd. corridor will add further density (a key objective of Mayor Bowser). In sum, it's not unreasonable to expect hundreds of DCPS families to relocate to Foxhall and the Palisades in the coming years.

Existing Elementary School Infrastructure
A good portion of the families moving in to the neighborhood will bring with them elementary school children. Key, Mann, and Stoddert are full to breaking point and have limited room to expand (Key has absolutely none), at least not without expensive, time-consuming, and massively disruptive renovations (a la Hyde-Addison's "swing" to Cardozo, which actually left them without sufficient space for PK3 just three years after they returned to Georgetown). Absent another property, the easiest option for DCPS to address this problem is to jig around with the boundaries. So, instead of Glover Park families being sent to Foxhall ES, they may end up at Hyde-Addison ES or somewhere else even further afield. In short, there are no easy options here.

Foxhall ES and Overcrowding at Key / Mann / Stoddert
At scale, Foxhall ES relieves the demographic pressures in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area and addresses the overcrowding issues at each of these schools. Foxhall ES doesn't need to take students from Glover Park to help address overcrowding at Stoddert as Foxhall ES will absorb OOB students that would otherwise attend Stoddert ES. It will also obviates the need for other "solutions" to the overcrowding problem that would likely prove much more frustrating for current and future Mann / Key / Stoddert parents than a sensible redrawing of the existing boundaries.

Frumin's "Ideas"
After many exhaustive and exhausting months of reviewing demographic projections, existing facilities, and alternative options and soliciting community feedback etc. etc. etc., the CWG proposed Foxhall ES. DCPS endorsed this and a few weeks ago, Mayor Bowser did too. The plan isn't perfect, but it is the only realistic one that exists to address over-crowding in the Mann / Key / Stoddert catchment area. Frumin is proposing to put this all on ice while he explores alternatives that already have been thoroughly explored and proved to be infeasible. Many of us have seen this movie before (a la the Lafayette ES Pre-K debacle). Frumin's negotiations with LAB will come to naught; the mayor will pull the funding for Foxhall ES on account of the Ward 3 councilmember not wanting it; the FCCA will be overjoyed; Key, Mann, and Stoddert get progressively more overcrowded; DCPS and the respective school communities will struggle in vain to find other solutions that don't exist and the great schools we now know and love will cease to exist.

The Bigger Picture
I get that you think Frumin's proposals will solve your current problem and maybe they will, at least in the short-term. But you should see the bigger picture for what it is. Why endorse a candidate that pitches "ideas" that he either knows or should know won't work and which, if pursued, will only create bigger problems for the constituents he seeks to represent? It's commendable of candidates to lay out details rather than just speaking in generalities, but those details by themselves shouldn't be a reason to support a candidate - particularly if the details they provide make no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to post these sources. I had not seen them before or, if I had, I hadn't given them the necessary attention. Whoever drew that example map either wanted to sabotage Foxhall ES or was very naïve. So, yes, with due apologies to the FCCA, this is nothing but an own-goal by DCPS/CWG.

All of that said, it is just one example and one that I would bet my life savings would never be implemented by DCPS because, well, it is just stone-cold crazy. If you find any candidates that endorse this example, please feel free to scream from the hilltops.

And, to the point, the badly-conceived example does not suggest that Foxhall ES cannot be filled with students from the area, nor even that it would be a good idea to build a much smaller school than what is proposed (particularly given the increases in density called for by the Comp Plan and families will inevitably move to where the schools are).

It certainly is not justification for rejecting a new school building next to Old Hardy in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreams (like LAB opting to abandon their sweetheart lease and move to the River School).

Thank you, as you can tell, I am fairly exercised about all this! I clearly don't have your faith that DCPS will come to its senses, but here's hoping. Whether a new council member will have enough sway to change DCPS's course is also unclear to me. Hopefully whoever wins doesn't retain Cheh's education staff.

I agree with you that the best outcome is a smaller-than-currently-planned Foxhall ES that pulls from the nearby area, takes up less of Hardy park to boot, along with a Stoddert expansion (and maybe sending the Russians out!). This is what Frumin understands, and is the main option he's pushing, hence my (and I theorize what will be the rest of Glover Park's) overwhelming support.

You right LAB won't give up their sweetheart deal without an equally sweetheart buyout. No one will use their political power for that, and draw new attention to the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to post these sources. I had not seen them before or, if I had, I hadn't given them the necessary attention. Whoever drew that example map either wanted to sabotage Foxhall ES or was very naïve. So, yes, with due apologies to the FCCA, this is nothing but an own-goal by DCPS/CWG.

All of that said, it is just one example and one that I would bet my life savings would never be implemented by DCPS because, well, it is just stone-cold crazy. If you find any candidates that endorse this example, please feel free to scream from the hilltops.

And, to the point, the badly-conceived example does not suggest that Foxhall ES cannot be filled with students from the area, nor even that it would be a good idea to build a much smaller school than what is proposed (particularly given the increases in density called for by the Comp Plan and families will inevitably move to where the schools are).

It certainly is not justification for rejecting a new school building next to Old Hardy in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreams (like LAB opting to abandon their sweetheart lease and move to the River School).

Thank you, as you can tell, I am fairly exercised about all this! I clearly don't have your faith that DCPS will come to its senses, but here's hoping. Whether a new council member will have enough sway to change DCPS's course is also unclear to me. Hopefully whoever wins doesn't retain Cheh's education staff.

I agree with you that the best outcome is a smaller-than-currently-planned Foxhall ES that pulls from the nearby area, takes up less of Hardy park to boot, along with a Stoddert expansion (and maybe sending the Russians out!). This is what Frumin understands, and is the main option he's pushing, hence my (and I theorize what will be the rest of Glover Park's) overwhelming support.

You right LAB won't give up their sweetheart deal without an equally sweetheart buyout. No one will use their political power for that, and draw new attention to the situation.

This is where I was coming from when I was posting in this thread about 20 pages ago. One can have a clear vision of how things should be accomplished in a more rational manner without strictly catering to the FCCA. So invectively ctriticizing Frumin as being a Foxhall NIMBY is totally wrong, even if the end goals are loosely aligned. the better solution is for better planning and better expenditure of money. The Foxhall ES as currently planned isn't it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to post these sources. I had not seen them before or, if I had, I hadn't given them the necessary attention. Whoever drew that example map either wanted to sabotage Foxhall ES or was very naïve. So, yes, with due apologies to the FCCA, this is nothing but an own-goal by DCPS/CWG.

All of that said, it is just one example and one that I would bet my life savings would never be implemented by DCPS because, well, it is just stone-cold crazy. If you find any candidates that endorse this example, please feel free to scream from the hilltops.

And, to the point, the badly-conceived example does not suggest that Foxhall ES cannot be filled with students from the area, nor even that it would be a good idea to build a much smaller school than what is proposed (particularly given the increases in density called for by the Comp Plan and families will inevitably move to where the schools are).

It certainly is not justification for rejecting a new school building next to Old Hardy in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreams (like LAB opting to abandon their sweetheart lease and move to the River School).

Thank you, as you can tell, I am fairly exercised about all this! I clearly don't have your faith that DCPS will come to its senses, but here's hoping. Whether a new council member will have enough sway to change DCPS's course is also unclear to me. Hopefully whoever wins doesn't retain Cheh's education staff.

I agree with you that the best outcome is a smaller-than-currently-planned Foxhall ES that pulls from the nearby area, takes up less of Hardy park to boot, along with a Stoddert expansion (and maybe sending the Russians out!). This is what Frumin understands, and is the main option he's pushing, hence my (and I theorize what will be the rest of Glover Park's) overwhelming support.

You right LAB won't give up their sweetheart deal without an equally sweetheart buyout. No one will use their political power for that, and draw new attention to the situation.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to post these sources. I had not seen them before or, if I had, I hadn't given them the necessary attention. Whoever drew that example map either wanted to sabotage Foxhall ES or was very naïve. So, yes, with due apologies to the FCCA, this is nothing but an own-goal by DCPS/CWG.

All of that said, it is just one example and one that I would bet my life savings would never be implemented by DCPS because, well, it is just stone-cold crazy. If you find any candidates that endorse this example, please feel free to scream from the hilltops.

And, to the point, the badly-conceived example does not suggest that Foxhall ES cannot be filled with students from the area, nor even that it would be a good idea to build a much smaller school than what is proposed (particularly given the increases in density called for by the Comp Plan and families will inevitably move to where the schools are).

It certainly is not justification for rejecting a new school building next to Old Hardy in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreams (like LAB opting to abandon their sweetheart lease and move to the River School).

Anonymous wrote:There is also no real legit 'long waitlist' of OOB kids for Key.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
...
That Foxhall ES can only be filled by denying students from Glover Park access to their excellent neighborhood school is yet another example of scaremongering fomented by those with vested interests. If I lived in Glover Park and I was told that my kids were going to be sent to Foxhall ES, I would do all I could to oppose the creation of that new school too. However, logic dictates that this is very unlikely to happen because it just doesn't make any sense. It's even less likely to happen now that Stoddert ES won the money that it was seeking for the mayor for its extension. And, regardless, the grandfathering provisions that the chancellor has promised would ensure that no current students (and their siblings) would be affected.

There are blocks in Burleith (south of Whitehaven Parkway and north of Reservoir Rd) - Hillendale is a good example - that are equidistant to the Foxhall ES site than they are to Stoddert ES. I can imagine some contention on whether these neighborhoods would be zoned to Foxhall ES or Stoddert ES. But any proposals to zone neighborhoods in Glover Park proper to Foxhall ES are indefensible, even for proponents of Foxhall ES.

Also, there similarly seems to be a lot of misunderstandings around the proposition of how large Foxhall ES would be. Some people would like others to believe that it will be 550 students on day one (and that this will be achieved by dragging students from Glover Park, A.U. Park, Georgetown, and goodness knows where else). Of course, it won't be. It could well open with just a couple of hundred students. But, given the demographic projections and given that schools in the area have found themselves without sufficient space even after massive new additions (Hyde-Addison being the most recent example), it would be irresponsible to plan for a school that the projections strongly suggest would already be too small by the time it opened (with or without PK).
....

I appreciate your level-headedness on this issue. However, I don't think you're up to date on the situation. Burleith (and Hillandale) has already left the Stoddert catchment (with grandfathered kids still there, I think) for Hyde-Addison due to planning and anticipation of Stoddert overcrowding. My understand is that Frumin helped this transfer, though I wasn't here then (2017?).

The only catchment discussed by DCPS/CWG was one where southern Glover Park sends their kids to fill the Foxhall school. Burleith is left untouched, despite being closer. (This is where the ludicrous hike through Glover-Archbold comes from, to shorten the distance from Glover Park to the Foxhall school. That really annoyed me, they weren't even honest about what they're doing!).
https://ibb.co/mzN8vbD
I figure that, having switched schools once recently, and being in Ward 2, DCPS didn't want to touch them again. Unfortunately for Glover Park, Cheh had other interests in Ward 3.

You can find more discussion of this "example" -- the one and only example, and the boundaries they spend a lot of time discussing and defending -- on the CWG google site.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xc_9YJEZ-snB0FEoFmxfrYsdKhuVXgsc
Check the discussion (Q4) with the Stoddert community, for example
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IXrSwfJCOGWVUid_vwkr7-QqUYZGYDIM
DCPS sees Stoddert overcrowding and figures it can send the students without redrawing the rest of Ward 3, an immaculate redrawing as it were: "We have prioritized alleviating Key and Stoddert as these schools have the most acute capacity needs among the Hardy feeder schools." Of course, what makes sense is, as you point out, to involve Burleith, and not Glover Park, but that option is never considered.

None of this is fear mongering. This is DCPS's (and the CWG's) plan (with regards to the ES). It's a bad plan that deserves the criticism. You called it indefensible, and I agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see a lot of FCCA donors in Frumin's reported take:

https://dcgeekery.com/dc-campaign-finance/2022/council-ward-3/frumin/points

I think that is a canard being thrown by some supporters of other candidates.

Campaign contributions, thankfully, are not everything. What was being referenced in this case is his response to a misleading screed by a long-time opponent of the new DCPS schools that not only failed to correct the various misrepresentations in the original e-mail but then presented proposals designed to appeal to those who harbor fears based on those misrepresentations (such as the poster above who claims that Foxhall ES will filled with "kids from Stoddert/Glover Park").

I think the point is, one can have a view that is sound, that isn't because of the FCCA. In this case, it is clear Mr. Frumin has basically zero donations from the Foxhall area, despite taking the largest amount of donations in the race. So the idea of cynically ascribing his view as pandering to the Foxhall NIMBYs is a false narrative.

Pandering doesn't mean taking donations. The Foxhallers have a completely bullshit position and Frumin is failing to call bullshit on them, but instead saying "well, they might have a point, let's try to find a compromise." You can't compromise with a bullshit position because they'll just move the goalposts on you.

I expressed my view on the MacArthur High School thread early on. It is a horrible location, transit hostile and doesn't really solve any of the problems, other than providing an enclave public high school for Palisades families. In other words, it is a poor investment of city money and doesn't solve any of the stated problems. Does that mean I am full of BS or buying the FCCA line of crap too?

The reason Palisades likes this solution is that it takes their kids out of Wilson and essentially gives them their own school that almost no one OOB will be able to attend. While a win for Palisades, it is a net negative to everyone else in the city. That isn't equity or equitable.

Unless you're willing to state your qualifications for the record, it can reasonably be assumed that you are much less knowledgeable than Matt is about public school and transportation issues in Ward 3. Accordingly, your positions are more likely to be grounded in ignorance rather than political posturing. But Matt is very knowledgeable about the issues on hand and yet offers "compromise solutions" that the experiences of others - better qualified than he is - and logic strongly suggest are infeasible. In addition, at least a few of his positions seem to be crafted to specifically appeal to the Foxhall lobby. For instance, he is actually in favor (unlike you) of opening MacArthur HS, but wants to restrict the size of the school to half of its projected size so that it would almost entirely serve in-boundary students (which of course runs counter to your sentiment that it would not be equitable for the school to only serve local children). By the way, your notion that no OOBer would attend MacArthur HS is belied by the facts. By your metric, Key ES is more inaccessible than MacArthur HS will be and yet manages to attract a long waitlist of prospective OOB students. There are also ample options for improving access to the location, which Matt - to his credit - recognizes. If he would only recognize the rest of the good work done by the CWG in exhaustively exploring various alternatives, he would be a very worthy candidate.

Anonymous wrote:
...
That Foxhall ES can only be filled by denying students from Glover Park access to their excellent neighborhood school is yet another example of scaremongering fomented by those with vested interests. If I lived in Glover Park and I was told that my kids were going to be sent to Foxhall ES, I would do all I could to oppose the creation of that new school too. However, logic dictates that this is very unlikely to happen because it just doesn't make any sense. It's even less likely to happen now that Stoddert ES won the money that it was seeking for the mayor for its extension. And, regardless, the grandfathering provisions that the chancellor has promised would ensure that no current students (and their siblings) would be affected.

There are blocks in Burleith (south of Whitehaven Parkway and north of Reservoir Rd) - Hillendale is a good example - that are equidistant to the Foxhall ES site than they are to Stoddert ES. I can imagine some contention on whether these neighborhoods would be zoned to Foxhall ES or Stoddert ES. But any proposals to zone neighborhoods in Glover Park proper to Foxhall ES are indefensible, even for proponents of Foxhall ES.

Also, there similarly seems to be a lot of misunderstandings around the proposition of how large Foxhall ES would be. Some people would like others to believe that it will be 550 students on day one (and that this will be achieved by dragging students from Glover Park, A.U. Park, Georgetown, and goodness knows where else). Of course, it won't be. It could well open with just a couple of hundred students. But, given the demographic projections and given that schools in the area have found themselves without sufficient space even after massive new additions (Hyde-Addison being the most recent example), it would be irresponsible to plan for a school that the projections strongly suggest would already be too small by the time it opened (with or without PK).
....