Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be worth remembering that politicis is the art of the possible on this thread. Organizers of the Brent school boundaries working group have already spoken to DC City Council Committee on Education members about which boundaries may change, and the Brent-Tyler boundary, and relationship, are not on the table. This is because DCPS considers Tyler under-enrolled IB, like Watkins, and under-enrolled schools won't have their boundaries enlarged. Moreover, DCPS very rarely allows parents to choose between two IB schools.

What is being considered is drawing the Van Ness school boundaries to include the southern zone of the Brent District, killing two birds with one stone in DCPS' eyes by furnishing enough IB kids to seed the school for SY 2015-2016 and heading off over-crowding at Brent. DCPS is under increasing pressure from the big Capitol Hill Riverfront developers, particularly EYA (builder of the Capitol Quarter townhouses) to provide them with a school so they'll build more townhouses. Great, Brent District kids served up to keep developers happy. Many IB would much rather see Brent drop PreS3 in the medium-term, or even a classroom trailer or two on the small grounds.

Unless Wells and Kaya go are out of the picture politically within 18 months, nobody should be surprised if the Van Ness District includes a swathe of Brent's...

Is this a typo? Why wouldn't under-enrolled schools have their boundaries enlarged? Wouldn't that help their under-enrollment?

Anonymous wrote:As for Van Ness, if EYA and other developers aren't pushing for the school to re-open, why would Kaya have committed to a SY 2015-2016 timeline for re-opening it with at least PreS3, PreK and K, in public, several times in the last six months?

DCPS is planning fall meetings with CQ parents to choose a curriculum (Reggio Emilia?) etc.

Capitol Quarter parents seem convinced that the school is in fact going to re-open in 2015 after a major renovation, with private sector seed money for landscaping, computers etc. Sounds unlikely, yes. The inside of the building isn't in great shape and it's an asphalt jungle outside.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where does EYA plan to construct all of these new Townhouses? Unless I am mistaken, all 323 units for Capotol Quarter have been completed. I can't wait to hear Catania and Wells try to seek crossing the CSX pit to residents. Mark my words, this is DOA.

I wouldn't be so sure. Wells and Kaya will probably get what they want - parents on the periphery of the Brent District won't be able to stop them, although they made be able to negotiate a few terms for a transition. The Capitol Riverfront developers want Van Ness to re-open no later than SY 2015-2016 for various reasons, and Kaya has committed to that time-frame.

I know that Henderson has committed to re-opening Van Ness, but it's still hard to imagine that will be politically feasible. Henderson has just finished another round of school closings and is going to follow it up by opening another school? Van Ness shares boundaries with a newly-renovated and largely out of bounds Tyler. I'm not aware of the specifics of Amidon, but I'm guessing it isn't at capacity either.

EYA has sold all their townhouses. There is more development in the pipeline but all in the form of condos or apartments which are likely less appealing to families.

And finally, the timeline seems ambitious. Van Ness has been shuttered for a few years now; I imagine that re-opening is going to take many many months. There's no existing school administration or established school community to push DCPS forward. I always thought that the best hope for Van Ness would have been SWS, but apparently DCPS didn't agree.

Anonymous wrote:With good planning and effective lobbying, looming crowding at Brent could be headed off. Carving up such a small school district, with a finite 19th Century housing stock, seems over the top.

For example, the rundown south wing of Brent, which is only one floor, could be ripped down and replaced with a two-floor wing. Apparently, the existing roof and walls of the wing couldn't support a second floor, but the foundation could. If the school and parents lobbied DCPS for a new wing years in advance, it could be built over a summer before trailers were needed.

Janney has a new wing and Maury is supposed to get one next summer.

Anonymous wrote:Articulate and regular Brent poster (who I think is a male, Hill staffer and whose first kid is about 3) .....

when are you going to get it through your head that you and your 60 affluent white neighbors are not going to effect structural change to suit your highly specific wants (not needs)?

You come on here about every two weeks publicly wringing your hands because your white 3 year old and 1 year old will have to attend school -- as it stands now -- with children of color whose parents did not get a Masters of Public Policy from U. of Michigan.

Your fear that you may not be able to customize a PUBLIC resource to your highly specific wishes is palpable. (Hey! What if we drew a line around my rowhouse and Dave's and Brandon's, and possibly a few other rowhouses on this block, but ONLY if the current owners sell before 2015, AND they sell to a white couple who both have grad degrees and Hill experience .. otherwise, just me and Dave and Brandon's kids should go to this tiny school that we'll create walking distance to our house with preference for both proximity AND HHI. ANd DCPS will pay for us to have this sweet, little separate school that must be kept below 13.6% FARMS at all time, and if that percentage creeps up above 14%, then DCPS should revisit boundaries to lop off those 3 rental rowhouses where the single moms lives so their children can't be in the same building as my Acclerated Learners (who are 2 and 3, mind you, but then again, I have a Masters from U. MIchigan and work for the Senate Committee on Nonsense, did I mention that? So I'm pretty sure my white 2 year old will in fact be an Accelerated Learner.

Anyway, do you guys have any thoughts on how my three neighbors with JDs and I can get our own little sweet school on the taxpayers dime, while redlining out the black kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it might be worth rescheduling and announcing the meeting over the listserve for current Brent parents.

Nobody IB will be excluded from the activities of the working group, which will meet regularly at least until the end of the year.

A small number of rising IB parents will meet tomorrow to discuss how to get more information about the DCPS boundary review from the powers that be. Parents will also discuss how to create a structure enabling all IB parents, and OOB with sibling, to provide input on the DCPS boundary review to the Brent LSAT, DCPS and the DC City Council. No input will be solicited, or provided, before the early fall.

Brent parents with kids already in the school emailed futurebrent@yahoo.com, the email address on the green fliers that went up last month, and/or came to the boundaries meeting at Brent on April 11th. Others are free to get on the listserv the same way.