Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:43     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Walking/running apps show walking distance better then something like Bing which is more for driving. The milages I inluded in my post at 15:56 were from an app where you can choose the most obvious and direct walking path and find the shortest. The .3 and twice as far is for the 36th/Albermarle location. The rezoning includes only a few blocks but it does matter which you pick to map. Again, you can say you don't care or "close enough" but you can't say that these locations are not being sent to their third furthest school while further neigbhorhoods are being brought to the school for the first time.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:41     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


I think we have officially replaced "First World problems" with "Ward 3 problems."


+100! Best post of the day!
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:40     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Just a note that if proximity were the only factor then some current Hearst families would actually be going to Janney or Murch now (there are houses in bounds for Hearst that are closer to Janney and some I think closer to Murch).

The issue is that you can't always just use proximity to a school for assignment because the schools are not distributed evenly around the city; it is just a fact that some schools end up close to the edge of their boundary.


That's true about some current Hearst families. But I disagree about your conclusion that that fact undercuts the importance of proximity to the discussion. As Mary Cheh has said several times recently at events, you should take proximity first always and then layer other things on top of that. You should never discount proximity. The blocks that are closer to Janney or Murch then Hearst now should be rezoned to their closest school too. As I understand it, the principal of Janney thinks that would make sense and that schools shouldn't be close to the edge of their boundary and should be more centralized in their zones. If a wholesale rezoning is needed, proximity should come first and schools should be moved closer to the center of the communities they serve and then some creative solutions should address the further out neighborhoods that aren't proximate to any school. The schools aren't distributed evenly around the city but that doesn't negate the value that should be placed on proximity from a city planning perspective. The city should never send children out of their own neighborhood for school assignment in order to bring children into the neighborhood in cars from further away. To the extent that is happening now any efforts currently underway should seek to remedy it. And any new plan certainly shouldn't exacerbate the situation.The DME plan has done no transportation study and made no effort to evaluate the implications of these changes in that way.


I don't think there's money in the budget to move schools. Murch, Janney, and Lafayette are all significantly overcrowded. Moving some of the students to Hearst, which is less than a mile away, makes more sense from a proximity standpoint than spending money to add slots at Murch while other families travel all the way across the city to Hearst.

I'm not sure you need a transportation study to evaluate moving kids from a school that is in easy walking distance from their home, to another school that is also within easy walking distance from their home, albeit a few blocks farther.

How do you know that the DME didn't make an effort to evaluate the implications of these changes?
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:38     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Just a note that if proximity were the only factor then some current Hearst families would actually be going to Janney or Murch now (there are houses in bounds for Hearst that are closer to Janney and some I think closer to Murch).

The issue is that you can't always just use proximity to a school for assignment because the schools are not distributed evenly around the city; it is just a fact that some schools end up close to the edge of their boundary.


That's true about some current Hearst families. But I disagree about your conclusion that that fact undercuts the importance of proximity to the discussion. As Mary Cheh has said several times recently at events, you should take proximity first always and then layer other things on top of that. You should never discount proximity. The blocks that are closer to Janney or Murch then Hearst now should be rezoned to their closest school too. As I understand it, the principal of Janney thinks that would make sense and that schools shouldn't be close to the edge of their boundary and should be more centralized in their zones. If a wholesale rezoning is needed, proximity should come first and schools should be moved closer to the center of the communities they serve and then some creative solutions should address the further out neighborhoods that aren't proximate to any school. The schools aren't distributed evenly around the city but that doesn't negate the value that should be placed on proximity from a city planning perspective. The city should never send children out of their own neighborhood for school assignment in order to bring children into the neighborhood in cars from further away. To the extent that is happening now any efforts currently underway should seek to remedy it. And any new plan certainly shouldn't exacerbate the situation.The DME plan has done no transportation study and made no effort to evaluate the implications of these changes in that way.


This will never happen because AU Park stretches a mile West of Janney. If you center Janney within it's boundaries it's going to be a HUGE school.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:32     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:Just a note that if proximity were the only factor then some current Hearst families would actually be going to Janney or Murch now (there are houses in bounds for Hearst that are closer to Janney and some I think closer to Murch).

The issue is that you can't always just use proximity to a school for assignment because the schools are not distributed evenly around the city; it is just a fact that some schools end up close to the edge of their boundary.


That's true about some current Hearst families. But I disagree about your conclusion that that fact undercuts the importance of proximity to the discussion. As Mary Cheh has said several times recently at events, you should take proximity first always and then layer other things on top of that. You should never discount proximity. The blocks that are closer to Janney or Murch then Hearst now should be rezoned to their closest school too. As I understand it, the principal of Janney thinks that would make sense and that schools shouldn't be close to the edge of their boundary and should be more centralized in their zones. If a wholesale rezoning is needed, proximity should come first and schools should be moved closer to the center of the communities they serve and then some creative solutions should address the further out neighborhoods that aren't proximate to any school. The schools aren't distributed evenly around the city but that doesn't negate the value that should be placed on proximity from a city planning perspective. The city should never send children out of their own neighborhood for school assignment in order to bring children into the neighborhood in cars from further away. To the extent that is happening now any efforts currently underway should seek to remedy it. And any new plan certainly shouldn't exacerbate the situation.The DME plan has done no transportation study and made no effort to evaluate the implications of these changes in that way.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:31     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:16:10 again. I just checked the map, and it appears the edge of the rezoning for Murch is actually five blocks from the school, not six. So if you live right at the southwest corner of 36th and Albemarle, just on the wrong side of the street for the new boundary line, in the absolutely most impacted spot by re-zoning, ... you would be 0.3 miles (5 blocks) from Murch, and 0.6 miles (8 blocks) from Hearst. Admittedly closer to Murch, but not a major difference either way IMHO.

Those houses are about 10 blocks or .7 miles from Hearst. 10 blocks or .7 miles is hardly an unreasonable distance from a school, but is about twice as far as they are now.

16:10 again. Hello my nerdy sister at 16:22!

We're clearly thinking along the same lines, and close enough to be within the margin of error. My Bing map started at 36th and Albemarle, and counted 8 blocks (3 south to Warren, one over to 37th, and then 4 more down to Tilden). Bing calls that 0.6 walking. I'm guessing your map site took a different route.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:31     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:Why do the Hearst boosters feel the need to put down other schools in support of Hearst?

Please point to me the specific posts where a Murch person spoke about not wanting to go to Hearst because of:

Test scores
Too many brown children
Lack of extras

Just hasn't happened though Hearst boosters keep claiming it has! As has been pointed out that OP can't be talking about Hearst/Murch since there are zero houses within two blocks of Murch that were rezoned for Hearst!



The OP never stated that she was 2 blocks from Murch. An entirely different PP stated that she was 2 blocks from Murch, but is not currently being rezoned.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:26     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


+100 and in sorry anything under a mile is walkable. Yes, even for a 4 year old.


Agreed. My kids have been walking/scootering/biking a mile to school since age 3. Not difficult at all, except in very extreme weather, which we don't have very often.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:25     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
16:10 again. I just checked the map, and it appears the edge of the rezoning for Murch is actually five blocks from the school, not six. So if you live right at the southwest corner of 36th and Albemarle, just on the wrong side of the street for the new boundary line, in the absolutely most impacted spot by re-zoning, ... you would be 0.3 miles (5 blocks) from Murch, and 0.6 miles (8 blocks) from Hearst. Admittedly closer to Murch, but not a major difference either way IMHO.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:22     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Yes, but all of these families knew that was the case when they bought their houses. I live one block away from the rezoning and never in a million years did I think my house would be zoned out of Murch. Yes, Murch is crowded, but I'm 4 blocks away! I, unlike many other people on my block, actually feel better about Hearst as a school than Murch because I like small schools and Murch is too big. But the commute to Hearst is just not workable with our two WOHP, one car household.

I must be confused. When I look at the zoning map (http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Murch%20ES.pdf), the closest spot zoned out of Murch is six blocks away. And that spot looks to be about six blocks from Hearst. If you're zoned out of Murch, you're likely just as close (or maybe even closer) to Hearst, aren't you?

I don't live around there, so maybe some of those are half-blocks that just look longer on this map. Is the map not accurate?


I posted this above but here are the specific.

The closest spot to Murch that is being rezoned to Hearst would be the block of Albemarle between Reno and 36th St. The houses on the corner would each be exactly 5 blocks from Murch, so presumably the PP above lives 1 block from there within the new and old Murch boundary.

Those houses are about 10 blocks or .7 miles from Hearst. 10 blocks or .7 miles is hardly an unreasonable distance from a school, but is about twice as far as they are now.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:22     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Yes, 16:10 the DME's maps are not particularly helpful. The mileage is not the same. It depends on exactly which block you are talking about but there are blocks that are twice as close to Murch then Hearst that are being rezoned. People on this chain are saying "close enough": and calling out the Murch families effected by saying that they actually are closer to Hearst, or close enough to Hearst. But that's not true. They are closer to Murch. And they shouldn't be sent to their third closest school b/c people that aren't effected think its "close enough." There are lots of sites that will tell you exactly for walking distance and when you are speaking about walking distance it makes a big difference. I maped it and included the distances above. Those are facts. People can say they don't care but they can't say it isn't true that they are being sent twice as far and to the third closest school. And the objection I have focused on is that while this is happening blocks that are further away then these blocks are going to be put into the boundary for the first time.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:15     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Looking at the Murch to Lafeyette reboundary, PP are also incorrect. The blocks being rezoned to Lafeyette are closer to Lafeyette then Murch. They are being proposed for rezoning to their closest school and are currently zoned to their second closest school.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:10     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:Yes, but all of these families knew that was the case when they bought their houses. I live one block away from the rezoning and never in a million years did I think my house would be zoned out of Murch. Yes, Murch is crowded, but I'm 4 blocks away! I, unlike many other people on my block, actually feel better about Hearst as a school than Murch because I like small schools and Murch is too big. But the commute to Hearst is just not workable with our two WOHP, one car household.

I must be confused. When I look at the zoning map (http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Murch%20ES.pdf), the closest spot zoned out of Murch is six blocks away. And that spot looks to be about six blocks from Hearst. If you're zoned out of Murch, you're likely just as close (or maybe even closer) to Hearst, aren't you?

I don't live around there, so maybe some of those are half-blocks that just look longer on this map. Is the map not accurate?
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:09     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Just a note that if proximity were the only factor then some current Hearst families would actually be going to Janney or Murch now (there are houses in bounds for Hearst that are closer to Janney and some I think closer to Murch).

The issue is that you can't always just use proximity to a school for assignment because the schools are not distributed evenly around the city; it is just a fact that some schools end up close to the edge of their boundary.
Anonymous
Post 06/18/2014 16:07     Subject: Proposal Implications: Loss of Proximity, Forced to go to Lowest Performing School, Concerns OOB
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My guess is you are going from Murch to Hearst? If not, please clarify.

If this is the shift OP is describing, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy.


I think we have officially replaced "First World problems" with "Ward 3 problems."