Anonymous
05/16/2023 09:28
Subject: Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
I don't know who planted this story with WaPo but kudos to the Walls baseball PR team. The lack of access to a close baseball field for Walls - a school in an urban location where there is no nearby baseball field - really is not worthy of a newspaper article. Really, I'd love to know who at WaPo greenlit this article???
Many DC high schools have significant variation in the extracurricular resources and offerings based on the size and makeup of the student body and the location of the school. I know of several students who didn't pursue Walls because of their weak sports facilities - and this opens up spots for students who want to go to Walls for what it does offer (nerdy, academically focused kids). Those students going to a larger school also have to navigate the burdens that go along with those resources (overcrowding, less individual attention).
Walls as a school would have been much better served by an article on how each year they have such serious staffing issues (such as no biology teacher one year) or the fact that their faculty basically refused to come into the building even after other schools were hybrid.
Many DC high schools have significant variation in the extracurricular resources and offerings based on the size and makeup of the student body and the location of the school. I know of several students who didn't pursue Walls because of their weak sports facilities - and this opens up spots for students who want to go to Walls for what it does offer (nerdy, academically focused kids). Those students going to a larger school also have to navigate the burdens that go along with those resources (overcrowding, less individual attention).
Walls as a school would have been much better served by an article on how each year they have such serious staffing issues (such as no biology teacher one year) or the fact that their faculty basically refused to come into the building even after other schools were hybrid.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 21:57
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Good question. Wasn’t the school supposed to be a partnership between DCPS and GW?
Also, DCPS does not help the school at all with figuring out playing space.
DC parks and recs gives the school zero priority in reserving field space. Instead they prefer to lease field space to private schools who can pay more money. The Walls PTA has to give money to lease field space as DCPS does not include any money in the Walls budget to deal with this issue.
This! Why doesn't this city work to support its schools? This should be a no-brainer (see: Jelleff, Maret, ECC...)
It’s truly a mystery. If a school is doing a halfway decent job, DCPS takes that as a sign that no additional support or resources are needed…for anything!
Because only at-risk kids and rich families matter. Run-of-the-mill UMCers are a non-factor.
Except by DCPS standards, "run-of-the-mill UMCers" are very much rich families, so this distinction makes absolutely no sense.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 19:05
Subject: Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:
Maret paid to significantly upgrade Jellef and turn it into a multi-use field space. I don’t disagree that DC should have done this on their own…but for whatever reason they didn’t have the vision or interest at the time.
It is confusing why Jellef keeps getting mentioned…the field is 2 miles away in Georgetown…it is not much closer than Banneker and not accessible via metro (probably a couple buses). Maret is creating a new multi-field site with a regulation-sized baseball field because Jellef can’t be used for varsity games (RF is only like 220 feet out while LF is like 400 because it’s a giant rectangle).
In the original Maret deal, Maret paid for creating the field at Jelleff, and in exchange got ten years of preferential use. That deal was arguably fair for the time. The reason people get heated is that when that deal was close to expiring, Maret pressured the city to "renew" it for another nine years -- without throwing anything additional in. There was nothing in the original agreement that said Maret had a right to an extension, or the city was obligated to extend. This was a post-hoc renegotiation of the original contract. And the city went along with it.
The reason this is such a big deal is that there is such a shortage of athletic field space and the city seems so cavalier about how the allocate it.
And yes, Maret plays varsity games there.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 18:57
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess I don't understand why Walls can't get priority on nearby DPR-run city fields/rec centers. Both are owned/operated by DC. And, why would Walls need to pay to use those (DC owned and operated) facilities? Why can't the right hand talk to/know what the left hand is doing? Total idiocy.
Because DPR gives DC public schools lowest priority. Private schools and other leagues book up most of the time on DPR fields. This policy must be quietly sanctioned by the mayor as it has been like that for her entire tenure
The Council passed a law a few years ago requiring DPR to give DCPS and DCPCS schools highest priority, second only to DPR's own programs. But DPR has refused to obey that law. Bowser re-orged to put both DCPS and DPR under the DME, which was supposed to result in greater cooperation and coordination, but they operate like they're warring nations.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 18:50
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Good question. Wasn’t the school supposed to be a partnership between DCPS and GW?
Also, DCPS does not help the school at all with figuring out playing space.
DC parks and recs gives the school zero priority in reserving field space. Instead they prefer to lease field space to private schools who can pay more money. The Walls PTA has to give money to lease field space as DCPS does not include any money in the Walls budget to deal with this issue.
This! Why doesn't this city work to support its schools? This should be a no-brainer (see: Jelleff, Maret, ECC...)
It’s truly a mystery. If a school is doing a halfway decent job, DCPS takes that as a sign that no additional support or resources are needed…for anything!
Because only at-risk kids and rich families matter. Run-of-the-mill UMCers are a non-factor.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 18:21
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess I have a hard time really understanding the story.
Walls was created on the GW campus under a specific philosophy. It was never expected to have much in the way of athletic facilities and didn’t really offer much of anything with respect to athletics.
It has now transitioned to kind of a public “private” school where athletics are more prominent. The issue is its location was never created for this.
Seems like Walls needs to move its campus elsewhere…perhaps to an under-enrolled comprehensive HS that comes with its own athletic fields and other traditional HS facilities.
This may mean it’s relationship with GW is altered or terminated… not sure…and not sure if most of the students/parents care more about that than sports.
Your argument makes no sense.
Every high school should have sports and extracurriculars. TJ which is the premier magnet school in the US has fields and sports teams. Walls was supposed to get access to GW facilities but they only get minimal access and DCPS doesn’t care. The athletic director tries his best to find and pay for athletic field access with no help from DCPS. The kids schlepp all over the city trying to find scraps of playing space. No one is talking about moving Walls. That is a pie in the sky idea which will not happen in the next 10-15 years. I don’t have kids at Walls but I am outraged for those students. You can ignore their predicament but it is just another example of how DCPS doesn’t care about its students. Sooner or later you will be directly affected by this type of attitude by the Mayor and Central Office. It is pervasive in every thing they do
School without walls was modeled after the Parkway Program whereby the school was meant to be integrated with the city. If you wanted to learn art history, you would go to the Smithsonian and learn from an expert…hence your learning should not be contained within the walls of a school.
It was a very progressive school model meant to be radically different from the traditional HS model.
The school was founded in 1971 and operated out of the floor of an office building…the school moved to its current location in the late 1970s.
My cousin attended in the late 1980s and loved the model and its lack of traditional HS structure. The school attracted an eclectic group.
The point is that what it is now is significantly different than what it was originally contemplated.
TJ was never created under such a radical model as to how school was taught. Not at all relevant to compare the two.
Why should Walls be stuck to the overly progressive model designed in the early 1970s. School visions evolve over time. The initial model was overly idealistic and not in line for what most families want. It was a half assed idea with no follow through. Walls is not asking to be moved or for a larger campus to magically appear for the school. The kids understand that they have to travel all over the city. That is part of the deal when you agree to attend Walls. They are merely requesting that DCPS Central and DPR work with the school to provide reasonable access to sports facilities. The school has open lunch but most everything else there operates like a traditional HS.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 18:14
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:I guess I don't understand why Walls can't get priority on nearby DPR-run city fields/rec centers. Both are owned/operated by DC. And, why would Walls need to pay to use those (DC owned and operated) facilities? Why can't the right hand talk to/know what the left hand is doing? Total idiocy.
Because DPR gives DC public schools lowest priority. Private schools and other leagues book up most of the time on DPR fields. This policy must be quietly sanctioned by the mayor as it has been like that for her entire tenure
Anonymous
05/15/2023 16:09
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
I guess I don't understand why Walls can't get priority on nearby DPR-run city fields/rec centers. Both are owned/operated by DC. And, why would Walls need to pay to use those (DC owned and operated) facilities? Why can't the right hand talk to/know what the left hand is doing? Total idiocy.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 15:52
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess I have a hard time really understanding the story.
Walls was created on the GW campus under a specific philosophy. It was never expected to have much in the way of athletic facilities and didn’t really offer much of anything with respect to athletics.
It has now transitioned to kind of a public “private” school where athletics are more prominent. The issue is its location was never created for this.
Seems like Walls needs to move its campus elsewhere…perhaps to an under-enrolled comprehensive HS that comes with its own athletic fields and other traditional HS facilities.
This may mean it’s relationship with GW is altered or terminated… not sure…and not sure if most of the students/parents care more about that than sports.
Your argument makes no sense.
Every high school should have sports and extracurriculars. TJ which is the premier magnet school in the US has fields and sports teams. Walls was supposed to get access to GW facilities but they only get minimal access and DCPS doesn’t care. The athletic director tries his best to find and pay for athletic field access with no help from DCPS. The kids schlepp all over the city trying to find scraps of playing space. No one is talking about moving Walls. That is a pie in the sky idea which will not happen in the next 10-15 years. I don’t have kids at Walls but I am outraged for those students. You can ignore their predicament but it is just another example of how DCPS doesn’t care about its students. Sooner or later you will be directly affected by this type of attitude by the Mayor and Central Office. It is pervasive in every thing they do
GW’s baseball field is a public field in Arlington, VA. The soccer team practices and plays games at the MT Vernon campus up in Foxhall.
From a sports facility perspective, GW doesn’t really offer Walls much help.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 15:46
Subject: Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can't believe there's no mention of Jelleff in this story. It's walkable from Walls.
I don’t think there’s a baseball field there, so it might not have seemed relevant to the story. But I agree that it should have been referenced as an example of DCPS priorities and precedents.
Maret paid to significantly upgrade Jellef and turn it into a multi-use field space. I don’t disagree that DC should have done this on their own…but for whatever reason they didn’t have the vision or interest at the time.
It is confusing why Jellef keeps getting mentioned…the field is 2 miles away in Georgetown…it is not much closer than Banneker and not accessible via metro (probably a couple buses). Maret is creating a new multi-field site with a regulation-sized baseball field because Jellef can’t be used for varsity games (RF is only like 220 feet out while LF is like 400 because it’s a giant rectangle).
Absolutely there's a baseball field at Jelleff. That's why Maret squatted on the property.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 15:42
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess I have a hard time really understanding the story.
Walls was created on the GW campus under a specific philosophy. It was never expected to have much in the way of athletic facilities and didn’t really offer much of anything with respect to athletics.
It has now transitioned to kind of a public “private” school where athletics are more prominent. The issue is its location was never created for this.
Seems like Walls needs to move its campus elsewhere…perhaps to an under-enrolled comprehensive HS that comes with its own athletic fields and other traditional HS facilities.
This may mean it’s relationship with GW is altered or terminated… not sure…and not sure if most of the students/parents care more about that than sports.
I don’t know. In the exam era, it felt like Walls’s whole identity was as “the school for smart kids.” And if you’re going to have a school for smart kids, I agree it should offer sports too. But since dropping the exam, it seems like Walls is refocusing on its original “alternative school” philosophy. (With plenty of smart kids, obviously.) Which is well-suited to the building and location they already have.
At this point if you want a school in DC where students aiming for selective colleges can play sports, there’s J-R and Banneker, plus MacArthur athletics will come online over the next few years. The honors/AP track at McKinley Tech is a workable option for student athletes as well. Given all that, it’s hard to see why the city would or should put the resources into moving Walls and equipping it with athletic facilities.
You guys exam focus is comical. SWW is still the same school. The kids just shouldn't have to jump to hoops for basics. I really would like to know who manages the relationship with GW.
When did an on-campus baseball diamond became “the basics”? What DCPS/PCS high schools have on-campus regulation fields? Which even have on-campus practice fields?
Let's see Coolidge, Roosevelt, etc. have football fields. Oh is a gym considered basic? These extends beyond baseball.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 15:38
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess I have a hard time really understanding the story.
Walls was created on the GW campus under a specific philosophy. It was never expected to have much in the way of athletic facilities and didn’t really offer much of anything with respect to athletics.
It has now transitioned to kind of a public “private” school where athletics are more prominent. The issue is its location was never created for this.
Seems like Walls needs to move its campus elsewhere…perhaps to an under-enrolled comprehensive HS that comes with its own athletic fields and other traditional HS facilities.
This may mean it’s relationship with GW is altered or terminated… not sure…and not sure if most of the students/parents care more about that than sports.
Your argument makes no sense.
Every high school should have sports and extracurriculars. TJ which is the premier magnet school in the US has fields and sports teams. Walls was supposed to get access to GW facilities but they only get minimal access and DCPS doesn’t care. The athletic director tries his best to find and pay for athletic field access with no help from DCPS. The kids schlepp all over the city trying to find scraps of playing space. No one is talking about moving Walls. That is a pie in the sky idea which will not happen in the next 10-15 years. I don’t have kids at Walls but I am outraged for those students. You can ignore their predicament but it is just another example of how DCPS doesn’t care about its students. Sooner or later you will be directly affected by this type of attitude by the Mayor and Central Office. It is pervasive in every thing they do
School without walls was modeled after the Parkway Program whereby the school was meant to be integrated with the city. If you wanted to learn art history, you would go to the Smithsonian and learn from an expert…hence your learning should not be contained within the walls of a school.
It was a very progressive school model meant to be radically different from the traditional HS model.
The school was founded in 1971 and operated out of the floor of an office building…the school moved to its current location in the late 1970s.
My cousin attended in the late 1980s and loved the model and its lack of traditional HS structure. The school attracted an eclectic group.
The point is that what it is now is significantly different than what it was originally contemplated.
TJ was never created under such a radical model as to how school was taught. Not at all relevant to compare the two.
Anonymous
05/15/2023 13:46
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:I guess I have a hard time really understanding the story.
Walls was created on the GW campus under a specific philosophy. It was never expected to have much in the way of athletic facilities and didn’t really offer much of anything with respect to athletics.
It has now transitioned to kind of a public “private” school where athletics are more prominent. The issue is its location was never created for this.
Seems like Walls needs to move its campus elsewhere…perhaps to an under-enrolled comprehensive HS that comes with its own athletic fields and other traditional HS facilities.
This may mean it’s relationship with GW is altered or terminated… not sure…and not sure if most of the students/parents care more about that than sports.
Your argument makes no sense.
Every high school should have sports and extracurriculars. TJ which is the premier magnet school in the US has fields and sports teams. Walls was supposed to get access to GW facilities but they only get minimal access and DCPS doesn’t care. The athletic director tries his best to find and pay for athletic field access with no help from DCPS. The kids schlepp all over the city trying to find scraps of playing space. No one is talking about moving Walls. That is a pie in the sky idea which will not happen in the next 10-15 years. I don’t have kids at Walls but I am outraged for those students. You can ignore their predicament but it is just another example of how DCPS doesn’t care about its students. Sooner or later you will be directly affected by this type of attitude by the Mayor and Central Office. It is pervasive in every thing they do
Anonymous
05/15/2023 13:39
Subject: Re:Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Good question. Wasn’t the school supposed to be a partnership between DCPS and GW?
Also, DCPS does not help the school at all with figuring out playing space.
DC parks and recs gives the school zero priority in reserving field space. Instead they prefer to lease field space to private schools who can pay more money. The Walls PTA has to give money to lease field space as DCPS does not include any money in the Walls budget to deal with this issue.
This! Why doesn't this city work to support its schools? This should be a no-brainer (see: Jelleff, Maret, ECC...)
It’s truly a mystery. If a school is doing a halfway decent job, DCPS takes that as a sign that no additional support or resources are needed…for anything!
+1000
Anonymous
05/15/2023 12:45
Subject: Sports at Walls (WaPo article)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:if DCPS kids really cared, they’d go to Maret games and practices and disrupt them to they point that the fields are untenable.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can't believe there's no mention of Jelleff in this story. It's walkable from Walls.
I don’t think there’s a baseball field there, so it might not have seemed relevant to the story. But I agree that it should have been referenced as an example of DCPS priorities and precedents.
There isn't a dedicated baseball field there, but the Maret baseball team practices on it (which pushes back use of the field by other D.C. organizations who pay to rent the space...). They have portable turf pitchers' mound that they bring on.
I’m black and have never understood the frame that white people should be rightfully denied certain things on account of being white, but this seems to be view that is coming up AMONG white folks more often. I’ve never heard this kind of thinking from black folks. In fact, we’d prefer if if the white kids got their field because then it strengthens the argument that (all) “our” kids should get one. The concept that UMC white kids should be denied seems to accept a reality when all of us are denied better lest we can afford Maret, etc. That is not striking a blow for equity.
It just plain racism. White people talk like this so they can pretend that they aren't racist, but if they were the white person in the situation, you better believe they'd be complaining -- or making sure their own snowflake goes to private.
Wait sorry, your argument is that white people in D.C. are racist against white people? Talk about problems that don’t need fixing until EVERY other problem is fixed first…
They don’t actually have an argument. White and Black parents have responded to this thread saying that this poster doesn’t represent anyone. They are just clumsily trying to stir controversy to generate page views.