Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch is very overcrowded, but it's slated for expansion, which might address the issue. Janney just finished its second expansion and is over-capacity upon opening. There was a lot of static from Janney families whose houses would have been moved into Hearst and the advisory committee made up an expected enrollment number that is low by about 10 percent even in the first year, and said there was no need for redrawing boundaries. Thats what happens when you have an advisory committee made up with people with aspirations for higher office.

This is a misconception. Murch's renovation now is needed simply to bring up to code the space for the amount of children who are enrolled. We would need to almost triple the size of the school to fit in the students. Murch will not have additional space and given the constraints of most of our land being NPS - we are not even sure we can renovate to properly fit our current enrollment. We really need our boundaries redrawn!

This is sadly the crux of the problem in certain NW schools. The plan pushes off some of the biggest shifts need to address overcrowding. Naturally the most vocal opposition to shifting boundaries are those who will get moved. But it will take a lot of pain from too crowded classrooms or frankly no space left at all to mobilize the rest of the schools -- at Murch and Janney -- to push for kicking some folks out. Probably going to be an ugly process within those communities. But quite soon the day is going to come when DCPS will be opening for the school year and there will be simply no place to put some kids.

Anonymous wrote:I hesitate to reopen/relitigate this point, but:

The vast majority of negative Murch response to the originally proposed Hearst rezoning was about the silliness of people a few blocks from Murch being sent to a school almost a mile away. (Related: It disproportionately affected families in apartment buildings on Conn. Ave. who presumably were less likely to have cars and thus more dependent on walkable proximity to the school.)

In fact, a few blocks of Murch's southern boundary still did get rezoned to Hearst, and there was no outcry about that decision--because the southern boundary of Murch is, in fact, nearly equidistant to Hearst and Murch. There was no ground to protest, and no one has.

(This is also why the Murch-to-Lafayette rezone makes sense--the area they moved is actually equidistant between the schools.)

I can't speak for Janney resistance to their proposed changes.

Actually the Murch families are still making noise, just less so on this forum. For example, the ANC 3F passed another resolution protesting the June proposal, and I am sure they will do so again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hesitate to reopen/relitigate this point, but:

The vast majority of negative Murch response to the originally proposed Hearst rezoning was about the silliness of people a few blocks from Murch being sent to a school almost a mile away. (Related: It disproportionately affected families in apartment buildings on Conn. Ave. who presumably were less likely to have cars and thus more dependent on walkable proximity to the school.)

In fact, a few blocks of Murch's southern boundary still did get rezoned to Hearst, and there was no outcry about that decision--because the southern boundary of Murch is, in fact, nearly equidistant to Hearst and Murch. There was no ground to protest, and no one has.

(This is also why the Murch-to-Lafayette rezone makes sense--the area they moved is actually equidistant between the schools.)

I can't speak for Janney resistance to their proposed changes.

Actually there have been serious concerns raised by families and residents in the area regarding the latest versions of the proposal. Including a troubling land swap to move a portion of Murch to Hearst and a portion of Hearst to Murch. There are some speculations of political influence peddling, particularly regarding a potential area of land that is ripe for development. DME has never provided a justification for the switch. It makes no logical sense that the DME would do as Jeff described earlier as a "land swap" -- zone an area closer to the school out to make room for another part of the community that is farther away and the same size. DME/DCPS has been mum about why this new area would be zoned into the Murch district.

Don't underestimate the ability of development interests to push special favors. Lord knows, they contribute handsomely to mayoral and council candidates through multiple shadow LLCs. Their reach can even extend to the public schools. Look how far the so-called "public-private partnership" at Janney schoool got, before the public firestorm forced its pullback. Janney came very close to losing a big chunk of its property to a politically-connected developer who was to get the property at a very below market price. Another example is how so many empty DCPS buildings have somehow wound up on the sale block for condos, etc., rather than first being made available to charters as the law requires.

Oh the density poster is back.....

Anonymous wrote:I hesitate to reopen/relitigate this point, but:

The vast majority of negative Murch response to the originally proposed Hearst rezoning was about the silliness of people a few blocks from Murch being sent to a school almost a mile away. (Related: It disproportionately affected families in apartment buildings on Conn. Ave. who presumably were less likely to have cars and thus more dependent on walkable proximity to the school.)

In fact, a few blocks of Murch's southern boundary still did get rezoned to Hearst, and there was no outcry about that decision--because the southern boundary of Murch is, in fact, nearly equidistant to Hearst and Murch. There was no ground to protest, and no one has.

(This is also why the Murch-to-Lafayette rezone makes sense--the area they moved is actually equidistant between the schools.)

I can't speak for Janney resistance to their proposed changes.

Actually there have been serious concerns raised by families and residents in the area regarding the latest versions of the proposal. Including a troubling land swap to move a portion of Murch to Hearst and a portion of Hearst to Murch. There are some speculations of political influence peddling, particularly regarding a potential area of land that is ripe for development. DME has never provided a justification for the switch. It makes no logical sense that the DME would do as Jeff described earlier as a "land swap" -- zone an area closer to the school out to make room for another part of the community that is farther away and the same size. DME/DCPS has been mum about why this new area would be zoned into the Murch district.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may be reading this incorrectly, but if you look at the data provided in some of the DME supporting docs, it looks like there are currenly 104 IB students that could attend Hearst (obviously many choose to attend private). And, under the DME proposal with the new boundary the projected number of IB kids eligible to attend is 140. The school can hold 325 students. Which begs the question, why not expand the Hearst boundary even further rather than turn Janney and Murch into trailer parks?

"School, Boundary, Neighborhood-Level Data Sheet Including Boundary Change Rationales"

http://dme.dc.gov/node/885242

A suggestion to do that was vociferously opposed during the DME process. The Janney boundary change was reversed completely in the Advisory Committee recommendation and Murch did some sort of land exchange with Hearst that I don't think had much of an impact.

Thanks to Advisory Committee member -- and AU Park ANC comissioner -- Matt Frumin. Good work!

Thanks for punting to try to protect your political career. In February it seems he looked at the data and decided Janney could have 2000 students within 10 years, http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/362362.page#4693662. After fierce lobbying by people whose houses might be moved out of the district, he decided that the long-term projection was only 625 students and exactly nobody needed to be redistricted. Janney has what, 690 students this year?

Montgomery County schools are facing these same issues. It's just the population growth that cities and states have to deal with.

Bump

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may be reading this incorrectly, but if you look at the data provided in some of the DME supporting docs, it looks like there are currenly 104 IB students that could attend Hearst (obviously many choose to attend private). And, under the DME proposal with the new boundary the projected number of IB kids eligible to attend is 140. The school can hold 325 students. Which begs the question, why not expand the Hearst boundary even further rather than turn Janney and Murch into trailer parks?

"School, Boundary, Neighborhood-Level Data Sheet Including Boundary Change Rationales"

http://dme.dc.gov/node/885242

A suggestion to do that was vociferously opposed during the DME process. The Janney boundary change was reversed completely in the Advisory Committee recommendation and Murch did some sort of land exchange with Hearst that I don't think had much of an impact.

Thanks to Advisory Committee member -- and AU Park ANC comissioner -- Matt Frumin. Good work!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can that be? Hearst is 18% IB, so there can't currently be 104 students attending. That would put the current IB population closer to 30+%.

There are not 104 attending, but 104 school aged children in the zone. That's it. The current boundaries are small and roughly half of the kids within the zone attend the school. Even if every school aged child within the boundary went to Hearst, 2/3 of the school would still be available for OOB students.

104 public school children - - some are at charters and some OOB at other schools. The header says "public."

I hesitate to reopen/relitigate this point, but:

The vast majority of negative Murch response to the originally proposed Hearst rezoning was about the silliness of people a few blocks from Murch being sent to a school almost a mile away. (Related: It disproportionately affected families in apartment buildings on Conn. Ave. who presumably were less likely to have cars and thus more dependent on walkable proximity to the school.)

In fact, a few blocks of Murch's southern boundary still did get rezoned to Hearst, and there was no outcry about that decision--because the southern boundary of Murch is, in fact, nearly equidistant to Hearst and Murch. There was no ground to protest, and no one has.

(This is also why the Murch-to-Lafayette rezone makes sense--the area they moved is actually equidistant between the schools.)

I can't speak for Janney resistance to their proposed changes.

Anonymous wrote:How can that be? Hearst is 18% IB, so there can't currently be 104 students attending. That would put the current IB population closer to 30+%.

There are not 104 attending, but 104 school aged children in the zone. That's it. The current boundaries are small and roughly half of the kids within the zone attend the school. Even if every school aged child within the boundary went to Hearst, 2/3 of the school would still be available for OOB students.

How can that be? Hearst is 18% IB, so there can't currently be 104 students attending. That would put the current IB population closer to 30+%.

My understanding of the boundary revision process was that it was intended to do a number of things. Relieving overcrowding at Deal and Wilson is definitely one of them, and given that Wilson pulls from all over the city, I think it's a valid issue, rather than simply a Ward 3 problem.

Other things I understood this process to address:

1. Homes that, by virtue of other elementary schools being closed in previous years without a boundary redraw, were eligible for multiple schools - Columbia Heights families who were, for example, considered in bounds for Tubman, Cooke and Garrison, as a result of the Meyer closure.

I do believe that that has been addressed by this proposal - those families (at least the ones that I know) are now only assigned to one school under the proposal.

2. Dismantling the Education Campuses, which are unpopular and deemed not effective/safe/whatever. Removing grades 6-8 from several schools was going to cause issues no matter where those kids were sent, but different issues. If the kids were bounced to other area middle school campuses, the outcry is that those middle schools are garbage (we're in bounds for Tubman/CHEC/Cardozo, so I'm sympathetic). If the kids are assigned to Unicorn, the outcry is that Unicorn doesn't exist. If the kids are reassigned to Deal, the outcry is about overcrowding.

But at the end of the day, those kids have to go somewhere. I don't think all those concerns are addressed by this proposal.

At the end of the day, I think the smarter way to go about the proposal would have been to start work, immediately, on the new middle schools. Build them, focus on community engagement and participation. Less talk about overcrowding and current test score issues and more talk about what programs parents and students want. I think that Jeff did a really good job of starting a lot of those conversations re: MacFarland/Roosevelt, and I was sad to see that taken less seriously than I thought it deserved.

Just my 2 cents.