Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or they could redraw the boundaries?

but they tried and the Janney families said no! We would prefer to have overcrowded classrooms!

+1. Hearst can accommodate more IB families. They are in a dangerous space now where the PK class has a few extra seats for OOB. But when IB kids enroll late summer (like this year) for K they end up with crowded classes for the remaining 5 years. Principal needs to recognize this trend and plan accordingly in the lottery.

Many at Hearst want to retain the majority OOB status and don't want it to flip to be a neighborhood school.

You obviously have never spoken to "many" IB families at Hearst.

+1

Is there a place to have a voice if you are not currently enrolled?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Principal needs to stand up to parents and drop a prek class or two (or drop all of them) and not allow families who moved OOB to reenroll. Problem solved. If Janney families don't get behind this solution, they have no one but themselves to blame and should quit complaining.

Totally agree.

I agree as well. And I'm saying this as someone who has a child eligible for PK4 in the Fall. It would be the better solution long-term for all students.

OK. Will there be a movement to contact the PTA presidents to start being vocal about over crowding? That's why some of us who could not attend the state of the school wanted to know what the current state of play is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or they could redraw the boundaries?

but they tried and the Janney families said no! We would prefer to have overcrowded classrooms!

+1. Hearst can accommodate more IB families. They are in a dangerous space now where the PK class has a few extra seats for OOB. But when IB kids enroll late summer (like this year) for K they end up with crowded classes for the remaining 5 years. Principal needs to recognize this trend and plan accordingly in the lottery.

Many at Hearst want to retain the majority OOB status and don't want it to flip to be a neighborhood school.

You obviously have never spoken to "many" IB families at Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or they could redraw the boundaries?

but they tried and the Janney families said no! We would prefer to have overcrowded classrooms!

Exactly. I spoke to some of those Janney families at the boundary meetings. They were there not out of concern for the kids of DC, but to rail about their property values and the disaster that would befall them if the boundaries were redrawn. They made their beds...

You can understand this. A big price premium on houses in AU Park and environs is because of the Janney IB access factor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:trailers is the obvious and quick choice here. It's unpalatable and ugly, no doubt, and you lose the adorbs garden and some frolicking dirt.

OTOH, the most elite schools in NYC who crank out the most HYPS students / future establishment of -any- schools in the US do not have precious organic gardens and soccer fields in elementary. They really don't, and somehow their kids shine and succeed.

Yes!! Just suck it up. No one wanted boundaries moved and DCPS isn't going to put a new school in Ward 3. This the most cost effective solution.

Another alternative is for DCPS to reduce significantly the number of OOB students in Hearst and Eaton and other schools WOTP. This would free up capacity and permit some modest redistricting that would make these schools substantially IB schools. But DCPS has no political will do do that -- in fact, quite the contrary, as they want to maximize OOB slots in Upper NW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or they could redraw the boundaries?

but they tried and the Janney families said no! We would prefer to have overcrowded classrooms!

+1. Hearst can accommodate more IB families. They are in a dangerous space now where the PK class has a few extra seats for OOB. But when IB kids enroll late summer (like this year) for K they end up with crowded classes for the remaining 5 years. Principal needs to recognize this trend and plan accordingly in the lottery.

Many at Hearst want to retain the majority OOB status and don't want it to flip to be a neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:Principal needs to stand up to parents and drop a prek class or two (or drop all of them) and not allow families who moved OOB to reenroll. Problem solved. If Janney families don't get behind this solution, they have no one but themselves to blame and should quit complaining.

And ferret out any non-residents students at Janney. Didn't they find some a few months ago?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Principal needs to stand up to parents and drop a prek class or two (or drop all of them) and not allow families who moved OOB to reenroll. Problem solved. If Janney families don't get behind this solution, they have no one but themselves to blame and should quit complaining.

Totally agree.

Most Janney parents have no idea overcrowding is even an issue. Unless you have a current third grader it's not advertised that the 3rd grade classes are that large. At the recent open house, the slide show gave ratios for third grade as 15:1 when in reality those classes have 32 to 33 kids in them (not a huge discrepancy but it makes a difference). Plus they don't allude to the fact that the 2 teachers are only present for time spent in reading/writing/math and not for any specials. And it's always presented in a very "glass half full" perspective. "We have TWO full teachers per class in third grade!". Not, "we are packing in 33 kids into a classroom built for 23".

Anonymous wrote:Principal needs to stand up to parents and drop a prek class or two (or drop all of them) and not allow families who moved OOB to reenroll. Problem solved. If Janney families don't get behind this solution, they have no one but themselves to blame and should quit complaining.

Totally agree.

Principal needs to stand up to parents and drop a prek class or two (or drop all of them) and not allow families who moved OOB to reenroll. Problem solved. If Janney families don't get behind this solution, they have no one but themselves to blame and should quit complaining.

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of dropping pre K classes and going forward, being strict about not staying if you move OOB. But if there are kids in upper grades now who were allowed to stay under old administration, I would let them finish. How many kids is that anyway?

but if you let them finish - you move the problem to Deal etc.

it is called Principal Discretion for a reason. You took a gamble. - and the rules changed.

The garage is only under the field, so I don't see why we can't put some in the garden. For goodness sake, just because they aren't the prettiest things on the planet, doesn't mean we shouldn't give them a go.

There has always been some sort of rumor that Janney can't have trailers because 1) they can't be placed over the under ground parking garage which encompasses a good deal of the back lot and 2) there is some standing agreement with the neighborhood or the ANC or someone (who?) that trailers not be put in place. Which is why the school got 2 expansions in 2 years vs. just using trailers.
Anyone have any idea what this is?