Ward 3 Update: Two New Proposed Schools for Ward 3
Dear Neighbors,
I’d like to provide an update on where the District is in the planning process for the two new schools proposed for Ward 3. I hope this letter will answer some questions and concerns that I’ve received from residents and also provide neighbors with an update on my ongoing work to ensure that plans for these new schools are responsive to parent and community concerns. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter – this is a complex issue, and I want to be sure to provide you with a full picture of where things currently stand.
First, I’d like to provide some background on the need for new school facilities in the Ward. Several years ago, at the urging of me and many Ward 3 parents, DCPS convened a working group to discuss overcrowding in our Ward 3 schools. As you may know, all but one of the schools in the Wilson feeder pattern (which includes all Ward 3 schools and several schools in Wards 1, 2, and 4) are currently over-capacity; this overcrowding is slated to get worse as enrollment at each of these schools is projected to grow in the coming years. This earlier working group concluded that the Wilson feeder pattern would need four new schools to fully address overcrowding: two new elementary schools, one new middle school, and a new high school, for a total of more than 2,400 new seats.
As a first step to address this need, last spring the Mayor proposed building a new school, commonly referred to as the Foxhall School, at the site of Hardy Park in Foxhall Village. That summer, Georgetown Day School’s lower campus also became available for purchase, and the Mayor and Council worked together to purchase that site for use as a new school. Although these two schools represent a huge investment, they will likely provide only half of the new seats needed to fully address overcrowding in the Ward–even counting the new seats from additions planned for Deal Middle School and Stoddert Elementary School.
To decide how best to use these new school facilities, this January, DCPS convened a community working group made up of school principals, parents, and community representatives from across the Ward. Representatives from the Foxhall Community Citizens Association and ANC 3D were part of that working group, as well as a representative from my office. The working group was tasked with a very high level question: if built, what grade levels should these new schools serve? They did not consider changes to catchment areas or feeder patterns, the schools’ size or siting on the proposed lots, or other logistical issue; rather, DCPS will consider those issues further on in the planning process through School Improvement Teams (SIT).
In May, DCPS met with our ANCs and school communities, and released a community survey on these new schools. That same month, the working group sent their recommendations to the Chancellor, who will make the final decision on the two school proposals. The results of the DCPS survey and a copy of the working group’s final recommendations and meeting materials are available for public access, here.
I want to underscore: no final decisions have been made on these two schools at this time—including on the size or type of schools they could be. The Chancellor is currently reviewing the working group’s recommendations and is likely to share his proposal for the sites later this summer. In addition, no changes to school feeder patterns are being proposed at this time; any decisions on catchment areas will be made by the individual school SITs, and only after robust community engagement.
Having provided this background, I’d like to address several concerns about these proposals that I’ve heard from the community, and also correct a few misconceptions:
Effect of the new Foxhall School on Hardy Park
I share neighbors’ concerns about the effect a new school could have on the community access to Hardy Park. With that in mind, I have had several meetings with the Mayor, Chancellor, and DCPS planning team, and I have underscored to each: where a school is built on the park, DCPS must ensure that the school’s footprint is as minimally disruptive to the park as possible. The Chancellor has told me he intends to do all he can to honor this request and had his staff produce two preliminary concept drawings for how the new Foxhall school could fit on the site; I have attached these at the end of this letter. As you can see, per these concept drawings, the new school would minimally impact existing amenities at the park, and I have been told the vast majority of the ongoing renovation to the park would remain untouched. Even so, I have pushed the Chancellor to do all he can to reduce the footprint even further.
I have heard from some neighbors who do not trust that DCPS will actually adhere to these concept drawings when planning for this new school. I have no reason to believe that would be the case. DCPS regularly considers the concerns of the community (including inviting neighbors to participate in the SIT) when planning for a new school. Take, for example, the recent modernizations of Murch and Eaton Elementary Schools where neighbors were deeply involved in the plans to modernize those schools. Thus, I encourage neighbors to remain engaged and join the SITs for the Foxhall and GDS schools when they are convened.
One idea I have proposed to the Chancellor for consideration is for the new Foxhall School to be a co-located DCPS/DPR facility. This would provide the neighborhood with increased access to the school’s facilities, as well as provide access to DPR programming. A co-located site could also further reduce the new school’s footprint, where the park’s existing community meeting space is absorbed into the new school building. There are co-located DCPS/DPR facilities across the District, including at Stoddert Elementary in Glover Park. The Chancellor has expressed interest in this idea, though it is my understanding that decisions on co-located would be made later, by the SIT.
Traffic and Parking
I also share residents’ concerns about the effect these new school could have on traffic and parking in the Foxhall neighborhood. With that in mind, I have identified funds in this year’s budget for a traffic analysis along MacArthur Boulevard and in Foxhall Village; those funds will become available this summer, when the budget is finalized, to enable the analysis to be completed as soon as possible. Although DCPS typically conducts a traffic study much later in the school planning process, I felt it was important to do this analysis now, so DCPS and the community are able to review the effect new schools will have on area traffic well before any decisions are made. I also intend to work closely with WMATA and DDOT to identify how the D6 bus route could be enhanced, as well as other routes added, to reduce the need for families and school staff to travel to the area via car.
On parking, many DCPS schools do not provide sufficient on-site parking for staff, and staff typically commutes via public transit, further underscoring the need for a traffic study and increased access to public transit along MacArthur Boulevard and in Foxhall Village. That said, I will continue to work with DCPS to reduce any effect these new schools may have on street parking in the area. There may already be some solutions for parking concerns at the former GDS campus site, which currently has parking for more than 80 cars, which I’ve encouraged DCPS to maintain during renovations. I will note, if the former GDS lower school campus is ultimately used as a high school, DCPS is unlikely to provide parking for students; they will need to walk, cycle, or ride public transit to get to school—though it may also be possible for shuttle busses to take the students from the school to transit (as has been done at a few other schools). Although I have heard concerns regarding student drivers parking in neighborhoods, my understanding is the vast majority of blocks in Foxhall Village are already RPP-restricted, meaning non-permitted vehicles cannot park for longer than two hours in the neighborhood. Nevertheless, I plan to work closely with DCPS to ensure that these parking issues are addressed, both proactively in the planning process, and after the new school comes online.
On the Need for Two New Schools
Some neighbors have asked whether there are sufficient students to fill a new Foxhall School, given that the Mayor, at my request, provided funds in the budget for an addition at Stoddert Elementary. Unfortunately, the number of new seats needed in Ward 3 to address overcrowding is high enough to necessitate a new elementary school, even with Stoddert’s addition. Elementary schools in the Wilson High School feeder pattern are projected to be 1,100 seats over capacity by 2028. So, although Stoddert’s addition could accommodate as many as 200 students, we still need to find facility space for those 900 other seats.
This incredible need for new seats is also why it does not make sense to structure the new school at the GDS lower school campus as a kindergarten through eighth grade campus and not build a new elementary school, as I’ve heard proposed. As I noted at the start of this letter, we need over 2,400 new seats in the Ward, spread across the different school levels. Using GDS to serve students grades K-8th would address only a fraction of need at the elementary and middle school levels, and we’d still need to build new elementary and middle schools to comprehensively address overcrowding. Thus, we most effectively address our facility needs by building two new schools—one elementary, and one middle or high school—rather than a K-8th grade campus.
Lab School Lease
Last, I’d like to share information on the extension of the Lab School’s lease of the Old Hardy School building. Old Hardy is a school facility that is owned by the District and has been leased to the Lab School for a number of years; that lease was slated to end in 2023. I long have opposed extension of that lease, given the need for additional school facility space in the Ward, and the fact that Old Hardy is the only District-owned space in Ward 3 that could be used for a new school without substantial construction.
Over the years, I’ve made that opposition clear to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor for Education, and DCPS (the entities responsible in the renewal process for the site), and have prevented a previous lease from moving forward at the Council. Thus, earlier this year, I was shocked to learn that the Executive had unilaterally extended Lab’s lease for 15 years. I later learned that the Deputy Mayor for Education had specifically rewritten that lease extension to avoid Council review, effectively negotiating with Lab in secret with no notice to the Council or the public on the plans to extend the lease.
As drafted by the Deputy Mayor, the lease extension significantly forecloses where and how a new school can be built on that site. The lease gives Lab exclusive use of the Old Hardy School building and much of the parking lot, meaning the new facility proposed by the Mayor would have to be built, at least in part, on existing park space. Earlier this spring, I expressed to the Deputy Mayor my deep frustration regarding his efforts to explicitly circumvent Council review of this lease and that the lease’s language prioritizes Lab’s use of the space over that of residents. The Executive engaged in a similar ploy in 2019 to give a private school prioritized use of the Jelleff Recreation Center fields, leaving Hardy Middle Schools students to travel across town instead of across the street for sports practices.
I also have significant concerns about the legality of the Lab School lease extension, including the Executive’s actions to circumvent Council review. With that in mind, earlier this spring, I asked the Attorney General to review the lease’s compliance with District law. Although the Attorney General concluded that the lease was valid, it only passed scrutiny because the Deputy Mayor explicitly drafted the language to exploit gaps in the existing law to avoid Council review. Thus, I intend to work with my colleagues to identify and close the loopholes that allowed this lease extension to move forward, but of course that would only apply to future leases. And, I will note: the Attorney General’s conclusion does not change the fact that the Lab School’s lease was extended over community and Council opposition, without any notice, and wholly in the dark.
I will keep the community updated as we learn more about the Chancellor’s decision regarding the proposed new schools, as well as next steps for the traffic study, which I anticipate will begin before the end of the summer. In turn, should you have any questions or concerns about these proposals, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly.
Regards,
Mary
