Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch should look to Mann for guidance. Mann doesn't have a separate gym and cafeteria; it is one small space. Mann's parking lot is also very, very small. They ask neighbors -- annually -- to donate parking spaces. It works quite well.

I know Murch is more than twice the size of Mann. I know this. I'm just saying that instead of playing the reactionary Chicken Little, think seriously about how to navigate around DC's roadblocks. Everything is constrained optimization; this is no different.

But that's a big difference. Murch has, I believe, 5 classes per grade. Mann has only 2. So that's way more PE classes and way more lunch periods. It's much easier to fit 14 gym classes plus lunch in one room than 35 gym classes plus multiple lunches.

Ditto with the parking spaces -- how many more teachers/staff does Murch have?

Exactly - 3 classes per pre-K but mostly 5 classes per grade. Right now 4th and 5th grade are only four classes but as they age out - we will be at five classes for every grade except pre-K. And Murch parents do donate parking spaces but that still doesn't fit the "requirement" that there be some on-site parking.

And the building design as it is now literally uses every square inch of buildable zoned space. We are beyond "optimization." By the way, Mann's lot is a lot bigger than Murch's even though it has far fewer students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we take the theoretical discussion on the merits of public transport somewhere else? What's happening at Murch is real and will affect 600+ students. Let's focus on the realities at hand.

+1

Please keep the focus on immediate steps that can be taken to keep the renovation on track according to the July 1, 2015 plan -- http://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/DCPS%20Murch%20ES%20-%202015-07-01%20Community%20Meeting.pdf -- which already provides insufficient playground space and a parking lot smaller than Mann's but does at least provide for some basic facilities that are now facing elimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we take the theoretical discussion on the merits of public transport somewhere else? What's happening at Murch is real and will affect 600+ students. Let's focus on the realities at hand.

The reality at hand is that the Murch community needs to organize and demand LOUDLY of Bowser, Cheh and the Ward 4 council member to find $10M to restore the Murch plan and get started with construction! $10M isn't that much money to find in the rather bloated DC budget -- it's far, far less than amounts that have been reported in the past as being embezzled from the DC government:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902928.html

They just released the school budget today and are putting all kinds of money toward students who are over the age of 18. High school students. I understand the need to have an educated society, but I think that money could definitely be shaved from those programs at this time to benefit minors who are required to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The debates over parking and the size of the school enrollment really miss the point. The Murch community cares more about the educational components of the school than parking. Most of the staff can't park onsite now and wouldn't be able to in the future. The Murch community does not want a super-sized school. The Murch community has tried to figure it out for years and has told DC to engage and figure it out for years -- with all of the suggestions people are offering.

DC didn't make any tough choices or do the work to make changes. The school is in atrocious condition and needs to be redone NOW. So we can only work with what we have now. The city requires the parking, the school lot is small, and the school population is big. Even the basic educational components won't fit without something going underground. The city promised the school and the Council they had given the project enough to do that and settled on a design that was pretty bare bones in terms of space based on what was needed. Now the city says they don't have enough money budgeted because they did not estimate correctly. So the city is proposing to redesign four months before construction starts. They will include the required parking, even if it comes at the expense of things like a cafeteria and a library/media center (or at least one that is much bigger than a classroom). That is ridiculous and should not happen.

Agreed. And at a minimum, DCPS should fully fund the school building plan, and then sort out later the final site plan including what amount of parking to include, whether it is surface or under the playground, and how much more can be allocated to that secondary need. And if a BZA variance is required for some relief from parking minimums, DCPS should get on that now, because it's a near certainty that the BZA would grant it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch should look to Mann for guidance. Mann doesn't have a separate gym and cafeteria; it is one small space. Mann's parking lot is also very, very small. They ask neighbors -- annually -- to donate parking spaces. It works quite well.

I know Murch is more than twice the size of Mann. I know this. I'm just saying that instead of playing the reactionary Chicken Little, think seriously about how to navigate around DC's roadblocks. Everything is constrained optimization; this is no different.

But that's a big difference. Murch has, I believe, 5 classes per grade. Mann has only 2. So that's way more PE classes and way more lunch periods. It's much easier to fit 14 gym classes plus lunch in one room than 35 gym classes plus multiple lunches.

Ditto with the parking spaces -- how many more teachers/staff does Murch have?

Exactly - 3 classes per pre-K but mostly 5 classes per grade. Right now 4th and 5th grade are only four classes but as they age out - we will be at five classes for every grade except pre-K. And Murch parents do donate parking spaces but that still doesn't fit the "requirement" that there be some on-site parking.

And the building design as it is now literally uses every square inch of buildable zoned space. We are beyond "optimization." By the way, Mann's lot is a lot bigger than Murch's even though it has far fewer students.

Again, it raises the question, whether Murch should be "right sized" for its site. I don't know whether than number is 500, 550 or 600, but just by eliminating OOB enrollment over several years as current students "graduate" from Murch, they could cut the enrollment by 75-100 through attrition. When the school is arguably overcrowded just from IB students alone, it's illogical to maintain such a high number of OOB slots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The debates over parking and the size of the school enrollment really miss the point. The Murch community cares more about the educational components of the school than parking. Most of the staff can't park onsite now and wouldn't be able to in the future. The Murch community does not want a super-sized school. The Murch community has tried to figure it out for years and has told DC to engage and figure it out for years -- with all of the suggestions people are offering.

DC didn't make any tough choices or do the work to make changes. The school is in atrocious condition and needs to be redone NOW. So we can only work with what we have now. The city requires the parking, the school lot is small, and the school population is big. Even the basic educational components won't fit without something going underground. The city promised the school and the Council they had given the project enough to do that and settled on a design that was pretty bare bones in terms of space based on what was needed. Now the city says they don't have enough money budgeted because they did not estimate correctly. So the city is proposing to redesign four months before construction starts. They will include the required parking, even if it comes at the expense of things like a cafeteria and a library/media center (or at least one that is much bigger than a classroom). That is ridiculous and should not happen.

Agreed. And at a minimum, DCPS should fully fund the school building plan, and then sort out later the final site plan including what amount of parking to include, whether it is surface or under the playground, and how much more can be allocated to that secondary need. And if a BZA variance is required for some relief from parking minimums, DCPS should get on that now, because it's a near certainty that the BZA would grant it.

The IS NO LATER -- construction starts in 4 months. And lets not forget -- still no final agreement in place for swing space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The debates over parking and the size of the school enrollment really miss the point. The Murch community cares more about the educational components of the school than parking. Most of the staff can't park onsite now and wouldn't be able to in the future. The Murch community does not want a super-sized school. The Murch community has tried to figure it out for years and has told DC to engage and figure it out for years -- with all of the suggestions people are offering.

DC didn't make any tough choices or do the work to make changes. The school is in atrocious condition and needs to be redone NOW. So we can only work with what we have now. The city requires the parking, the school lot is small, and the school population is big. Even the basic educational components won't fit without something going underground. The city promised the school and the Council they had given the project enough to do that and settled on a design that was pretty bare bones in terms of space based on what was needed. Now the city says they don't have enough money budgeted because they did not estimate correctly. So the city is proposing to redesign four months before construction starts. They will include the required parking, even if it comes at the expense of things like a cafeteria and a library/media center (or at least one that is much bigger than a classroom). That is ridiculous and should not happen.

Agreed. And at a minimum, DCPS should fully fund the school building plan, and then sort out later the final site plan including what amount of parking to include, whether it is surface or under the playground, and how much more can be allocated to that secondary need. And if a BZA variance is required for some relief from parking minimums, DCPS should get on that now, because it's a near certainty that the BZA would grant it.

The IS NO LATER -- construction starts in 4 months. And lets not forget -- still no final agreement in place for swing space.

That still doesn't get them a place to eat lunch. And what do you suggest they do until the OOB "attrition" is complete?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The debates over parking and the size of the school enrollment really miss the point. The Murch community cares more about the educational components of the school than parking. Most of the staff can't park onsite now and wouldn't be able to in the future. The Murch community does not want a super-sized school. The Murch community has tried to figure it out for years and has told DC to engage and figure it out for years -- with all of the suggestions people are offering.

DC didn't make any tough choices or do the work to make changes. The school is in atrocious condition and needs to be redone NOW. So we can only work with what we have now. The city requires the parking, the school lot is small, and the school population is big. Even the basic educational components won't fit without something going underground. The city promised the school and the Council they had given the project enough to do that and settled on a design that was pretty bare bones in terms of space based on what was needed. Now the city says they don't have enough money budgeted because they did not estimate correctly. So the city is proposing to redesign four months before construction starts. They will include the required parking, even if it comes at the expense of things like a cafeteria and a library/media center (or at least one that is much bigger than a classroom). That is ridiculous and should not happen.

Agreed. And at a minimum, DCPS should fully fund the school building plan, and then sort out later the final site plan including what amount of parking to include, whether it is surface or under the playground, and how much more can be allocated to that secondary need. And if a BZA variance is required for some relief from parking minimums, DCPS should get on that now, because it's a near certainty that the BZA would grant it.

The IS NO LATER -- construction starts in 4 months. And lets not forget -- still no final agreement in place for swing space.

That still doesn't get them a place to eat lunch. And what do you suggest they do until the OOB "attrition" is complete?

You'll see a lot of attrition even over 2 years if they stop accepting any OOB kids for next year. But if they build a 700+ seat school and do nothing about OOB enrollment, mark my words "they will come." DCPS will fill every slot and then some, and the result will be a still-overcrowded school on school site that is way too small for its population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we take the theoretical discussion on the merits of public transport somewhere else? What's happening at Murch is real and will affect 600+ students. Let's focus on the realities at hand.

The reality at hand is that the Murch community needs to organize and demand LOUDLY of Bowser, Cheh and the Ward 4 council member to find $10M to restore the Murch plan and get started with construction! $10M isn't that much money to find in the rather bloated DC budget -- it's far, far less than amounts that have been reported in the past as being embezzled from the DC government:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902928.html

What about a show of force at the Thursday meeting of:

Performance Oversight Hearing: Education

Thursday, February 18, 2016
10:00AM
Room 500
Agency Performance Oversight Hearings on Fiscal Year 2015-2016

The Committee on Education will hold a Performance Oversight Hearing.
The following agencies will testify:

District of Columbia Public Schools (Public Witnesses Only)
Persons wishing to testify about the performance of any of the foregoing agencies may do so online at:

http://bit.ly/EdOversight16 or by calling 202-724-8061.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll write too - but my unsolicited advice is that everyone keep Ellington and the other over budget schools out of it.

$10 million is not that much money to find in the city budget. It isn't on the Murch parents to find where the money needs to come from -- make a lot of noise and demand that they provide enough funding to bring the facility up to the norm.

This is good advice. This is an issue of common sense. I would say it's an issue of fairness, but it is much more basic than that even. In what world does it make sense to renovate a school and not provide a cafeteria, downsize the library, and turn a playground into a parking lot? This is a clear case of being penny wise but pound foolish. There is no need to pit Murch against any other school. This is a case in which good fiscal management requires spending a bit more money.

Devil's advocate here, but don't most charters get by without a dedicated cafeteria? They have a combination gym/cafeteria in a multi-purpose room or all-purpose room configuration. Not all of them have two playgrounds either, or extra-large libraries in an age when so many materials are online. I'm not saying this is ideal, but some very good schools have been making do with less.

Which of those has enrollment of 730 and is not allowed to turn away students after they hit their capacity number?

That said, you raise the possibility for the conspiracy theorists that Murch is being used as a pawn in the Charter litigation. Maybe Murch should intervene in that litigation, as it is quite clear that their interests will not be served by the parties and may in fact be intentionally sabotaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we take the theoretical discussion on the merits of public transport somewhere else? What's happening at Murch is real and will affect 600+ students. Let's focus on the realities at hand.

The reality at hand is that the Murch community needs to organize and demand LOUDLY of Bowser, Cheh and the Ward 4 council member to find $10M to restore the Murch plan and get started with construction! $10M isn't that much money to find in the rather bloated DC budget -- it's far, far less than amounts that have been reported in the past as being embezzled from the DC government:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902928.html

What about a show of force at the Thursday meeting of:

Performance Oversight Hearing: Education

Thursday, February 18, 2016
10:00AM
Room 500
Agency Performance Oversight Hearings on Fiscal Year 2015-2016

The Committee on Education will hold a Performance Oversight Hearing.
The following agencies will testify:

District of Columbia Public Schools (Public Witnesses Only)
Persons wishing to testify about the performance of any of the foregoing agencies may do so online at:

http://bit.ly/EdOversight16 or by calling 202-724-8061.

10 a.m. is going to be a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll write too - but my unsolicited advice is that everyone keep Ellington and the other over budget schools out of it.

$10 million is not that much money to find in the city budget. It isn't on the Murch parents to find where the money needs to come from -- make a lot of noise and demand that they provide enough funding to bring the facility up to the norm.

This is good advice. This is an issue of common sense. I would say it's an issue of fairness, but it is much more basic than that even. In what world does it make sense to renovate a school and not provide a cafeteria, downsize the library, and turn a playground into a parking lot? This is a clear case of being penny wise but pound foolish. There is no need to pit Murch against any other school. This is a case in which good fiscal management requires spending a bit more money.

Devil's advocate here, but don't most charters get by without a dedicated cafeteria? They have a combination gym/cafeteria in a multi-purpose room or all-purpose room configuration. Not all of them have two playgrounds either, or extra-large libraries in an age when so many materials are online. I'm not saying this is ideal, but some very good schools have been making do with less.

Which of those has enrollment of 730 and is not allowed to turn away students after they hit their capacity number?

That said, you raise the possibility for the conspiracy theorists that Murch is being used as a pawn in the Charter litigation. Maybe Murch should intervene in that litigation, as it is quite clear that their interests will not be served by the parties and may in fact be intentionally sabotaged.

You're gonna have to explain this particular conspiracy theory a bit further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murch should look to Mann for guidance. Mann doesn't have a separate gym and cafeteria; it is one small space. Mann's parking lot is also very, very small. They ask neighbors -- annually -- to donate parking spaces. It works quite well.

I know Murch is more than twice the size of Mann. I know this. I'm just saying that instead of playing the reactionary Chicken Little, think seriously about how to navigate around DC's roadblocks. Everything is constrained optimization; this is no different.

DCPS should look to Mann for land. They need to make Mann bigger and shift the whole NW population further west. But lets not get off topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe putting some charter schools in ward 3 would ease some of the overcrowding. It is probably easier (and cheaper) to open a charter than it would be to build another DCPS school.

The real estate prices alone make that a really really long shot.

They don't need to buy real estate, they need to repurpose real estate they already have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch should look to Mann for guidance. Mann doesn't have a separate gym and cafeteria; it is one small space. Mann's parking lot is also very, very small. They ask neighbors -- annually -- to donate parking spaces. It works quite well.

I know Murch is more than twice the size of Mann. I know this. I'm just saying that instead of playing the reactionary Chicken Little, think seriously about how to navigate around DC's roadblocks. Everything is constrained optimization; this is no different.

DCPS should look to Mann for land. They need to make Mann bigger and shift the whole NW population further west. But lets not get off topic.

Actually, Mann managed to get reserved street parking (staff with sticker only) alongside the school at least during construction.