Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has putting trailers on the field next to the forest hills playground been ruled out? That seems to be the best option: next to a playground and walking distance from Murch.

Not ruled out, but I think the concern is expense (still TBD) and neighborhood opposition.

I don't know anything about expense, but neighborhood opposition can't be any greater than the opposition of the non-Lafayette families that already hate Lafayette's trailers.

Then, you are not acquainted with the single-family households in the most immediate area surrounding the DPR land (Gates Rd., 32nd st, Brandywine and Chesapeake).

Move on.

The Forest Hills playground was just redone this year. The adjacent church space has only about 7 classrooms so the scenario presented by DGS would have trailers on the brand new ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball court, which could certainly damage them. A huge waste of tax dollars. Plus the play equipment is geared for young kids, not 3-5 graders. In the past, the neighbors vehemently opposed having a private school take over the church space because of traffic. This just seems like a nonstarter.

It's not that neighbors are opposed to trailers at Murch. Hell, half of Murch's 630 kids are already in trailers and have been for years. The problem is that once construction starts, the only place to put those (or new) trailers is on the NW corner of the lot (controlled by NPS). More than half of the current playground will be fenced off and under construction. There would be no buffer between the demountables and a huge excavation pit, where the soccer field and basketball courts (and several trailers) currently are. Murch would have a sliver of play space for the students. Maybe it could work. But maybe there is a better short-term solution to ensure the safety and learning environment of the kids, like swinging part of the Murch population off site for awhile. There is no perfect solution (otherwise the city would have built another elementary school in Ward 3 a long time ago to alleviate the overcrowding at Murch).

It would be nice if we could come together as neighbors and citizens to support our teachers and kids. Rebuilding our neglected schools across the city benefits EVERYONE. We need to have each other's backs. A year or two of inconvenience is a small price to pay for safe, modern, right-sized schools in every neighborhood. That was the attitude back in 1975 when Murch hosted Lafayette's preK and Kindergarten students during Lafayette's first major renovation. Meanwhile, Murch hasn't been touched since it was built in 1929, yet has almost as many students as Lafayette and in half the space.

[Anonymous]

The Forest Hills playground was just redone this year. The adjacent church space has only about 7 classrooms so the scenario presented by DGS would have trailers on the brand new ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball court, which could certainly damage them. A huge waste of tax dollars. Plus the play equipment is geared for young kids, not 3-5 graders. In the past, the neighbors vehemently opposed having a private school take over the church space because of traffic. This just seems like a nonstarter.

It's not that neighbors are opposed to trailers at Murch. Hell, half of Murch's 630 kids are already in trailers and have been for years. The problem is that once construction starts, the only place to put those (or new) trailers is on the NW corner of the lot (controlled by NPS). More than half of the current playground will be fenced off and under construction. There would be no buffer between the demountables and a huge excavation pit, where the soccer field and basketball courts (and several trailers) currently are. Murch would have a sliver of play space for the students. Maybe it could work. But maybe there is a better short-term solution to ensure the safety and learning environment of the kids, like swinging part of the Murch population off site for awhile. There is no perfect solution (otherwise the city would have built another elementary school in Ward 3 a long time ago to alleviate the overcrowding at Murch).

It would be nice if we could come together as neighbors and citizens to support our teachers and kids. Rebuilding our neglected schools across the city benefits EVERYONE. We need to have each other's backs. A year or two of inconvenience is a small price to pay for safe, modern, right-sized schools in every neighborhood. That was the attitude back in 1975 when Murch hosted Lafayette's preK and Kindergarten students during Lafayette's first major renovation. Meanwhile, Murch hasn't been touched since it was built in 1929, yet has almost as many students as Lafayette and in half the space.





+1

[Anonymous]

I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Forest Hills playground was just redone this year. The adjacent church space has only about 7 classrooms so the scenario presented by DGS would have trailers on the brand new ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball court, which could certainly damage them. A huge waste of tax dollars. Plus the play equipment is geared for young kids, not 3-5 graders. In the past, the neighbors vehemently opposed having a private school take over the church space because of traffic. This just seems like a nonstarter.

It's not that neighbors are opposed to trailers at Murch. Hell, half of Murch's 630 kids are already in trailers and have been for years. The problem is that once construction starts, the only place to put those (or new) trailers is on the NW corner of the lot (controlled by NPS). More than half of the current playground will be fenced off and under construction. There would be no buffer between the demountables and a huge excavation pit, where the soccer field and basketball courts (and several trailers) currently are. Murch would have a sliver of play space for the students. Maybe it could work. But maybe there is a better short-term solution to ensure the safety and learning environment of the kids, like swinging part of the Murch population off site for awhile. There is no perfect solution (otherwise the city would have built another elementary school in Ward 3 a long time ago to alleviate the overcrowding at Murch).

It would be nice if we could come together as neighbors and citizens to support our teachers and kids. Rebuilding our neglected schools across the city benefits EVERYONE. We need to have each other's backs. A year or two of inconvenience is a small price to pay for safe, modern, right-sized schools in every neighborhood. That was the attitude back in 1975 when Murch hosted Lafayette's preK and Kindergarten students during Lafayette's first major renovation. Meanwhile, Murch hasn't been touched since it was built in 1929, yet has almost as many students as Lafayette and in half the space.

+1



Surely the 700 impacted Lafayette school students, and the entire CCDC neighborhood should trump concerns about a new playground....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has putting trailers on the field next to the forest hills playground been ruled out? That seems to be the best option: next to a playground and walking distance from Murch.

Not ruled out, but I think the concern is expense (still TBD) and neighborhood opposition.

I don't know anything about expense, but neighborhood opposition can't be any greater than the opposition of the non-Lafayette families that already hate Lafayette's trailers.

Then, you are not acquainted with the single-family households in the most immediate area surrounding the DPR land (Gates Rd., 32nd st, Brandywine and Chesapeake).

Move on.

The Forest Hills playground was just redone this year. The adjacent church space has only about 7 classrooms so the scenario presented by DGS would have trailers on the brand new ball fields, tennis courts, and basketball court, which could certainly damage them. A huge waste of tax dollars. Plus the play equipment is geared for young kids, not 3-5 graders. In the past, the neighbors vehemently opposed having a private school take over the church space because of traffic. This just seems like a nonstarter.

It's not that neighbors are opposed to trailers at Murch. Hell, half of Murch's 630 kids are already in trailers and have been for years. The problem is that once construction starts, the only place to put those (or new) trailers is on the NW corner of the lot (controlled by NPS). More than half of the current playground will be fenced off and under construction. There would be no buffer between the demountables and a huge excavation pit, where the soccer field and basketball courts (and several trailers) currently are. Murch would have a sliver of play space for the students. Maybe it could work. But maybe there is a better short-term solution to ensure the safety and learning environment of the kids, like swinging part of the Murch population off site for awhile. There is no perfect solution (otherwise the city would have built another elementary school in Ward 3 a long time ago to alleviate the overcrowding at Murch).

It would be nice if we could come together as neighbors and citizens to support our teachers and kids. Rebuilding our neglected schools across the city benefits EVERYONE. We need to have each other's backs. A year or two of inconvenience is a small price to pay for safe, modern, right-sized schools in every neighborhood. That was the attitude back in 1975 when Murch hosted Lafayette's preK and Kindergarten students during Lafayette's first major renovation. Meanwhile, Murch hasn't been touched since it was built in 1929, yet has almost as many students as Lafayette and in half the space.

Murch parent here. This is thoughtful, but:

1. There's a big difference between swinging part of the Murch population off-site (in that case, maybe Forest Hills could work--just use the inside classroom space plus a couple of trailers for pre-K and K, for example) and moving the entire population to the Lafayette trailers. One is incremental and puts minimal stress on the surrounding neighborhood; the other is hugely disruptive and potentially dangerous.

2. The "but what about the play space" piece of this has always struck me as weak sauce. Many urban schools deal with minimal outdoor space--look at Eaton, for example. Or Ross. And there is a piece of NPS land across the street from Murch that is at least up for discussion as temporary outdoor space. If the choice is minimal play space for two years or 1400 kids on Lafayette's grounds for two years, is there really a debate?

[Anonymous]

I also think the "wear and tear" argument is specious-- that's the whole point of a playground-- to be used.

The Chevy Chase listserv is all up in arms about how much wear and tear there has been on the Lafyette playground since the school is using it...I went this weekend and it looked just fine to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think the "wear and tear" argument is specious-- that's the whole point of a playground-- to be used.

The Chevy Chase listserv is all up in arms about how much wear and tear there has been on the Lafyette playground since the school is using it...I went this weekend and it looked just fine to me.

yeah, because they JUST finished repairing it. Did you not see the fencing 2 weeks ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Of course there will be families with kids whose ages straddle those years. It gets complicated quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Of course there will be families with kids whose ages straddle those years. It gets complicated quickly.

If grades are split between two sites I would hope that there would be the possibility of slightly staggered start times or free before school care for 15 minutes or so to help the parents with drop offs at multiple locations. There's also the question of how will the kids at the alternate location get to the after school care that is housed at the church across from Murch? Hope that gets addressed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Of course there will be families with kids whose ages straddle those years. It gets complicated quickly.

Yeah, but if they plan to bus some over anyhow, then the drop off could still be at Murch.

Yes, it does get complicated. But at least this way an entire neighborhood gets some relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

And which teachers would go where? And would DCPS provide a second set of teachers for music, art, PE, library, Spanish, world geography, lunch staff, security, special ed, ELL, principal, vice principal, counselor, custodians, reading specialist, math specialist, science specialist, nurse, lets see, what else would they need two of?

Splitting the school into two or more parts sounds simple enough if you don't know how a school runs.

By the way, DGS and DCPS are in fact considering options for splitting the school by grades, which will be "awesome" for families with kids in several grades. One idea had 5th grade moving to Deal a year early. Now lets hear the Deal community shut its boarders to Murch kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

And which teachers would go where? And would DCPS provide a second set of teachers for music, art, PE, library, Spanish, world geography, lunch staff, security, special ed, ELL, principal, vice principal, counselor, custodians, reading specialist, math specialist, science specialist, nurse, lets see, what else would they need two of?

Splitting the school into two or more parts sounds simple enough if you don't know how a school runs.

By the way, DGS and DCPS are in fact considering options for splitting the school by grades, which will be "awesome" for families with kids in several grades. One idea had 5th grade moving to Deal a year early. Now lets hear the Deal community shut its boarders to Murch kids.

If they moved pre-k and k to forest hills, this doesn't feel so crazy. There's already a designated pre-k specials teacher. If he could take on k, as well, that helps a ton. And forest hills is just a few blocks from Murch, so double drop-off is less onerous (as is aftercare). And the forest hills playground is perfect to younger kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Thoughts are that they are not YOUR trailers. They belong to the city and have been placed at a cost of $7 Million. As a PP noted, it would be nice if the communities could come together to figure out how to solve the problem rather than be obstructionist pricks.

-A Chevy Chase Resident who would be happy to host Murch if it was necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Hearst has only one trailer ...