Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get the press involved. That helps!

No, it doesn't. This isn't Watergate.

Sure it does. Local politicians hate bad publicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Murch #19 on the list of schools in need of renovation? So there are 18 ahead. That's not even counting the many charter schools that have been short-changed on facilities funding since their inception.

Are you the person who falsely manipulated the data on that survey to create the false impression you are trying so hard to spread here? The city needs to stop allowing fiscal decisions to be made based on lies like this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get the press involved. That helps!

No, it doesn't. This isn't Watergate.

Sure it does. Local politicians hate bad publicity.

I just sent this link of a friend at a local station. Let's see if he thinks it's newsworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Murch #19 on the list of schools in need of renovation? So there are 18 ahead. That's not even counting the many charter schools that have been short-changed on facilities funding since their inception.

Are you the person who falsely manipulated the data on that survey to create the false impression you are trying so hard to spread here? The city needs to stop allowing fiscal decisions to be made based on lies like this one.

Well the data / rankings should be fixed so they don't have problems like counting trailers toward capacity. But we shouldn't toss it out and go back to pure politics / who can screen loudest.

I think we should refine the rankings and fund projects in that order. We should also be spending more, not less on modernization.

[Anonymous]

Truly, Murch should pursue legal action. DCPS should be forced to explain the the unlimited budget for some schools in comparison to this situation. The City is booming economically these are not lean times. Whether it is DCPS/DGS hold them accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Murch #19 on the list of schools in need of renovation? So there are 18 ahead. That's not even counting the many charter schools that have been short-changed on facilities funding since their inception.

Are you the person who falsely manipulated the data on that survey to create the false impression you are trying so hard to spread here? The city needs to stop allowing fiscal decisions to be made based on lies like this one.

Well the data / rankings should be fixed so they don't have problems like counting trailers toward capacity. But we shouldn't toss it out and go back to pure politics / who can screen loudest.

I think we should refine the rankings and fund projects in that order. We should also be spending more, not less on modernization.

The problem is that such lists are (im)pure politics. By the time you fix the list, the damage is done for thousands of children around the city.

[Anonymous]

And where is Mary Cheh in all of this? Where is her advocacy? Shame in her for not supporting her constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And where is Mary Cheh in all of this? Where is her advocacy? Shame in her for not supporting her constituents.

In general, she's amazing, I don't know what she's doing on this. But I do know that as much as I respect her she is no match for the downtown political machine...we have the city we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Murch #19 on the list of schools in need of renovation? So there are 18 ahead. That's not even counting the many charter schools that have been short-changed on facilities funding since their inception.

Are you the person who falsely manipulated the data on that survey to create the false impression you are trying so hard to spread here? The city needs to stop allowing fiscal decisions to be made based on lies like this one.

Well the data / rankings should be fixed so they don't have problems like counting trailers toward capacity. But we shouldn't toss it out and go back to pure politics / who can screen loudest.

I think we should refine the rankings and fund projects in that order. We should also be spending more, not less on modernization.

The problem is that such lists are (im)pure politics. By the time you fix the list, the damage is done for thousands of children around the city.

Of course you can't take politics out of it completely (I wish we could), but that doesn't mean that there's no objectivity at all.
In this case, if be happy to support Murch if I knew that conditions there were worse than in our kids school. But I don't have time to visit all the schools, so I'd like to be able to look at a list to help figure it out.

[Anonymous]

See Kaya's budget priorities recently released. Alternative schools, longer school year for certain schools etc.
Keeping strong schools and families in DCPS bottom of the priorities. Maybe when families realize that and hightail it to MD and VA and property taxes and home values take a dive - she will listen.

Drop in collected taxes will make it harder for her to fulfill any "priorities". Upper NW involved families: DCPS does NOT care about or respect you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See Kaya's budget priorities recently released. Alternative schools, longer school year for certain schools etc.
Keeping strong schools and families in DCPS bottom of the priorities. Maybe when families realize that and hightail it to MD and VA and property taxes and home values take a dive - she will listen.

Drop in collected taxes will make it harder for her to fulfill any "priorities". Upper NW involved families: DCPS does NOT care about or respect you.

When do they release proposed capital budgets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Murch #19 on the list of schools in need of renovation? So there are 18 ahead. That's not even counting the many charter schools that have been short-changed on facilities funding since their inception.

Yes. Plus the Murch community had an opportunity to reduce their boundary 2 years ago. But that apparently was not an option because an extra few blocks to Hearst would have been horrible. So. Horrible. Murch easily could have shifted 100 kids to Hearst and put itself on a sound growth trajectory and needed a smaller expansion and less parking. Yes, it would have been a longer commute, but certainly better than where we are now.

Hearst parent here. While shifting the boundaries might make sense for lots of reasons, it would not have made the need to renovate Murch any less dire. Heck if you halved the size of the school or more and only needed the original building, it would still be a building that hadn't be renovated since it was first built in the 1930s. And short of that they still have temporary trailers that they have had for decades. Hearst was in the same situation not that long ago. AND Hearst was jerked around by the city and made to fight for more dollars when the city said whoops what we had budgeted wasn't enough. It is exhausting to constantly have to fight as a parent for things that your child should just get. Like a safe school. Happy to write in support of Murch.

Yes, of course Murch needs to be renovated. Everyone fully agrees they deserve an excellent 21st century school and we all should be fighting for their funding. BUT, if there had been less opposition to moving its boundaries 2 years ago then it would have required a smaller renovation. Thus costing less and perhaps allowing them to swing on site. Thereby, avoiding where we are today. The Murch students who would have been reassigned to Hearst would this very day be enjoying the brand new gym and cafeteria that seems so important to their parents.

I feel bad for the Murch community. But, they miscalculated a few years ago and now its coming home to roost. Now everyone suffers, the students and the taxpayers of the entire city. It's unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And where is Mary Cheh in all of this? Where is her advocacy? Shame in her for not supporting her constituents.

In general, she's amazing, I don't know what she's doing on this. But I do know that as much as I respect her she is no match for the downtown political machine...we have the city we have.

Wow, you're the first person I've ever heard use a superlative like "amazing" to describe Mary Cheh.

"She's no match for the downtown political machine" = "She's not very good at her job"

(Still waiting for any sort of acknowledgement of an email I sent her two days ago. Doesn't she have a constituent relations staff?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Murch #19 on the list of schools in need of renovation? So there are 18 ahead. That's not even counting the many charter schools that have been short-changed on facilities funding since their inception.

Yes. Plus the Murch community had an opportunity to reduce their boundary 2 years ago. But that apparently was not an option because an extra few blocks to Hearst would have been horrible. So. Horrible. Murch easily could have shifted 100 kids to Hearst and put itself on a sound growth trajectory and needed a smaller expansion and less parking. Yes, it would have been a longer commute, but certainly better than where we are now.

Hearst parent here. While shifting the boundaries might make sense for lots of reasons, it would not have made the need to renovate Murch any less dire. Heck if you halved the size of the school or more and only needed the original building, it would still be a building that hadn't be renovated since it was first built in the 1930s. And short of that they still have temporary trailers that they have had for decades. Hearst was in the same situation not that long ago. AND Hearst was jerked around by the city and made to fight for more dollars when the city said whoops what we had budgeted wasn't enough. It is exhausting to constantly have to fight as a parent for things that your child should just get. Like a safe school. Happy to write in support of Murch.

Yes, of course Murch needs to be renovated. Everyone fully agrees they deserve an excellent 21st century school and we all should be fighting for their funding. BUT, if there had been less opposition to moving its boundaries 2 years ago then it would have required a smaller renovation. Thus costing less and perhaps allowing them to swing on site. Thereby, avoiding where we are today. The Murch students who would have been reassigned to Hearst would this very day be enjoying the brand new gym and cafeteria that seems so important to their parents.

I feel bad for the Murch community. But, they miscalculated a few years ago and now its coming home to roost. Now everyone suffers, the students and the taxpayers of the entire city. It's unfortunate.

I have no real dog in this fight in that my kids are beyond elementary school and went to another jklm. However, it is farcical to believe that the minor boundary realignment they were discussing would have alleviated Murch's overcrowding in a meaningful way. In addition, while they did not redistrict kids from Murch to Hearst on the south end, they did redistrict kids from Murch to Lafayette on the north end. This switch has not rendered Murch any less crowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't Murch #19 on the list of schools in need of renovation? So there are 18 ahead. That's not even counting the many charter schools that have been short-changed on facilities funding since their inception.

Yes. Plus the Murch community had an opportunity to reduce their boundary 2 years ago. But that apparently was not an option because an extra few blocks to Hearst would have been horrible. So. Horrible. Murch easily could have shifted 100 kids to Hearst and put itself on a sound growth trajectory and needed a smaller expansion and less parking. Yes, it would have been a longer commute, but certainly better than where we are now.

Hearst parent here. While shifting the boundaries might make sense for lots of reasons, it would not have made the need to renovate Murch any less dire. Heck if you halved the size of the school or more and only needed the original building, it would still be a building that hadn't be renovated since it was first built in the 1930s. And short of that they still have temporary trailers that they have had for decades. Hearst was in the same situation not that long ago. AND Hearst was jerked around by the city and made to fight for more dollars when the city said whoops what we had budgeted wasn't enough. It is exhausting to constantly have to fight as a parent for things that your child should just get. Like a safe school. Happy to write in support of Murch.

Yes, of course Murch needs to be renovated. Everyone fully agrees they deserve an excellent 21st century school and we all should be fighting for their funding. BUT, if there had been less opposition to moving its boundaries 2 years ago then it would have required a smaller renovation. Thus costing less and perhaps allowing them to swing on site. Thereby, avoiding where we are today. The Murch students who would have been reassigned to Hearst would this very day be enjoying the brand new gym and cafeteria that seems so important to their parents.

I feel bad for the Murch community. But, they miscalculated a few years ago and now its coming home to roost. Now everyone suffers, the students and the taxpayers of the entire city. It's unfortunate.

This is not true. Please stop lying.

Neither boundary change proposed (the proposed one shifting more kids to Hearst and the final one that shifted more kids to Lafayette) changed the size of Murch's population. DCPS did not contend with Murch's size except to attempt to keep the projected headcount to 700.

There was no scenario on the table that would have reduced Murch's headcount. The renovation conversation would have been exactly the same in both scenarios.

If you don't want to support Murch in this effort, that's fine. But you have to stop spreading disinformation.