Murch Boundary Change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

From my house Murch is 2 flat blocks down 36th st. Hearst is .8 miles on a very hilly road. The first one I can do easily with my 5 year old, the second one would be almost two miles round trip - that's 35 minutes to even begin my normal commute and that's if my 5 year old can walk at my pace. I'm not going to do that, so i'll drive. And you know what, i'll probably just get in my car and keep driving to work, because metro is always a crapshoot and I'll add another car to the already congested roads, because at this point it becomes all about me and much less about what is good for others, since DC apparently doesn't care about me and my family.

And I agree that is much less convenient (although I would suggest that you needn't walk all the way back home, it would be easier and closer to walk directly to the metro after the drop-off at school). But if your argument is about congestion on the roads, the switch will actually reduce it. Because although you might get on the road, you (though not really you, because no current family is actually going to move, so you don't actually have anything to worry about) will be replacing an OOB family who is driving across the city to drop off their child. Much greater reduction in traffic.

Except that 10% of the seats at both Murch and Hearst will be reserved for OOB kids (current incoming Murch classes are much lower than that!) and they will add 10% OOB to Janney and to Lafayette and the schools on the west side. It is a nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

I'm an incoming family and I'm really upset about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

From my house Murch is 2 flat blocks down 36th st. Hearst is .8 miles on a very hilly road. The first one I can do easily with my 5 year old, the second one would be almost two miles round trip - that's 35 minutes to even begin my normal commute and that's if my 5 year old can walk at my pace. I'm not going to do that, so i'll drive. And you know what, i'll probably just get in my car and keep driving to work, because metro is always a crapshoot and I'll add another car to the already congested roads, because at this point it becomes all about me and much less about what is good for others, since DC apparently doesn't care about me and my family.

Please. First of all, if you live where you say you live, you aren't even particularly close to the Tenley metro station right now: it's already a hike from your front door / the Murch drop-off doors. Threatening to drive your car from now on as a direct result of boundary changes is odd. Just drive Junior to the vicinity of Hearst, leave your car with its Ward 3 RPP sticker near Hearst, and walk down the hill along Van Ness to the Van Ness metro. It's the same exact distance you're walking now to Metro.

Also, this is all academic because your kid is grandfathered in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

1) You are blessed that this is all you have to be upset about (First world problem) and
2) Apply for proximity preference

I'm an incoming family and I'm really upset about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

I'm an incoming family and I'm really upset about it.

1) You are blessed that this is all you have to be upset about (First world problem) and
2) Apply for proximity preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

I'm an incoming family and I'm really upset about it.

Hi PP & incoming Murch family. What in particular is upsetting to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

From my house Murch is 2 flat blocks down 36th st. Hearst is .8 miles on a very hilly road. The first one I can do easily with my 5 year old, the second one would be almost two miles round trip - that's 35 minutes to even begin my normal commute and that's if my 5 year old can walk at my pace. I'm not going to do that, so i'll drive. And you know what, i'll probably just get in my car and keep driving to work, because metro is always a crapshoot and I'll add another car to the already congested roads, because at this point it becomes all about me and much less about what is good for others, since DC apparently doesn't care about me and my family.

And I agree that is much less convenient (although I would suggest that you needn't walk all the way back home, it would be easier and closer to walk directly to the metro after the drop-off at school). But if your argument is about congestion on the roads, the switch will actually reduce it. Because although you might get on the road, you (though not really you, because no current family is actually going to move, so you don't actually have anything to worry about) will be replacing an OOB family who is driving across the city to drop off their child. Much greater reduction in traffic.

Except that 10% of the seats at both Murch and Hearst will be reserved for OOB kids (current incoming Murch classes are much lower than that!) and they will add 10% OOB to Janney and to Lafayette and the schools on the west side. It is a nightmare.

PP, what part of 10% OOB kids is "a nightmare"?

[Anonymous]

The real solution to overcrowding at Murch is a Lafayette-Janney-Murch-Hearst choice set (with a sibling preference and some kind of proximity preference). That would allow the schools to assign new families to whatever school has the capacity for the kids.

Hearst has a new building? Boom, new families go in Hearst. Lafayette's population goes down? Boom, kids move to Lafayette with no need for redrawing boundaries. Much more sensible use of resources, really.

And as everyone keeps pointing out, all these schools are essentially the same. How can you complain about having to walk a few extra blocks or drive five minutes? The issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families. Ward 3 for choice sets!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

From my house Murch is 2 flat blocks down 36th st. Hearst is .8 miles on a very hilly road. The first one I can do easily with my 5 year old, the second one would be almost two miles round trip - that's 35 minutes to even begin my normal commute and that's if my 5 year old can walk at my pace. I'm not going to do that, so i'll drive. And you know what, i'll probably just get in my car and keep driving to work, because metro is always a crapshoot and I'll add another car to the already congested roads, because at this point it becomes all about me and much less about what is good for others, since DC apparently doesn't care about me and my family.

And I agree that is much less convenient (although I would suggest that you needn't walk all the way back home, it would be easier and closer to walk directly to the metro after the drop-off at school). But if your argument is about congestion on the roads, the switch will actually reduce it. Because although you might get on the road, you (though not really you, because no current family is actually going to move, so you don't actually have anything to worry about) will be replacing an OOB family who is driving across the city to drop off their child. Much greater reduction in traffic.

Except that 10% of the seats at both Murch and Hearst will be reserved for OOB kids (current incoming Murch classes are much lower than that!) and they will add 10% OOB to Janney and to Lafayette and the schools on the west side. It is a nightmare.

PP, what part of 10% OOB kids is "a nightmare"?

The added traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

From my house Murch is 2 flat blocks down 36th st. Hearst is .8 miles on a very hilly road. The first one I can do easily with my 5 year old, the second one would be almost two miles round trip - that's 35 minutes to even begin my normal commute and that's if my 5 year old can walk at my pace. I'm not going to do that, so i'll drive. And you know what, i'll probably just get in my car and keep driving to work, because metro is always a crapshoot and I'll add another car to the already congested roads, because at this point it becomes all about me and much less about what is good for others, since DC apparently doesn't care about me and my family.

And I agree that is much less convenient (although I would suggest that you needn't walk all the way back home, it would be easier and closer to walk directly to the metro after the drop-off at school). But if your argument is about congestion on the roads, the switch will actually reduce it. Because although you might get on the road, you (though not really you, because no current family is actually going to move, so you don't actually have anything to worry about) will be replacing an OOB family who is driving across the city to drop off their child. Much greater reduction in traffic.

Except that 10% of the seats at both Murch and Hearst will be reserved for OOB kids (current incoming Murch classes are much lower than that!) and they will add 10% OOB to Janney and to Lafayette and the schools on the west side. It is a nightmare.

PP, what part of 10% OOB kids is "a nightmare"?

Not the PP, but I think the answer to your question is pretty clear. However, I admire your gentle way of inquiring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the corner taking the hit is the corner with the most SES diversity in the school boundary!

And? They will go to Hearst now.

Yes, but at the expense of Murch, which will become less diverse. Some of us actually think diversity is a good thing.

Others of us in the Murch boundary are more concerned with persistent overcrowding, although having a slightly diverse student body is a nice-to-have.

You would be singing a different tune if you were affected by the change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

Hearst isn't "scary" it is just inconvenient for people 4 blocks from Murch to have to make a switch. My friend on Reno sent her 2 kids to Hearst, but for me where I am it is too far to think it as walking distance for kids. I let my DS walk to Murch alone but I wouldn't let him go 1 mile across Reno to Hearst. WHy are you Hearst posters so defensive and also so eager to force us to make a switch we don't want to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

Hearst isn't "scary" it is just inconvenient for people 4 blocks from Murch to have to make a switch. My friend on Reno sent her 2 kids to Hearst, but for me where I am it is too far to think it as walking distance for kids. I let my DS walk to Murch alone but I wouldn't let him go 1 mile across Reno to Hearst. WHy are you Hearst posters so defensive and also so eager to force us to make a switch we don't want to?

I never said I was a Hearst parent. I just find this string this string funny compared to what the folks at Oyster Adams are dealing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Their perceptions or more likely, misperceptions of Hearst.

The Murch hysteria started out as somewhat comical and is now bordering on sad since--as the cries drone on-- everyone but these Murch posters seems to understand that current Murch students who live within in the areas affected by the boundary changes will be grandfathered in, and that no student will be forced to move to "scary" Hearst and God forbid, have to walk an extra 6 blocks or drive five minutes.

As another poster pointed out, in the vast scheme of the city's boundary changes, Murch's issues are really minor and will only affect incoming families.

Hearst isn't "scary" it is just inconvenient for people 4 blocks from Murch to have to make a switch. My friend on Reno sent her 2 kids to Hearst, but for me where I am it is too far to think it as walking distance for kids. I let my DS walk to Murch alone but I wouldn't let him go 1 mile across Reno to Hearst. WHy are you Hearst posters so defensive and also so eager to force us to make a switch we don't want to?

I never said I was a Hearst parent. I just find this string this string funny compared to what the folks at Oyster Adams are dealing with.

+1