Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why on God's green earth are they trying to shoehorn so many kids onto this one spot of land?

Because everyone in the city wants to go to school EOTP.

You mean, because folks EOTP are obsessed with avoiding their own schools, and end up overcrowding WOTP schools.

Bunch of hipocrites

yep, this. Looking at you especially, Crestwood / Mt. Pleasant / 16th St Hts. People of some means who don't actually want to be with the people.

It's attitudes like this that prevent me from sending a letter to leaders on Murch's behalf.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why on God's green earth are they trying to shoehorn so many kids onto this one spot of land?

Because everyone in the city wants to go to school EOTP.

You mean, because folks EOTP are obsessed with avoiding their own schools, and end up overcrowding WOTP schools.

Bunch of hipocrites

yep, this. Looking at you especially, Crestwood / Mt. Pleasant / 16th St Hts. People of some means who don't actually want to be with the people.

It's attitudes like this that prevent me from sending a letter to leaders on Murch's behalf.

I doubt that the quoted post is from a Murch family. It does not represent the views of the vast majority of families at the school. People who have no connection to Murch are hijacking this thread. Since asking people to stay on topic doesn't seem to be working, I guess I've to use other means to keep the discussion on track.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I don't really understand why this thread keeps returning to boundary issues given that that topic has been put to rest until 2022. But, if can't stop yourself from discussing that topic, please start another thread.

Because they are related topics and should be discussed in conjunction. Here's why. You are correct that the next "comprehensive" boundary review will not occur until 2022. BUT, the mayor has the authority to "tweak" boundaries. She used this authority in February 2015. She should use it again, quickly, to right size Janney and Murch by bringing Hearst up to 100% IB. It will save the city money, reduce traffic, and improve the academic experience for over 1000 DCPS kids. She has a duty to do this. Upper NW parents should be demanding this tweak in addition to fully funding Murch.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Tweaks%20FAQ%20%282%29.pdf

I'm sure you will respond that the prior tweaks were some sort of special circumstance. But, this is also a special circumstance for the 100s of IB families impacted at overcrowded W3 schools.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I don't really understand why this thread keeps returning to boundary issues given that that topic has been put to rest until 2022. But, if can't stop yourself from discussing that topic, please start another thread.

Because they are related topics and should be discussed in conjunction. Here's why. You are correct that the next "comprehensive" boundary review will not occur until 2022. BUT, the mayor has the authority to "tweak" boundaries. She used this authority in February 2015. She should use it again, quickly, to right size Janney and Murch by bringing Hearst up to 100% IB. It will save the city money, reduce traffic, and improve the academic experience for over 1000 DCPS kids. She has a duty to do this. Upper NW parents should be demanding this tweak in addition to fully funding Murch.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Tweaks%20FAQ%20%282%29.pdf

I'm sure you will respond that the prior tweaks were some sort of special circumstance. But, this is also a special circumstance for the 100s of IB families impacted at overcrowded W3 schools.

You are overlooking the natural growth of the inbound population of Hearst that won't leave room for large number of Murch and Janney students. Anything involving changing these boundaries is going to be complicated. You are welcome to start a thread on that topic, but please stop the diverting this thread from the critical topic of funding.

[Anonymous]

Odd how the Murch community fought tooth and nail to keep their boundaries as is (Heasrt was wholly unpalatable) but now Hearst (which happens to be newly renovated and beautiful) is being looked to jealously and possessively as if it's there for the taking. Make it 100% you say? DCPS will NEVER jettison OOB families who are legitimate members of their school communities. Hearst may be 100% IB someday, but it will happen naturally as children age out of the school and more IB families enroll.

[Anonymous]

Anyway, I hope Murch gets their renovation as they envision it. It's going to be a tough few years. I can't honestly say that if it were my child that I would have them spend two plus years of their pivotal elementary years in a swing space. In wonder if a lot more Murch families will go private, even if the renovation gets funded fully. Any truth to that? Or are Murch families making a pact to stick it out at UDC together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Odd how the Murch community fought tooth and nail to keep their boundaries as is (Heasrt was wholly unpalatable) but now Hearst (which happens to be newly renovated and beautiful) is being looked to jealously and possessively as if it's there for the taking. Make it 100% you say? DCPS will NEVER jettison OOB families who are legitimate members of their school communities. Hearst may be 100% IB someday, but it will happen naturally as children age out of the school and more IB families enroll.

Of course existing OOB kids (who entered through lottery, not by gaming the system) are part of the school community; I have never heard otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Most Murch parents are delighted with the swing space now that it has been finalized. It's going to be much nicer than what we have now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most Murch parents are delighted with the swing space now that it has been finalized. It's going to be much nicer than what we have now!

That's so true - we will have more than one working electrical outlet per room - you should see some of the extension cord systems some classrooms have - a cafeteria to eat in and maybe no mice/cockroaches?? We will miss our playground which rocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I hope Murch gets their renovation as they envision it. It's going to be a tough few years. I can't honestly say that if it were my child that I would have them spend two plus years of their pivotal elementary years in a swing space. In wonder if a lot more Murch families will go private, even if the renovation gets funded fully. Any truth to that? Or are Murch families making a pact to stick it out at UDC together?

The vast majority of families love the community, teachers, and principal, and they're happy (per PPs) to finally have a good swing space plan. And now that it's two years in one place, it feels even better.

There will be some movement on the margins--families who were already seriously considering private/charter are probably more likely to pull the trigger, but that's a small group--the idea that Murch has the this huge population of people who can just snap their fingers and send their kids to private (or want to) is a fantasy.

And families with kids in private pre-school will probably keep them there for an extra year rather than start pre-K at Murch in the next two years.

But, honestly, a smaller school population wouldn't be a bad thing for the next two years, especially since the demographic trends show that we'll quickly fill up to capacity once we're in the new building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't fit that number of kids or staff on the site, can they?

Well, that is the bottom line, isn't it. They can't. To make a cafetorium work you need less than 400 students. Any more, and you can't have lunch and run a full PE program in the same room. You certainly can't do it with almost double the number of classes. The site restrictions mean they can't build up and they can't build to the North at all. They can only build down to make 730 students fit on one of DC's smallest lots. And they say they can't afford to do that. So either they fully fund it, or they don't do it and find somewhere else to send 330 students. Interestingly, that is exactly enough students to build another school entirely -- which would actually cost less. That excess -- 330 students -- is the about the same as or bigger than 36 other DCPS elementary schools, 11 middle schools, and 3 high schools. The over enrollment at Murch is more students than at 50 other DCPS schools!!!!!!

Why on God's green earth are they trying to shoehorn so many kids onto this one spot of land?

One of the problems cited in the audit of school modernizations is that DGS/DCPS do not take into account meaningful demographic projections when making decisions. This short-sightedness is a key reason they keep going over budget on modernizations and why recently updated schools like Janney, Stoddert, Deal, and Wilson are already overcapacity. Just watch, the same thing will happen with Hearst, Lafayette, and Murch.

This is so true. There is zero coordination with demographics and renovations/ modernizations. And for everyone saying boundaries should be changed now so more IB go through Hearst, that is a waste of energy. Even if the boundaries were changed during the boundary process, Hearst was remodeled for a small number of students. I believe 300, showing once again a complete failure to look at demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Odd how the Murch community fought tooth and nail to keep their boundaries as is (Heasrt was wholly unpalatable) but now Hearst (which happens to be newly renovated and beautiful) is being looked to jealously and possessively as if it's there for the taking. Make it 100% you say? DCPS will NEVER jettison OOB families who are legitimate members of their school communities. Hearst may be 100% IB someday, but it will happen naturally as children age out of the school and more IB families enroll.

Actually that isn't what happened. The Murch community found it odd that the houses closest to Murch (Cumberland- 2 blocks away) were being rezoned while the houses farthest away (all the way up to Western Ave-- at least 15 blocks away) were left in the boundary. In the end houses were still rezoned for Hearst, no outcry and the house farthest away were rezoned too, no out cry there either.

Relax, no one is jealous of the Hearst space. It is lovely and this thread isn't about Hearst.

[Anonymous]

My kids have outgrown Murch now, so I suppose I don't really have a dog in this fight anymore. But, when they were there, they were good friends with many of their OOB classmates. I don't think they thought about it at the time - they were just friends with their classmates (one of the great things about Murch, btw - if you were part of the school community, no one cared where you lived). The reason I say this is because this battle seems to have this EOTP vs WOTP tinge, which is really unfair here. Every time someone says Murch doesn't deserve their renovation because the school is located in upper NW, is denying the fact that kids from all over the city attend this school. Do those kids who get themselves across town to attend Murch not deserve the renovation either?

But even if that weren't the case, and every single one of those Murch kids were IB and living in big houses, they are still DCPS kids. They deserve a safe, decent place to learn, just like everyone else. The fact that they fought the boundary process to stay with their friends and their community is irrelevant. You would do the same thing if you were in their position. And, just because they did, does not mean they get to "pay for it" with unsanitary, unsafe, deplorable building conditions. That's just ridiculous.

I find it unconscionable that DCPS/DGS has a process that is so ridiculous, that parents need to fight them to get their school renovated, no matter where the school is located. I find it absurd that a school system, that is looking at a successful school despite the conditions, is punishing that very school for asking for what it was promised.

The battle here is with the school system that refuses to do what it is charged with doing - for ALL the kids, no matter where they live.

[Anonymous]

It's $10 million, which is pocket compared to things like the Ellington project. Murch was promised this renovation, which needs to include staff parking, play space, a place for the student body to assemble, and a sanitary place to eat. None of those should be considered nice to haves. They are necessities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids have outgrown Murch now, so I suppose I don't really have a dog in this fight anymore. But, when they were there, they were good friends with many of their OOB classmates. I don't think they thought about it at the time - they were just friends with their classmates (one of the great things about Murch, btw - if you were part of the school community, no one cared where you lived). The reason I say this is because this battle seems to have this EOTP vs WOTP tinge, which is really unfair here. Every time someone says Murch doesn't deserve their renovation because the school is located in upper NW, is denying the fact that kids from all over the city attend this school. Do those kids who get themselves across town to attend Murch not deserve the renovation either?

But even if that weren't the case, and every single one of those Murch kids were IB and living in big houses, they are still DCPS kids. They deserve a safe, decent place to learn, just like everyone else. The fact that they fought the boundary process to stay with their friends and their community is irrelevant. You would do the same thing if you were in their position. And, just because they did, does not mean they get to "pay for it" with unsanitary, unsafe, deplorable building conditions. That's just ridiculous.

I find it unconscionable that DCPS/DGS has a process that is so ridiculous, that parents need to fight them to get their school renovated, no matter where the school is located. I find it absurd that a school system, that is looking at a successful school despite the conditions, is punishing that very school for asking for what it was promised.

The battle here is with the school system that refuses to do what it is charged with doing - for ALL the kids, no matter where they live.

Whoever you are, you should run for the Council seat for Ward 3 (do you live in Ward 3?) You are eloquently, succinctly, brilliant.