Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

So I am looking at the DGS swing site presentation of Nov. 23rd. Can anyone speak to the issues that arose with options 1 and 2?

http://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/Murch%20SIT%20Meeting%2011.23.15.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Lafayette parent I am pissed about this because DGS is trying to pull one over on all of us- Lafayette and Murch communities. They said time and time again that this option was not on the table, despite many many questions put to them. Then, days before the holidays and only 2 days before the next meeting, they spring this idea on the Lafayette community (and apparently the Murch community as well). Sounds like they were trying to make this happen with no chance for feedback from the community.

I sympathize with the Murch community but this isn't the way you go about doing things.

In short, DGS makes flames jump out of my head.

As long as it doesn't involve dollars jumping out of my pocket because of another out-sized, poorly-sourced expansion on the part of DCPS, who really cares? Seriously, spread the dollars around equitably, particularly the charters, and maybe we could collectively give a damn, but right now?

Schadenfreude, baby. You and your hair fires just make me laugh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's my proposal- Move PK & K to the trailers (busses or no). They have their own specials teacher and I suspect they could even use part of the Lafayette play space and gym and library etc. for 2 years. That gets 180 kids out of the Murch campus - would that be enough to help?

This sounds more palatable to me. Especially if they changed the Murch pre-k/k time to 8-2:30 or 8:15-2:45, so they wouldn't need buses and would have time to pick up other Murch students in trailers at Murch.

I'm confused why a parent who has a rising K at Lafayette wouldn't also have a stake in this? It would certainly affect them too.

They absolutely do. Of course they do.

I agree and stated that because the posters making fun of the CCLS poster, and doing so anonymously, said that it didn't "impact" her whatsoever. Let's just be real and acknowledge that if Murch parents were living in our houses, there would be an identical response. And while it sounds like Murch hosted Lafayette 40 years ago, the vast majority of those families have moved on. I can't imagine it was supported by 100% of the community.

We were making fun of her tone and self-centeredness. There's a way to register concern that is more thoughtful and productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Murch should have agreed to boundary changes to keep the overcrowding under control.

Many steps have led to this current situation.

Murch has been using a building that is almost 100 years old, never updated/renovated, regardless of the number of kids it needs a substantial renovation.

Murch had the biggest, or one of the biggest boundary changes in the city.


Try to repeat these phrases a million times and maybe they will get through your thick skull.

[Anonymous]

A few words of advice for Murch parents:

Check. Your. Privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few words of advice for Murch parents:

Check. Your. Privilege.

Did you read the post directly above yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few words of advice for Murch parents:

Check. Your. Privilege.

I don't get this.

As a Lafayette parent I am dismayed by the CCLS chatter and the e-mail(s) that have come out from SIT members. There is a solution here but your input adds nothing to finding one.

I think if we were in the Murch situation we would feel the same about our kids and the safety of a swing space for them. I have a 3rd grader. Those kids at Murch are looking at finishing their elementary school days stacked on top of each other on a construction site? Come on. We are better than that and should demand better for all kids in DC.

[Anonymous]

Most Lafayette parents don't give a whit about your kid. Don't expect any kindness unless there is something in it for their kids. Lived it for many years and glad to soon be done.

[Anonymous]

One of the CCDC listserve posters (a Murch parent) recently suggested this:

"I agree with the suggestion that Murch put trailers on the large, unused grassy space lying between Nebraska and Reno, right next to Murch. This solution is so obvious, staring all of us in the face. I understand that it's probably National Park Service land, Well, make a deal with NPS to make up for the temporary use of the land. It's just sitting there doing nothing in the meantime. I never even see people picnicking or throwing a frisbee there when the weather is fine. It's literally a no-man's land between Murch and Deal. Let's use it for Murch during the renovation! "

What is the possibility of getting NPS to engage at all? Anyone know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I am looking at the DGS swing site presentation of Nov. 23rd. Can anyone speak to the issues that arose with options 1 and 2?

http://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/Murch%20SIT%20Meeting%2011.23.15.pdf

I expect that will covered at the community meeting at Murch at 7:00 on the 17th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the CCDC listserve posters (a Murch parent) recently suggested this:

"I agree with the suggestion that Murch put trailers on the large, unused grassy space lying between Nebraska and Reno, right next to Murch. This solution is so obvious, staring all of us in the face. I understand that it's probably National Park Service land, Well, make a deal with NPS to make up for the temporary use of the land. It's just sitting there doing nothing in the meantime. I never even see people picnicking or throwing a frisbee there when the weather is fine. It's literally a no-man's land between Murch and Deal. Let's use it for Murch during the renovation! "

What is the possibility of getting NPS to engage at all? Anyone know?

This is like asking DGS to engage with the NPS about using the NPS land on the Murch lot. They don't do it because they are lazy. They hold the meetings. Don't answer any questions and act surprised that they haven't talk to NPS when they should have been doing that for the last few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the CCDC listserve posters (a Murch parent) recently suggested this:

"I agree with the suggestion that Murch put trailers on the large, unused grassy space lying between Nebraska and Reno, right next to Murch. This solution is so obvious, staring all of us in the face. I understand that it's probably National Park Service land, Well, make a deal with NPS to make up for the temporary use of the land. It's just sitting there doing nothing in the meantime. I never even see people picnicking or throwing a frisbee there when the weather is fine. It's literally a no-man's land between Murch and Deal. Let's use it for Murch during the renovation! "

What is the possibility of getting NPS to engage at all? Anyone know?

This is like asking DGS to engage with the NPS about using the NPS land on the Murch lot. They don't do it because they are lazy. They hold the meetings. Don't answer any questions and act surprised that they haven't talk to NPS when they should have been doing that for the last few years.

So my question is, can we residents manage to push them to engage? Surely there must be an avenue for public discourse for local NPS land, no?

[Anonymous]

Would St Anne's in Tenleytown be an option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would St Anne's in Tenleytown be an option?

I remember reading it was considered (17 sites were considered.) I don't remember where I read that but I believe another school is using it? There was some fundamental reason it was not a viable option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would St Anne's in Tenleytown be an option?

Not sure, but here's what the SIT presentation said they had investigated:
Intelstat Building – only response to RFS received; lease and tenant improvements; cost prohibitive
Fannie Mae – tenants will not vacate until 2017
American University – building and land owner would not grant lease
Howard University Law School – building in extremely poor condition; only 25,000 sf; lack of play space
Fillmore School – building and land owner would not grant lease
Wesley Theological Seminary – building and land owner would not grant lease
Christ Church of Washington – building and land owner would not grant lease
Jackson School Art Center – building and land owner would not grant lease
4001 Brandywine St NW (Partially empty office building) – building and land owner would not
grant lease
5252 Wisconsin Ave NW (Partially empty office building) – 37,000 sf of retail space, mostly below
grade; no natural light
UDC, Capital Memorial Church/Forest Hills, and On Site