Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The posters on the Chevy Chase Listserv come off as so rude and entitled. They're embarrassing themselves with their selfishness and their "my school", "my park", "my community" attitude. How they determined that the Murch community and Lafayette communities are separate is beyond me - I never saw that division until now, and all of a sudden we're like Israel and Palestine.

As the previous poster said - tone down the rhetoric. Murch parents don't want to swing off site, but they cannot realistically and safely remain at Murch through the renovation. The swing options are minimal and the trailers are already at Lafayette. If Murch swung to Lafayette, the density on the Lafayette site would arguably still be lower than that of Murch now (pre-renovation).

This NIMBY crew was happy to see Deal and Wilson neighbors live through multiple renovations. Again, the selfishness and entitlement of the posters is unlike anything I've seen within this "community" - even during the contentious boundary debacle. How about we all stand back and look at what makes the most sense from safety, learning and financial perspectives. And happy holidays!

Over here in Chevy Chase, we proudly say "Merry Christmas!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please keep in mind that the Murch community has been working very hard to get this renovation underway for at least five years. It is not as if these are new ideas. If getting NPS or historic preservation to allow more flexibility were viable options that would not have delayed the renovation for several more years, they would have been pursued more. The current building simply could not sustain the wait.

But, this all new to the Lafayette community. The only info we have is that it's a possibility and that we were asked to weigh in on it. Kinda hard to do without any pertinent facts.

The swing space options now on the table are even newer to the Murch community than to Lafayette. Murch has yet to be briefed on them, but the Lafayette community has been briefed at two separate meetings this week. So we don't know how to weigh in on it either. At least you have had a chance to weigh in. And at least you know where your kids will go to school next year. We don't.

So basically DCPS/DGS is screwing over families in both schools. No need to make it us v. them.

Right, screwing them over by renovating the schools their children attend.
Really unbelievable how entitled everyone is acting. Is there any self awareness in those communities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posters on the Chevy Chase Listserv come off as so rude and entitled. They're embarrassing themselves with their selfishness and their "my school", "my park", "my community" attitude. How they determined that the Murch community and Lafayette communities are separate is beyond me - I never saw that division until now, and all of a sudden we're like Israel and Palestine.

As the previous poster said - tone down the rhetoric. Murch parents don't want to swing off site, but they cannot realistically and safely remain at Murch through the renovation. The swing options are minimal and the trailers are already at Lafayette. If Murch swung to Lafayette, the density on the Lafayette site would arguably still be lower than that of Murch now (pre-renovation).

This NIMBY crew was happy to see Deal and Wilson neighbors live through multiple renovations. Again, the selfishness and entitlement of the posters is unlike anything I've seen within this "community" - even during the contentious boundary debacle. How about we all stand back and look at what makes the most sense from safety, learning and financial perspectives. And happy holidays!

Over here in Chevy Chase, we proudly say "Merry Christmas!"

Seriously?! BNot sure what part of Chevy Chase you are from, but "we" all don't say that. And when I ever do, it's not meant to be exclusionary- which your post sounds like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please keep in mind that the Murch community has been working very hard to get this renovation underway for at least five years. It is not as if these are new ideas. If getting NPS or historic preservation to allow more flexibility were viable options that would not have delayed the renovation for several more years, they would have been pursued more. The current building simply could not sustain the wait.

But, this all new to the Lafayette community. The only info we have is that it's a possibility and that we were asked to weigh in on it. Kinda hard to do without any pertinent facts.

The swing space options now on the table are even newer to the Murch community than to Lafayette. Murch has yet to be briefed on them, but the Lafayette community has been briefed at two separate meetings this week. So we don't know how to weigh in on it either. At least you have had a chance to weigh in. And at least you know where your kids will go to school next year. We don't.

So basically DCPS/DGS is screwing over families in both schools. No need to make it us v. them.

Right, screwing them over by renovating the schools their children attend.
Really unbelievable how entitled everyone is acting. Is there any self awareness in those communities?

Murch was built in 1929 and has never been renovated. Not only that, but there 650 kids on a campus designed for 425; half of the school is in trailers. It's not handicapped accessible. The 75 teachers and staff share one bathroom. Each classroom has only one set of outlets. DCPS has put off renovating it for decades, and now they've left until the swing-space decision until the very last moment, guaranteeing a difficult transition no matter what the decision.

I won't deny that the Murch and Lafayette communities can display pretty crazy amounts of entitlement, but in this case they are simply asking the city to do its job and to communicate with them in a timely fashion. And, most importantly, to ensure that whatever plan comes about puts safety first.

[Anonymous]

Murch should have allowed boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posters on the Chevy Chase Listserv come off as so rude and entitled. They're embarrassing themselves with their selfishness and their "my school", "my park", "my community" attitude. How they determined that the Murch community and Lafayette communities are separate is beyond me - I never saw that division until now, and all of a sudden we're like Israel and Palestine.

As the previous poster said - tone down the rhetoric. Murch parents don't want to swing off site, but they cannot realistically and safely remain at Murch through the renovation. The swing options are minimal and the trailers are already at Lafayette. If Murch swung to Lafayette, the density on the Lafayette site would arguably still be lower than that of Murch now (pre-renovation).

This NIMBY crew was happy to see Deal and Wilson neighbors live through multiple renovations. Again, the selfishness and entitlement of the posters is unlike anything I've seen within this "community" - even during the contentious boundary debacle. How about we all stand back and look at what makes the most sense from safety, learning and financial perspectives. And happy holidays!

Over here in Chevy Chase, we proudly say "Merry Christmas!"

This thread gets more embarrassing by the minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The posters on the Chevy Chase Listserv come off as so rude and entitled. They're embarrassing themselves with their selfishness and their "my school", "my park", "my community" attitude. How they determined that the Murch community and Lafayette communities are separate is beyond me - I never saw that division until now, and all of a sudden we're like Israel and Palestine.

As the previous poster said - tone down the rhetoric. Murch parents don't want to swing off site, but they cannot realistically and safely remain at Murch through the renovation. The swing options are minimal and the trailers are already at Lafayette. If Murch swung to Lafayette, the density on the Lafayette site would arguably still be lower than that of Murch now (pre-renovation).

This NIMBY crew was happy to see Deal and Wilson neighbors live through multiple renovations. Again, the selfishness and entitlement of the posters is unlike anything I've seen within this "community" - even during the contentious boundary debacle. How about we all stand back and look at what makes the most sense from safety, learning and financial perspectives. And happy holidays!

Over here in Chevy Chase, we proudly say "Merry Christmas!"

Check your boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murch should have allowed boundary changes.

Hearst parent here. That might be true, but it isn't really relevant to the current question. Had larger boundary change been made, this year and over the next couple of years, Murch would have slightly smaller IB pressure. Great. But it would still be a large school. It would still be in desperate need of renovation. It would still have a big challenge of where to swing while the needed renovation took place. Boundary changes would have essentially zero impact on all of that.

[Anonymous]

We weren't able to attend the meeting at Lafayette last night - any updates/impressions? Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch should have allowed boundary changes.

Hearst parent here. That might be true, but it isn't really relevant to the current question. Had larger boundary change been made, this year and over the next couple of years, Murch would have slightly smaller IB pressure. Great. But it would still be a large school. It would still be in desperate need of renovation. It would still have a big challenge of where to swing while the needed renovation took place. Boundary changes would have essentially zero impact on all of that.

Thank you, Hearst parent.

And to clarify: No proposed boundary change would have reduced Murch's projected headcount. It was just a matter of which way the boundary swung. Murch's perceived resistance to a boundary change that would send more kids to Hearst would not have resulted in any fewer kids at Murch than we got with the boundary change in the other direction.

DCPS refuses to contend with the size of Murch, Janney, Lafayette, and other mega-schools. You can't blame parents for that--Arlington has lots of loud parents, but APS has the guts and smarts to force through boundary changes to accommodate population changes. A huge failure on the part of DCPS, forcing the construction of a school that's way too big for Murch's small lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please keep in mind that the Murch community has been working very hard to get this renovation underway for at least five years. It is not as if these are new ideas. If getting NPS or historic preservation to allow more flexibility were viable options that would not have delayed the renovation for several more years, they would have been pursued more. The current building simply could not sustain the wait.

But, this all new to the Lafayette community. The only info we have is that it's a possibility and that we were asked to weigh in on it. Kinda hard to do without any pertinent facts.

The swing space options now on the table are even newer to the Murch community than to Lafayette. Murch has yet to be briefed on them, but the Lafayette community has been briefed at two separate meetings this week. So we don't know how to weigh in on it either. At least you have had a chance to weigh in. And at least you know where your kids will go to school next year. We don't.

So basically DCPS/DGS is screwing over families in both schools. No need to make it us v. them.

Right, screwing them over by renovating the schools their children attend.
Really unbelievable how entitled everyone is acting. Is there any self awareness in those communities?

No, screwing them over by engaging in renovations without any planning, preparedness, or thought. One of the concerns is traffic with more families. That's a reasonable concern, but one that can be possibly be alleviated with bussing, changing traffic patterns, etc. But the first step is to know the scope of the problem. DGS proposed to ask DDOT to undertake a traffic study next week -- next week when schools are closed and there will be, therefore, no traffic to study.

DCPS/DGS has known that Murch needed renovations and therefore a place to swing for a very long time. It has also known that Lafayette's trailers would be available for a very long time. So why are we having this conversation now, a week before everyone goes away and a month before the decision needs to be made? The Lafayette community's first reaction is "holy shit what a lot of kids!" But maybe with some planning, there is a way to accommodate everyone safely. DCPS/DGS should have come up with a way to do it safely and then presented that to the communities, rather than announcing this vague plan and letting people's imaginations fill in worst case scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch should have allowed boundary changes.

Hearst parent here. That might be true, but it isn't really relevant to the current question. Had larger boundary change been made, this year and over the next couple of years, Murch would have slightly smaller IB pressure. Great. But it would still be a large school. It would still be in desperate need of renovation. It would still have a big challenge of where to swing while the needed renovation took place. Boundary changes would have essentially zero impact on all of that.

Thank you, Hearst parent.

And to clarify: No proposed boundary change would have reduced Murch's projected headcount. It was just a matter of which way the boundary swung. Murch's perceived resistance to a boundary change that would send more kids to Hearst would not have resulted in any fewer kids at Murch than we got with the boundary change in the other direction.

DCPS refuses to contend with the size of Murch, Janney, Lafayette, and other mega-schools. You can't blame parents for that--Arlington has lots of loud parents, but APS has the guts and smarts to force through boundary changes to accommodate population changes. A huge failure on the part of DCPS, forcing the construction of a school that's way too big for Murch's small lot.

Now don't get me wrong. The boundary changes for Murch should have been larger and Janney should have been... well something. But the effects of these changes would have taken place slowly over time and at the margins. They would have helped (hence why they should have happened) but not solved the issue. And most importantly, they are separate from the fact that Murch very much needs to be renovated and faces a lot of challenges because of the site. Whether or not boundary changes had happened wouldn't have changed these needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We weren't able to attend the meeting at Lafayette last night - any updates/impressions? Thanks in advance!

There was a Post reporter in attendance, taking notes - hopefully she'll write a story about it. The PPT presented is supposed to be updated and posted here: http://www.lafayettehsa.org/category/renovation/

But the short of it: an overwhelming majority of >700 survey respondents are strongly opposed to using the existing Lafayette swing space for Murch, there are still a few other viable options for Murch to move to during renovations, this option was put 'back on the table' because the Chancellor insisted it needed to be reviewed as an option. DGS has a list of criteria they'll use in evaluating the viable sites for Murch to move to, but no weighting, and no consistent fact or data collection mechanism in place so the options can be evaluated in an objective manner (forgive my editorializing!). Council Member Todd appeared and reaffirmed what he wrote in the letter he sent, objecting to use of the Lafayette site for Murch, give the other more viable, less disruptive options. DGS was a little all over the place about the reasons: the cost savings and financial impact weren't presented, and are supposed to be part of the updated PPT posted to the school site...

[Anonymous]

How many OOB students are at Murch currently? If the school is more than 200 over capacity, it would be surprising (and illogical) if there were any at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The posters on the Chevy Chase Listserv come off as so rude and entitled. They're embarrassing themselves with their selfishness and their "my school", "my park", "my community" attitude. How they determined that the Murch community and Lafayette communities are separate is beyond me - I never saw that division until now, and all of a sudden we're like Israel and Palestine.

As the previous poster said - tone down the rhetoric. Murch parents don't want to swing off site, but they cannot realistically and safely remain at Murch through the renovation. The swing options are minimal and the trailers are already at Lafayette. If Murch swung to Lafayette, the density on the Lafayette site would arguably still be lower than that of Murch now (pre-renovation).

This NIMBY crew was happy to see Deal and Wilson neighbors live through multiple renovations. Again, the selfishness and entitlement of the posters is unlike anything I've seen within this "community" - even during the contentious boundary debacle. How about we all stand back and look at what makes the most sense from safety, learning and financial perspectives. And happy holidays!

Sorry but you really can't compare the Deal and Wilson renovations to what DGS is proposing in this immediate instance. Are you familiar with the neighborhood surrounding Lafayette? The school is surrounded on all sides by homes where people reside 24/7. Narrow streets are all that separate these homes from Lafayette. If you are familiar with Deal and Wilson, you know that very few homes had the same type of impact that the Lafayette community is dealing with during the renovation. Each school had a handful of homes that were likely impacted to the same extent as the numerous homes surrounding Lafayette. Those people that are most impacted by the renovation and resulting traffic, have been gracious and handled it well. However, they are now being told that they may have to deal with this for at least [i] another 2 years when they were specifically promised that this would not occur.

Also, what about the Lafayette students? Neither the Deal nor Wilson students were faced with having another school housed on the property after the renovation was finished. They were able to enjoy their renovated building and green space without having to share a relatively small park with an additional 600 children. This proposal would have the effect of subjecting the students and staff to at least 3 years of disruption (one year for the Lafayette renovation and another 2 years for Murch). What other school has been asked to do this?