Murch Boundary Change

[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.

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

DME asked for people's feed back about these ideas and how they affect our families. The fact that other people have different or worse issues does not mean that each person is not allowed to let the city know how they feel about how the proposal would change their lives. It's not hysteria -- it is how these people feel. It is the feedback DME asked for. Let's face it, if they were silent, the message would be that they are OK with it. And who knows what will or is happening with the boundaries at this point, let alone grandfathering, so I would expect to keep hearing from anyone who is not happy with how these plans affect them until this whole thing is over with. They are allowed to be heard.

What is proximity preference and where does one apply for it? And how does it apply to overcrowded schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This response made me curious to see what the current OOB % ages are for the schools mentioned above (Janney, Murch, Lafayette, Hearst and "the schools on the west side" which I interpreted to mean Key, Mann and possibly even Stoddert and Hyde-Addison). In every single case except 1 (Janney) the OOB % is already above 10% and Janney is at 8%, 10% would be 12 add'l kids. So whatever traffic nightmare PP envisions is already here. Most are around 15%

Clearly there are a lot of unanswered questions about how set aside levels would be determined and administered (e.g., 10% of each new incoming class, 10% on average across the school, etc etc) but the argument that 10% OOB set aside at this particular set of schools will cause a new, as of now non-existent traffic nightmare is not borne out by the data.

So - one nightmare solved! next?

[Anonymous]

Clearly there are a lot of unanswered questions about how set aside levels would be determined and administered (e.g., 10% of each new incoming class, 10% on average across the school, etc etc) but the argument that 10% OOB set aside at this particular set of schools will cause a new, as of now non-existent traffic nightmare is not borne out by the data.

So - one nightmare solved! next?

There's no traffic worry, but there is a very real worry about overcrowding. A 10% OOB mandate at schools that are already overcrowded after renovation, or that will be overcrowded after renovation, is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly there are a lot of unanswered questions about how set aside levels would be determined and administered (e.g., 10% of each new incoming class, 10% on average across the school, etc etc) but the argument that 10% OOB set aside at this particular set of schools will cause a new, as of now non-existent traffic nightmare is not borne out by the data.

So - one nightmare solved! next?

There's no traffic worry, but there is a very real worry about overcrowding. A 10% OOB mandate at schools that are already overcrowded after renovation, or that will be overcrowded after renovation, is ridiculous.

I agree that overcrowded schools are something we should plan to avoid. One way to do this of course is some shifting of the boundaries... Oops - right back where we started this thread!

[Anonymous]

If crowding is so serious, and the current proposal won't solve the problem, has anyone considered shifting the southeastern (Forest Hills) part of the Murch district to Hearst as well? Just curious if this is an option or if there is some reason it doesn't make sense. Just glancing at the map it seems like it is another area that could be moved (rather than or in addition to the northern part of Murch being shifted to Lafayette, since Lafayette is already crowded too).

[Anonymous]

Oops, facile. The issue is how much boundaries are going to be shifted and how much "inbound" growth will happen. There seems to be no practical limit to demand for Murch and Janney. An OOB mandate expands the boundaries for each school at a time when they already need drastic shrinking. It would be one thing if the OOB thing was a target, rather than a mandate. As a mandate, it significantly reduces the margin the planners have for error in redistricting. Given that for political reasons the planners obviously are erring on the side of less redistricting for Janney, Murch, and Lafayette, this is a potential disaster.

[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.

So only people with really horrendous problems can complain? others have some kind of duty to just suck it up?

What I can't understand is how a lot of people who really seem to disdain ward 3 parents and enjoy the prospect of bad things happening to them, still want to send their kids to school with ward 3 kids. Aren't you afraid your kids will turn out all snooty and demanding like the people who live there?

[Anonymous]

It might also be asked how many EOTR parents would prefer to send their kids all the way across town versus a high performing charter closer to home. Of course, it might also be asked whether making either of those options easier is actually a lite version of dismantling neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So only people with really horrendous problems can complain? others have some kind of duty to just suck it up?

What I can't understand is how a lot of people who really seem to disdain ward 3 parents and enjoy the prospect of bad things happening to them, still want to send their kids to school with ward 3 kids. Aren't you afraid your kids will turn out all snooty and demanding like the people who live there?

Too funny. Let the resentment roll. Where can I get a "Bring Back Barry" bumper sticker?

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

And to the people who say "this is a small problem, look for the bigger issue" I can respond: What do you want your city to look like in 50 years? Walkable neighborhoods and schools are the core of what a city should look like, so keep that where it already exists and build it where other people want it and need it.

[Anonymous]

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.

But right now I would walk to the school, walk back to my house and get in my car to drive to work. I won' t have time in the mornings to walk to Hearst and back again, I would have to drive... So it rally is the distinct from the house time 2 that determines walkability. So yes I most certainly would have to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

What? Clustering at the Elementary School level in upper northwest and with these school makes little sense. There are no real upsides except the ability to adjust to marginal changes every year as student populations change. But this is at the margins and not worth shaping a policy. The downsides: loss of walkability, loss of predictability, unnecessary disruption of family life. We shouldn't do that unless absolutely necessary (and it's not necessary). My family walks to our ES or we carpool with neighbors. I get why this approach makes sense in parts of the city where there's arent enough elementary schools or where there is wide discrepancy between schools, but not in your scenario. I find it a strange proposal from DCPS.

[Anonymous]

WOTP parent here.

Make your case for walkability, make your case for how certain areas are part of a community. But do not pretend moving the elementary school assigned to your real estate from 2 blocks to 8 is as serious a problem as what is going on elsewhere in the city. It just isn't and no one is buying that this is all about walkability (especially the parent that states she will have to go from walking her child to school before she drives to work to driving her child to school and then driving to work). The children that move into the house you someday sell wil be just fine and your real estate value will recover.

I do not support the rezoning but I am sick of the crisis about a few block shift of families not even in the schools yet to a, wait for it, very good school.

You cannot accept that it makes sense and anybody looking at a map thinking that recrowding was going to force zone changes could easily have identified the general areas that were identified in the proposal as the most likely to be rezoned. I am sorry, but when I looked at my house I thought "hey there is no other school anywhere near us so pretty safe in the event of rezoning" and I bought over a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If crowding is so serious, and the current proposal won't solve the problem, has anyone considered shifting the southeastern (Forest Hills) part of the Murch district to Hearst as well? Just curious if this is an option or if there is some reason it doesn't make sense. Just glancing at the map it seems like it is another area that could be moved (rather than or in addition to the northern part of Murch being shifted to Lafayette, since Lafayette is already crowded too).

Truly, honestly, no little kids from "southeastern Forest Hills" attend Murch. Maybe a couple do, every few years.

Those single family homes along Albemarle / Audubon Terrace / 28th St are often owned by embassies and sit on enormous pieces of land -- meaning, there aren't many homes there at all since they're so far apart.

(if you meant by "southeastern FH" the apartments at Van Ness, that could be a different calculation WRT to number of children involved. OTOH, that's not really Forest Hills)

[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.

But there are families that live in bounds for Murch, that purchased homes 2 blocks from the school but who don't have anyone there yet to get grandfathered in....