Explain the Murch renovation saga to me please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:26 - Murch's IB enrollment is about twice its building's capacity, so the community would gladly take a "right-sizing".

I believe the DME tried to do that but nobody was willing to head south to Hearst. Can't have it both ways.

In fact, the DME moved more than 100 students out of Murch, many of them south to Hearst. That's enough to bring Murch's IB population down to 476 (according to the DME), just under the current building capacity of 488. To oppose expansion is therefore to oppose OOB enrollment.

Actually, the capacity of 488 includes a temporary building that has been there since 1988 and is in terrible condition. So the change would still have the school over capacity. Plus there still wouldn't be cafeteria or indoor recess space. Nor a nurse's or counselor's office that was not located in an old, not fully renovated bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To address the OP's question, the National Park Service and Historic Preservation are not what is holding up the Murch renovation. They do make the project more complicated and may make it more expensive. But what is holding up the project is DC. District leaders have not committed the money, effort, or political will necessary to renovate the school. The specific challenges of the project are just one of the many excuses DC has used to drag its feet in modernizing the school despite the major need.

Thank you for answering my question. I suspected as much. It doesn't look like my child will benefit from any renovation, but I hope that the city realizes how dire the need is.

The parent association needs to get Cheh and Bowser over to the school, march them around and between the trailers and not let them be until they commit to specific funding and a timetable to complete the project.

This was already done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did they really move 100 students out of Murch?

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did they really move 100 students out of Murch?

Depends on what you mean. No current students are being moved so in that sense no. Everyone who is in the school now will still be there, as will anyone with siblings. Even the folks who lose future rights will have a strong proximity preference and so will probably not have to move.

[Anonymous]

The folks being moved from Murch to Lafayette technically will not have proximity preference under the new guidelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't ward 3 adjust their boundaries so other schools eotp can have the renovation funds? It will be a struggle for elementaries to get funding with the focus on MS/HS.

The school is not ADA compliant; there are holes in the walls, no outlets for computers, dangerous stairs, etc...... capacity is only a part of the serious problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't ward 3 adjust their boundaries so other schools eotp can have the renovation funds? It will be a struggle for elementaries to get funding with the focus on MS/HS.

The school is not ADA compliant; there are holes in the walls, no outlets for computers, dangerous stairs, etc...... capacity is only a part of the serious problems.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of money has been poured into EOTP school to increase enrollment. Has it worked? I'm not saying that they should have gotten the money. All of the kids in the city deserve to have a decent school. I just get really pissed when people keep harping on pouring more money into EOTP schools and not into schools like Murch which desperately needs it.

[Anonymous]

* shouldn't have gotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they really move 100 students out of Murch?

Nope.

Not retroactively; there are about 630 students at Murch. The boundary change (not yet in effect) is estimated to shift 100 future students. DCPS has stated that Murch capacity needs to be at least 700 -- and that apparently is based on their enrollment projections post-boundary change. Originally they were to build for 800, but have determined through an architect's study that that is not possible on this plot of land (hence the shift of 100 future students). The so-called "Cluster 12" which is entirely in, but only part of, the Murch boundary shows the highest child population growth in the area (yes, higher than Janney). Basically, the population is twice the size of the current school, so they have to double the size of the school - - actually more than double the square footage because the square footage needed for a 2015 to-code school for 700 is vastly different from the square footage for a 388-student building in 1929 (which is roughly the capacity of the existing building, excluding the Kaufmann "wing"/trailer).

[Anonymous]

well, they need to hold off on taking ANY students until they get the renovation if it is so small/ unfit. why are they even taking any OOB at all? typical DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they really move 100 students out of Murch?

Nope.

Not retroactively; there are about 630 students at Murch. The boundary change (not yet in effect) is estimated to shift 100 future students. DCPS has stated that Murch capacity needs to be at least 700 -- and that apparently is based on their enrollment projections post-boundary change. Originally they were to build for 800, but have determined through an architect's study that that is not possible on this plot of land (hence the shift of 100 future students). The so-called "Cluster 12" which is entirely in, but only part of, the Murch boundary shows the highest child population growth in the area (yes, higher than Janney). Basically, the population is twice the size of the current school, so they have to double the size of the school - - actually more than double the square footage because the square footage needed for a 2015 to-code school for 700 is vastly different from the square footage for a 388-student building in 1929 (which is roughly the capacity of the existing building, excluding the Kaufmann "wing"/trailer).

So if they are not allowed to build on any of the NPS land and the Historic Society won't let them significantly chance the look of the building, how can they possibly do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:well, they need to hold off on taking ANY students until they get the renovation if it is so small/ unfit. why are they even taking any OOB at all? typical DCPS.

This is how, they project for 125 K students and only a 100 enroll. They've already hired a teacher and got the funding for 125 so now they have to take in OOB students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, they need to hold off on taking ANY students until they get the renovation if it is so small/ unfit. why are they even taking any OOB at all? typical DCPS.

This is how, they project for 125 K students and only a 100 enroll. They've already hired a teacher and got the funding for 125 so now they have to take in OOB students.

well, that makes no sense. that is why the schools are overcrowded and in disrepair with shrinking boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:26 - Murch's IB enrollment is about twice its building's capacity, so the community would gladly take a "right-sizing".

I believe the DME tried to do that but nobody was willing to head south to Hearst. Can't have it both ways.

In fact, the DME moved more than 100 students out of Murch, many of them south to Hearst. That's enough to bring Murch's IB population down to 476 (according to the DME), just under the current building capacity of 488. To oppose expansion is therefore to oppose OOB enrollment.

DCPS does not want to reduce OOB enrollment at Hearst. Hearst fulfills a very important role as a go-to school for a lot of EOTP families who are dissatisfied with their local elementary schools.

In my observation this is not necessarily true about DCPS. The original DME proposal for expanding Hearst's boundary was much more significant than the final recommendation. I never heard DCPS issue an opinion about expanding Hearsts' boundary and to what degree as it would relate to the merits of maintaining the OOB enrollment at Hearst. (Yes I know DME is different than DCPS but point remains that there was not, in my experience, any strong opinion voiced by DCPS about the issue).

Rather what WAS heard loud and clear from both the Janney and Murch families proposed to have their homes moved inside the Hearst boundary was they did not want that to happen - and, in fact, they largely got their way. It is also true that some current Hearst families issued an opinion letter about the benefits of the diverse community the school currently enjoys and expressed a desire to not disrupt that significantly.

Fact remains regardless of moving the boundary lines Hearst's OOB/ IB mix is shifting more toward IB at the lower grades which will have ripple effect as they move up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, they need to hold off on taking ANY students until they get the renovation if it is so small/ unfit. why are they even taking any OOB at all? typical DCPS.

This is how, they project for 125 K students and only a 100 enroll. They've already hired a teacher and got the funding for 125 so now they have to take in OOB students.

well, that makes no sense. that is why the schools are overcrowded and in disrepair with shrinking boundaries.

I think they do their best with the information they have.