Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has city wide special ed classrooms. Housed in trailers of course but kids are bussed in from all over the city to attend these programs. And now I will get on my soapbox-- Murch does a fantastic job with these kids. They are integrated into the classes for specials and recess and other times during the day. There are kids who came in for the special ed program and are now in regular classrooms full time because their needs are being met in an inclusive classroom. We happily take our OOB families and they are an integral part of the Murch community.

This is nuts. Why would DCPS put and keep a city wide program in an already overcrowded school? There are a number more centrally-located schools that have a large amount of overcapacity and unused space and where the kids wouldn't have to be housed in a trailer city. It's incongruous to for people to whine about being 300 students over-enrolled yet claim they are "happy" to take all the OOB families.

If I recall correctly, DCPS was sued by affluent NW DC parents of kids with learning disabilities for not offering the specialized programs they needed and was forced to pay their tuition for private school programs even though many of the parents probably would not have sent their kids to the public schools anyway. DCPS had to find space in upper NW campuses to offer additional special ed programs so the affluent parents could either enroll their kids or decline and pay their own private tuition instead. I remember this being considered at Eaton several years ago when DCPS was looking for west of the park capacity for a special ed school within a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has city wide special ed classrooms. Housed in trailers of course but kids are bussed in from all over the city to attend these programs. And now I will get on my soapbox-- Murch does a fantastic job with these kids. They are integrated into the classes for specials and recess and other times during the day. There are kids who came in for the special ed program and are now in regular classrooms full time because their needs are being met in an inclusive classroom. We happily take our OOB families and they are an integral part of the Murch community.

This is nuts. Why would DCPS put and keep a city wide program in an already overcrowded school? There are a number more centrally-located schools that have a large amount of overcapacity and unused space and where the kids wouldn't have to be housed in a trailer city. It's incongruous to for people to whine about being 300 students over-enrolled yet claim they are "happy" to take all the OOB families.

If I recall correctly, DCPS was sued by affluent NW DC parents of kids with learning disabilities for not offering the specialized programs they needed and was forced to pay their tuition for private school programs even though many of the parents probably would not have sent their kids to the public schools anyway. DCPS had to find space in upper NW campuses to offer additional special ed programs so the affluent parents could either enroll their kids or decline and pay their own private tuition instead. I remember this being considered at Eaton several years ago when DCPS was looking for west of the park capacity for a special ed school within a school.

But it's not just Murch. Lafayette, Janney and others are all overcrowded (hence all the trailers they all had or have.) This is also why the 10% of spots going to disadvantage students- concept during the boundary revisions was confusing and potentially problematic.

[Anonymous]

I think the "of course" about some special ed being in one of the trailers was because the main Murch building is not fully ADA compliant and the bathrooms in the trailers are nicer and more accessible. So of course these kids should be in the most accessible part of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has city wide special ed classrooms. Housed in trailers of course but kids are bussed in from all over the city to attend these programs. And now I will get on my soapbox-- Murch does a fantastic job with these kids. They are integrated into the classes for specials and recess and other times during the day. There are kids who came in for the special ed program and are now in regular classrooms full time because their needs are being met in an inclusive classroom. We happily take our OOB families and they are an integral part of the Murch community.

Housed in trailers "Of course"? Did you really just write that?

Why would they put the special ed kids in trailers, unless of course they're part of an entire grade level that's in trailers (e.g. a prek or K special ed class in the Kaufman "wing"). That's terrible.

Not PP, but the "of course" I'm sure was flippantly pointing out that 1) 50% of all Murch students are in trailers -- three full grades and several other classrooms; and 2) several of these students use wheelchairs, and the school building is not ADA compliant and accessible to wheelchairs, but the trailers are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

... The Lafayette neighbors would survive.

Yes, but my kid or your kid may not survive if s/he gets hit by a car crossing the street through double-parked cars in traffic that's tripled the density of cars the surrounding streets can handle.

I don't dismiss your concern, but perhaps you don't know that at least two children have been hit by cars near Murch in the last two years because the traffic is so bad there. Swinging onsite would only make that worse, which is one of the reasons onsite is not feasible.

Would your concerns about the traffic issues be helped if DCPS provided busses and/or staggered start times slightly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOB kids isn't the problem people. That's 70 kids at most, of the more than 300 that make up the over capacity.

Let's move on.

So why are 70 OOB students there? This is too important a point to just "move on." Murch didn't suddenly become overcrowded. It's been overcrowded for a long time and had trailers in the front yard for years. It's one thing to allow OOB kids already there to cycle through and move on. Of course, they should not have continued sibling preference once a school reaches overcrowded status, but even sibling preference doesn't explain 70 kids because they likely would have gone through by now also. 70 may not seem like a huge number, until one realizes that it's nearly three classrooms of kids, and 25% of the overcrowding problem. Why does Murch keep taking them??

There are many earlier threads explaining the system and why your math is wrong. But in a nutshell, they aren't all in three classrooms or one grade, they are spread out at <2-3 per classroom such that if you had zero OOB students today, you would not eliminate a singe physical classroom or teacher or change the footprint of the school at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette was filled with mold, rats and who knows what else. Many families believe that the school made their children sick-- some very seriously sick.

Isn't there asbestos and other hazardous materials in Murch that would immediately eliminate the option of trailers within proximity of the construction? Are the air/environmental issues be taken into account? Construction is loud and messy. I cannot imagine having the Murch trailers so close.

If Lafayette was that bad, then maybe you can imagine how it would be if the infrastructure that had never been renovated (like Lafayette was decades ago) and if the kids ate in the classrooms. That is what Murch is like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has city wide special ed classrooms. Housed in trailers of course but kids are bussed in from all over the city to attend these programs. And now I will get on my soapbox-- Murch does a fantastic job with these kids. They are integrated into the classes for specials and recess and other times during the day. There are kids who came in for the special ed program and are now in regular classrooms full time because their needs are being met in an inclusive classroom. We happily take our OOB families and they are an integral part of the Murch community.

This is nuts. Why would DCPS put and keep a city wide program in an already overcrowded school? There are a number more centrally-located schools that have a large amount of overcapacity and unused space and where the kids wouldn't have to be housed in a trailer city. It's incongruous to for people to whine about being 300 students over-enrolled yet claim they are "happy" to take all the OOB families.

If I recall correctly, DCPS was sued by affluent NW DC parents of kids with learning disabilities for not offering the specialized programs they needed and was forced to pay their tuition for private school programs even though many of the parents probably would not have sent their kids to the public schools anyway. DCPS had to find space in upper NW campuses to offer additional special ed programs so the affluent parents could either enroll their kids or decline and pay their own private tuition instead. I remember this being considered at Eaton several years ago when DCPS was looking for west of the park capacity for a special ed school within a school.

But it's not just Murch. Lafayette, Janney and others are all overcrowded (hence all the trailers they all had or have.) This is also why the 10% of spots going to disadvantage students- concept during the boundary revisions was confusing and potentially problematic.

Potentially problematic? Ya' think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOB kids isn't the problem people. That's 70 kids at most, of the more than 300 that make up the over capacity.

Let's move on.

So why are 70 OOB students there? This is too important a point to just "move on." Murch didn't suddenly become overcrowded. It's been overcrowded for a long time and had trailers in the front yard for years. It's one thing to allow OOB kids already there to cycle through and move on. Of course, they should not have continued sibling preference once a school reaches overcrowded status, but even sibling preference doesn't explain 70 kids because they likely would have gone through by now also. 70 may not seem like a huge number, until one realizes that it's nearly three classrooms of kids, and 25% of the overcrowding problem. Why does Murch keep taking them??

There are many earlier threads explaining the system and why your math is wrong. But in a nutshell, they aren't all in three classrooms or one grade, they are spread out at <2-3 per classroom such that if you had zero OOB students today, you would not eliminate a singe physical classroom or teacher or change the footprint of the school at all.

It's 70 extra kids in a school that is bursting at the seams. Name one logical reason why any OOB students, let alone an entire city-wide program, should be at a school that has been seriously overcrowded for years, especially when there are more centrally-located DCPS facilities that have substantial under-utilized space.

[Anonymous]

^^ Because 10% of students in DCPS have some sort of disability and they are legally entitled to attend public school in the least restrictive environment' -- that means, in part, a school close to home. Specialized classrooms and programming are distributed all around the city for a reason with some on each ward. This is keeping the costs lower - because students don't need to be bused at all (or as far) and the city isn't paying tuition at private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has city wide special ed classrooms. Housed in trailers of course but kids are bussed in from all over the city to attend these programs. And now I will get on my soapbox-- Murch does a fantastic job with these kids. They are integrated into the classes for specials and recess and other times during the day. There are kids who came in for the special ed program and are now in regular classrooms full time because their needs are being met in an inclusive classroom. We happily take our OOB families and they are an integral part of the Murch community.

This is nuts. Why would DCPS put and keep a city wide program in an already overcrowded school? There are a number more centrally-located schools that have a large amount of overcapacity and unused space and where the kids wouldn't have to be housed in a trailer city. It's incongruous to for people to whine about being 300 students over-enrolled yet claim they are "happy" to take all the OOB families.

If I recall correctly, DCPS was sued by affluent NW DC parents of kids with learning disabilities for not offering the specialized programs they needed and was forced to pay their tuition for private school programs even though many of the parents probably would not have sent their kids to the public schools anyway. DCPS had to find space in upper NW campuses to offer additional special ed programs so the affluent parents could either enroll their kids or decline and pay their own private tuition instead. I remember this being considered at Eaton several years ago when DCPS was looking for west of the park capacity for a special ed school within a school.

You would think now that those parents have moved on and there is nothing sacrosanct about an Upper NW school location for this program. They'd be out of luck at Eaton as a location, too. While it is majority OOB, you can't just kick those kids out and instead have to wait for them to cycle through 5th Grade. Eaton also has close to 500 students on a 2 or 3 acre lot with no room to expand the building except maybe underground. Hearst at least has lots of space now, but they'd have to wait for more OOB kids to cycle through. The problem, though, is that the chancellor and mayor will win no friends in the mayor's political base area by reducing the number of OOB spots in schools west of Rock Creek Park, and they know that.

[Anonymous]

Just FYI:

The DGS ppt for the Lafayette SIT mtg this week is up on the DGS site. Not much to it.

Also, a story has been posted on the Washington Post web site about the Tuesday mtg at Lafayette.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOB kids isn't the problem people. That's 70 kids at most, of the more than 300 that make up the over capacity.

Let's move on.

So why are 70 OOB students there? This is too important a point to just "move on." Murch didn't suddenly become overcrowded. It's been overcrowded for a long time and had trailers in the front yard for years. It's one thing to allow OOB kids already there to cycle through and move on. Of course, they should not have continued sibling preference once a school reaches overcrowded status, but even sibling preference doesn't explain 70 kids because they likely would have gone through by now also. 70 may not seem like a huge number, until one realizes that it's nearly three classrooms of kids, and 25% of the overcrowding problem. Why does Murch keep taking them??

There are many earlier threads explaining the system and why your math is wrong. But in a nutshell, they aren't all in three classrooms or one grade, they are spread out at <2-3 per classroom such that if you had zero OOB students today, you would not eliminate a singe physical classroom or teacher or change the footprint of the school at all.

It's 70 extra kids in a school that is bursting at the seams. Name one logical reason why any OOB students, let alone an entire city-wide program, should be at a school that has been seriously overcrowded for years, especially when there are more centrally-located DCPS facilities that have substantial under-utilized space.

So you really just object to having an OOB and special needs program in principle, even though it has not increased the amount of physical space needed by the IB population already. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This. There are OOB students at Murch, which admittedly makes no sense with the severe overcrowding.

Murch has city wide special ed classrooms. Housed in trailers of course but kids are bussed in from all over the city to attend these programs. And now I will get on my soapbox-- Murch does a fantastic job with these kids. They are integrated into the classes for specials and recess and other times during the day. There are kids who came in for the special ed program and are now in regular classrooms full time because their needs are being met in an inclusive classroom. We happily take our OOB families and they are an integral part of the Murch community.

Housed in trailers "Of course"? Did you really just write that?

Why would they put the special ed kids in trailers, unless of course they're part of an entire grade level that's in trailers (e.g. a prek or K special ed class in the Kaufman "wing"). That's terrible.

Not PP, but the "of course" I'm sure was flippantly pointing out that 1) 50% of all Murch students are in trailers -- three full grades and several other classrooms; and 2) several of these students use wheelchairs, and the school building is not ADA compliant and accessible to wheelchairs, but the trailers are.

Exactly. They can't even access the building due to lack of ADA compliance. Even on the first floor there are stairs to access the gym/multipurpose room which has a homemade wooden ramp over it. The trailers are the only option for these students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OOB kids isn't the problem people. That's 70 kids at most, of the more than 300 that make up the over capacity.

Let's move on.

So why are 70 OOB students there? This is too important a point to just "move on." Murch didn't suddenly become overcrowded. It's been overcrowded for a long time and had trailers in the front yard for years. It's one thing to allow OOB kids already there to cycle through and move on. Of course, they should not have continued sibling preference once a school reaches overcrowded status, but even sibling preference doesn't explain 70 kids because they likely would have gone through by now also. 70 may not seem like a huge number, until one realizes that it's nearly three classrooms of kids, and 25% of the overcrowding problem. Why does Murch keep taking them??

There are many earlier threads explaining the system and why your math is wrong. But in a nutshell, they aren't all in three classrooms or one grade, they are spread out at <2-3 per classroom such that if you had zero OOB students today, you would not eliminate a singe physical classroom or teacher or change the footprint of the school at all.

It's 70 extra kids in a school that is bursting at the seams. Name one logical reason why any OOB students, let alone an entire city-wide program, should be at a school that has been seriously overcrowded for years, especially when there are more centrally-located DCPS facilities that have substantial under-utilized space.

So you really just object to having an OOB and special needs program in principle, even though it has not increased the amount of physical space needed by the IB population already. Got it.

I didn't read it that way at all. I don't think the PP objects to OOB or special needs at Murch. I think the PP objects to 70 extra kids added to an otherwise overcrowded school. I would imagine the PP and the Murch community would welcome the 70 kids (and more) if there were room, regardless of their OOB or special needs status.

Another way of looking at this is this: what's the point of boundaries at all if DCPS is going to ignore them whenever it suits them? Why bother removing Eaton from the Deal feeder system? Why shrink Murch's boundary? What's the point - if you recognize the need to adjust boundaries because of overcrowding, then why then add to the problem? If you always intended to add kids EOTP to a school WOTP, why go through all the angst that boundary review caused?