Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You missed the point too.

[Anonymous]

Murch families really have not received much information from DGS on the renovation and the swing space. Tomorrow's meeting is one of the first meetings we've been offered in some time and it's an opportunity for us to get a substantive update from DC on the plans for our renovation. I truly hope that the Layfayette parents will respect this and let us have an opportunity to meet with DGS, hear their plans for the renovation, the selected builder, etc. (not just swing space) without coming to the meeting and hijacking it with their concerns. Murch parents have many concerns with the renovation related to the footprint of the resulting structures (and available play space), whether the school will effectively support a learning environment, be ADA compliant, include a cafeteria (so kids no longer have to eat in classrooms), and any number of other issues.

The Layfayette community had an opportunity to participate in this discussion earlier in the week, has made their opinion clear via multiple listservs and letters from community members and representatives, and will continue to have opportunities to present their position. Some of the Lafayette parents have indicated that they plan to attend and I truly hope that, if they do, they respect the Murch community enough to allow us to have our meeting on the LONG TERM impact on our community without trying to focus everything on how they would possibly be impacted for two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You missed the point too.

What exactly is your point? The very definition of overcrowding is adding more and more students without increasing the amount of physical space. And clearly more space is needed, because many of the kids are parked in trailers. Murch can't turn away IB kids who show up. But if they are 300 students over capacity, they certainly shouldn't have 70 OOB students and city-wide programs there. That's crazy and a disservice to all of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You missed the point too.

What exactly is your point? The very definition of overcrowding is adding more and more students without increasing the amount of physical space. And clearly more space is needed, because many of the kids are parked in trailers. Murch can't turn away IB kids who show up. But if they are 300 students over capacity, they certainly shouldn't have 70 OOB students and city-wide programs there. That's crazy and a disservice to all of the kids.

NP, I really don't get your point. You do understand that the schools with room for specialized programs tend to be underenrolled because they suck right? Parents want their kids out of there because they don't actually educate any children properly and now you want to stick the most vulnerable kids there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You missed the point too.

What exactly is your point? The very definition of overcrowding is adding more and more students without increasing the amount of physical space. And clearly more space is needed, because many of the kids are parked in trailers. Murch can't turn away IB kids who show up. But if they are 300 students over capacity, they certainly shouldn't have 70 OOB students and city-wide programs there. That's crazy and a disservice to all of the kids.

NP, I really don't get your point. You do understand that the schools with room for specialized programs tend to be underenrolled because they suck right? Parents want their kids out of there because they don't actually educate any children properly and now you want to stick the most vulnerable kids there?

Two points: 1. The program is supposed to have its own professional staff, no? So it shouldn't matter that much where it's housed. 2. Under your logic, we should just keep adding more and more students to "better", presumably WOTP schools because some parents are dissatisfied with ones closer to where they live. And when renovation funds come along after decades, then increase capacity to the new normal. And then keep adding more kids. Pretty soon, those schools reach a size where they won't be so great after all.

[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.

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.

It was not just a few sets of parents. It is a nation-wide legal strategy to force public school districts to pay private school tuition for children with disabilities, following a series of Supreme Court rulings that if a public school fails to provide an appropriate education and the child receives an appropriate education in a private school, the public school has to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Ok I get it now, you aren't familiar with how the programs work.

1.) Yes they have professional staff for the classrooms but you can't just plop a few staff in some empty classrooms in a crappy school. There needs to be a functioning administration to support the staff which most underperforming schools struggle with yearly-- in addition to having the staff part of a consistently strong peers group outside of their classrooms. Plus the goal isn't to isolate the children or warehouse them all together in one location because there is room. There are lots of specialized classrooms around the city because that is how these programs can best serve the children. Now DCPS isn't the best at special ed (putting that mildly) but they have come a long way in the last 15 years we have been in the system at making schools more inclusive for all children.
2.) This is a very limited number of children we are discussing with specific special needs. Murch typically doesn't have seats open in the lottery. A handful of kids may get off randomly sometimes for pre-k but no one is talking about some system where you keep adding kids to better schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It was not just a few sets of parents. It is a nation-wide legal strategy to force public school districts to pay private school tuition for children with disabilities, following a series of Supreme Court rulings that if a public school fails to provide an appropriate education and the child receives an appropriate education in a private school, the public school has to pay for it.

I'm aware of the DC program. (So, it seems, are a lot of MD parents who somehow get their kids into DC!) But it doesn't follow that such a program has to remain indefinitely in a particular school that at one time may have been under-utilized and had room, but is now overcrowded by 300 children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It would have been nice if they had interviewed at least one parent from Murch - the school that is actually most affected by this debate. But everyone seems to have forgotten that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It would have been nice if they had interviewed at least one parent from Murch - the school that is actually most affected by this debate. But everyone seems to have forgotten that.

It's like what matters is JKLM .... and then comes M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You missed the point too.

What exactly is your point? The very definition of overcrowding is adding more and more students without increasing the amount of physical space. And clearly more space is needed, because many of the kids are parked in trailers. Murch can't turn away IB kids who show up. But if they are 300 students over capacity, they certainly shouldn't have 70 OOB students and city-wide programs there. That's crazy and a disservice to all of the kids.

If parents of West of the Park schools start advocating for 0 out of boundary kids, you will rue the day. Right now, we have a system that directs the most supportive EOP parents to work the OOB system to get their kids into a WOP Deal Wilson feeder school. The Deal and Wilson expansions and improvements were not done just for the in-boundary kids, but also to ensure capacity for OOB kids. If you shut that opportunity down, then all those EOP parents will start demanding that DCPS stop expanding WOP schools and put that money into improving EOP schools. Do not for one second think that you can get the money for Murch if you exclude OOB kids and kids with disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murch families really have not received much information from DGS on the renovation and the swing space. Tomorrow's meeting is one of the first meetings we've been offered in some time and it's an opportunity for us to get a substantive update from DC on the plans for our renovation. I truly hope that the Layfayette parents will respect this and let us have an opportunity to meet with DGS, hear their plans for the renovation, the selected builder, etc. (not just swing space) without coming to the meeting and hijacking it with their concerns. Murch parents have many concerns with the renovation related to the footprint of the resulting structures (and available play space), whether the school will effectively support a learning environment, be ADA compliant, include a cafeteria (so kids no longer have to eat in classrooms), and any number of other issues.

The Layfayette community had an opportunity to participate in this discussion earlier in the week, has made their opinion clear via multiple listservs and letters from community members and representatives, and will continue to have opportunities to present their position. Some of the Lafayette parents have indicated that they plan to attend and I truly hope that, if they do, they respect the Murch community enough to allow us to have our meeting on the LONG TERM impact on our community without trying to focus everything on how they would possibly be impacted for two years.

Op I would be really shocked if that's what the few Lafayette people who attend tomorrow plan to do. Last night was really focused on the thoughtlessness of DCPS and Ire at the powers that be. No one there expressed any frustration towards Murch. This is all brand new to us, but it is Very clear that Murch families are the ones who really suffer here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It would have been nice if they had interviewed at least one parent from Murch - the school that is actually most affected by this debate. But everyone seems to have forgotten that.

It's like what matters is JKLM .... and then comes M.

It was a Lafayette meeting focused on Lafayette issues. SHe actually did approach a couple of Murch parents; they didn't want to be quoted. She'll be at tomorrow's meeting, too, which will focus on Murch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murch families really have not received much information from DGS on the renovation and the swing space. Tomorrow's meeting is one of the first meetings we've been offered in some time and it's an opportunity for us to get a substantive update from DC on the plans for our renovation. I truly hope that the Layfayette parents will respect this and let us have an opportunity to meet with DGS, hear their plans for the renovation, the selected builder, etc. (not just swing space) without coming to the meeting and hijacking it with their concerns. Murch parents have many concerns with the renovation related to the footprint of the resulting structures (and available play space), whether the school will effectively support a learning environment, be ADA compliant, include a cafeteria (so kids no longer have to eat in classrooms), and any number of other issues.

The Layfayette community had an opportunity to participate in this discussion earlier in the week, has made their opinion clear via multiple listservs and letters from community members and representatives, and will continue to have opportunities to present their position. Some of the Lafayette parents have indicated that they plan to attend and I truly hope that, if they do, they respect the Murch community enough to allow us to have our meeting on the LONG TERM impact on our community without trying to focus everything on how they would possibly be impacted for two years.

Op I would be really shocked if that's what the few Lafayette people who attend tomorrow plan to do. Last night was really focused on the thoughtlessness of DCPS and Ire at the powers that be. No one there expressed any frustration towards Murch. This is all brand new to us, but it is Very clear that Murch families are the ones who really suffer here.

I agree. The vast majority of Lafayette folks there last night were quite sympathetic to Murch issues. One guy suggested Murch's reno should be delayed, and the whole audience shut him down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The ppt presentations from DGS and DCPS are so cryptic as to be useless. No details, no data.

As for the WaPo story, I can't believe the reporter didn't interview a single person from Murch.