Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over time, Murch needs to attrit the 100 or so OOB student slots at the school, as they leave or "graduate." It's nonsensical to have OOB students when the school is so overcrowded.

I agree. Even with the new boundary changes that reduced the number of children within Murch's boundary, Murch could barely fit all its anticipated in-boundary students into the school. And to make matters worse, DCPS is projecting the in-boundary student population for Murch to increase by 43% by 2020. That's a crowded school. I'm not sure how much the renovation might increase the capacity when all the changes are done. But it's almost certain the only way all the in-boundary will even fit is if the OOB is reduced.

Current Murch building capacity = 488
Enrollment 2013-14 = 626
Number of grade-appropriate public school students in the revised boundary = 476
Expected in-bounds student population by 2020 (+43%) = 681
Anticipated capacity of renovated Murch = 700
OOB spaces available after renovations = 19 (depending on actual enrollment obviously)

Just a technicality, but that 488 number includes the trailers that have been there for 36 years now. The brick building is 388 capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over time, Murch needs to attrit the 100 or so OOB student slots at the school, as they leave or "graduate." It's nonsensical to have OOB students when the school is so overcrowded.

I agree. Even with the new boundary changes that reduced the number of children within Murch's boundary, Murch could barely fit all its anticipated in-boundary students into the school. And to make matters worse, DCPS is projecting the in-boundary student population for Murch to increase by 43% by 2020. That's a crowded school. I'm not sure how much the renovation might increase the capacity when all the changes are done. But it's almost certain the only way all the in-boundary will even fit is if the OOB is reduced.

Current Murch building capacity = 488
Enrollment 2013-14 = 626
Number of grade-appropriate public school students in the revised boundary = 476
Expected in-bounds student population by 2020 (+43%) = 681
Anticipated capacity of renovated Murch = 700
OOB spaces available after renovations = 19 (depending on actual enrollment obviously)

Just a technicality, but that 488 number includes the trailers that have been there for 36 years now. The brick building is 388 capacity.

It's not a technicality. It highlights the fact that DCPS is set on building a very large elementary school on a relatively confined lot, and yet is underfunding the project.

[Anonymous]

So what, if anything, is the next step? Are Grosso and Cheh doing anything to remedy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what, if anything, is the next step? Are Grosso and Cheh doing anything to remedy?

I emailed them both late last week and haven't heard anything. Mary Cheh was at the Murch auction last weekend and made supportive comments, but I haven't heard about any concrete steps she's taken.

But, yes--email Bowser, Niles, Grosso, Cheh, Henderson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.

You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.

Where are those 150 kids going? And which kids?

You're not going to move the boundaries between now and August.

They don't exist yet. DCPS is insisting on building for a larger student body then the school has now; but won't get the funding needed to make that happen. This last minute redesign just highlights how ridiculous it is to try to increase the size of the student body on this lot. They can't do it. There aren't even enough classrooms in the reconfiguration.

Then DCPS will just bring back the trailers I suppose, which would be most unfortunate. This renovation needs to happen soon. The trailers (surrounded by chain link fence) are starting to resemble a low security prison camp. Depressing.

My elementary school in Montgomery County had trailers for most of the time I went there. I survived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.

You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.

Where are those 150 kids going? And which kids?

You're not going to move the boundaries between now and August.

They don't exist yet. DCPS is insisting on building for a larger student body then the school has now; but won't get the funding needed to make that happen. This last minute redesign just highlights how ridiculous it is to try to increase the size of the student body on this lot. They can't do it. There aren't even enough classrooms in the reconfiguration.

Then DCPS will just bring back the trailers I suppose, which would be most unfortunate. This renovation needs to happen soon. The trailers (surrounded by chain link fence) are starting to resemble a low security prison camp. Depressing.

My elementary school in Montgomery County had trailers for most of the time I went there. I survived.

It's fascinating that this situation has not started a larger conversation on what is an appropriate and safe size for an early childhood education school. Rather, its turned into an engineering exercise to determine which side can squeeze more little kids on to a tiny lot. Think people are missing the bigger picture here. Fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My elementary school in Montgomery County had trailers for most of the time I went there. I survived.

Happy for you but is that best we can hope for, that our kids will "survive" half of their elementary years in trailers? Pathetic. I doubt that the 9,000 kids in MoCo trailers think it's ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.

You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.

Where are those 150 kids going? And which kids?

You're not going to move the boundaries between now and August.

They don't exist yet. DCPS is insisting on building for a larger student body then the school has now; but won't get the funding needed to make that happen. This last minute redesign just highlights how ridiculous it is to try to increase the size of the student body on this lot. They can't do it. There aren't even enough classrooms in the reconfiguration.

Then DCPS will just bring back the trailers I suppose, which would be most unfortunate. This renovation needs to happen soon. The trailers (surrounded by chain link fence) are starting to resemble a low security prison camp. Depressing.

My elementary school in Montgomery County had trailers for most of the time I went there. I survived.

It's fascinating that this situation has not started a larger conversation on what is an appropriate and safe size for an early childhood education school. Rather, its turned into an engineering exercise to determine which side can squeeze more little kids on to a tiny lot. Think people are missing the bigger picture here. Fascinating.

No, many people have pointed out this problem: too many kids, too small a lot.

But as people have said (over and over again): DCPS didn't address the school's size in the redistricting process, and it's not going to in the next four months. So now we are trying to get the very best solution possible for our kids. It might be "fascinating" to you, but to us it's an endless battle to get DCPS and DGS to deliver on long-delayed promises.

[Anonymous]

Update: Murch still getting screwed!

A couple of my favorite tidbits:

Turns out the new cafeteria will be so small that we'll have to have FOUR lunch periods--hello, 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. lunch!--and pre-K and K kids will still have to eat in their classrooms. So animal lovers will be glad to know that our mice will still have a home in the new school.

The driveway into the parking structure will require delivery trucks to back out onto Reno Road throughout the day, so that will be fun for commuters.

You can read a lot more here: http://murchschool.org/modernization-redesign-continues-still-misses-the-mark/

And see here for the latest version of the in-progress plans to accommodate the reduced budget: http://murchschool.org/murch-modernization-proposed-redesign-february-2016/

But don't get too attached, since they change frequently while DCPS and DGS try to redesign in three months a design that took 18 months to complete.

DCPS is trying to make this a fait accompli--please don't let them. Even if you don't care about Murch, specifically, maybe you care about traffic/safety on Reno Road. Or maybe you generally object to 4-5 yo kids spending their days in vermin-infested classrooms.

If nothing else, I suspect you do care about how your tax dollars are spent, and you should worry about how your schools' future renovations will be managed. The hasty attempt to rework the site plans will almost certainly result in cost overruns, since there's no time to pressure test the new plans for problems. The project could end up costing even more than if they just spent the amount required to do the original, thoroughly vetted plans.

Please don't let them get away with such gross negligence. Keep writing--to council members, the mayor, the chancellor, the deputy mayor.

Thank you for your help.

[Anonymous]

That is absolutely ridiculous to have 4 lunch periods starting at 10AM! The kids are going to be starving when 2PM rolls around. I'm not a Murch parent, but I would completely sign any petition to have DCPS get their heads out of their azzes.

[Anonymous]

Another way to imagine how it could impact you is the part about Reno Road. It should outrage everyone in NW DC and Maryland (!) who commutes via Reno.

There will be a driveway that is in use especially during the morning rush hour when teachers are arriving at work as well as garbage and delivery trucks that need to access the loading dock.

Imagine how much longer your commute will be on a Monday morning when a line of cars and a garbage truck are stopped between the lights at Nebraska and Davenport to make a left turn into the driveway in the rain while traffic backs up in both directions and kids are crossing the street to get into school or go over to Deal.

Why would any other city department - DDOT, DPW, the Mayor's office think creating this sort of traffic jam on a commuter road is a good idea?

[Anonymous]

They need to just open up a new IB elementary school in the area and allow zero OOBs to enter future classes.
This renovation plan is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another way to imagine how it could impact you is the part about Reno Road. It should outrage everyone in NW DC and Maryland (!) who commutes via Reno.

There will be a driveway that is in use especially during the morning rush hour when teachers are arriving at work as well as garbage and delivery trucks that need to access the loading dock.

Imagine how much longer your commute will be on a Monday morning when a line of cars and a garbage truck are stopped between the lights at Nebraska and Davenport to make a left turn into the driveway in the rain while traffic backs up in both directions and kids are crossing the street to get into school or go over to Deal.

Why would any other city department - DDOT, DPW, the Mayor's office think creating this sort of traffic jam on a commuter road is a good idea?

True, except that DDOT's plan is to re-direct more commuter traffic back to Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues anyway. Reno was never intended to be a commuter road, as it's two lanes in many parts and residential pretty much throughout. Commuter traffic began using it as a detour in the late 70s when the Red Line was being built, which impacted the two main arterials, and a lot of the traffic never went back. It's probably better to have the loading dock and parking access for Murch directly off of Reno, which is a wider and busier road than the smaller side streets. If that slows through drivers on their commute, maybe more of them will switch to Wisconsin or Connecticut, which would be a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to just open up a new IB elementary school in the area and allow zero OOBs to enter future classes.
This renovation plan is stupid.

Isn't Bowser's plan, along with "Alice Deal for all," "Upper NW OOB slots for many'?!

[Anonymous]

Wow, this situation sounds terrible.