Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a red herring to flag in teh context of the lack of appropriate swing space for Murch.

But there are children with disabilities WOTP and even in Ward 3/Upper Northwest. Which of the other overcrowded schools would you move them to from Murch?

They have a federal, constitutional right to attend school close to their home. So pick one - Lafayette? Mann? Janney? Eaton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please. I know very well it was a Lafayette meeting about Lafayette issues. But the article never makes that clear. It covers the background on the Murch modernization without citing anyone from Murch. It states that parents from both schools find the proposal not feasilble without citing a source from Murch. And I somehow doubt their coverage of a second meeting on this is going to nearly as extensive.

[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.

Whoever wrote this-please post it on the Chevy chase Listserve too. Thank you!

[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.

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.

To be clear, only one person on here is making that argument, and it really seems from the lack of information this person has about Murch that they are probably a not a Murch parent. The person is trying to argue that renovation wouldn't be needed. Believe me, not one parent at Murch would make this argument.

[Anonymous]

Re: WaPo story. In any case, the reporter missed the underlying story, which is that this is about a turf war between DGS and DCPS. Did you notice how many times Kenny Diggs blamed DCPS for MAKING them consider Lafayette as an option at this late date? What most people may not realize is that while DGS is in charge of the Lafayette project, under the new administration, DCPS is now in charge of Murch and other modernizations going forward. These two agencies don't seem to be working that collaboratively and these schools are caught in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please. I know very well it was a Lafayette meeting about Lafayette issues. But the article never makes that clear. It covers the background on the Murch modernization without citing anyone from Murch. It states that parents from both schools find the proposal not feasilble without citing a source from Murch. And I somehow doubt their coverage of a second meeting on this is going to nearly as extensive.

The article does make that clear--it says it was a meeting at Lafayette and that there would be another at Murch this week.

I was there, I'm from Murch, and I think the reporter did a good job of representing what happened. It's slow news times right now, so I'm guessing there will be a story about the Murch meeting tomorrow.

That said...the PP who said the reporter is missing the real story, which is the interagency turf battle playing out at the expense of school communities, is right on the nose. Not just that, but the fact that DCPS is getting basically NO scrutiny. DCPS is forcing Lafayette to bat down this terrible idea rather than just elminating it themselves. They had to know that the idea was going to provoke this sort of response. So what's the point other than to put on a show and cover their own asses? It's really disgraceful. A waste of time and energy when there is so much to do to keep both of these modernizations on track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a red herring to flag in teh context of the lack of appropriate swing space for Murch.

But there are children with disabilities WOTP and even in Ward 3/Upper Northwest. Which of the other overcrowded schools would you move them to from Murch?

They have a federal, constitutional right to attend school close to their home. So pick one - Lafayette? Mann? Janney? Eaton?

I don't think that any court would find that there is a constitutional right to attend a school west of Rock Creek Park when DC is so small. In any event, if I had to suggest a school WOTP, it would probably be Hearst -- brand new, lots of space, 75%+ OOB enrollment, so clearly lots of capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The school is 300 kids over-enrolled. OOB kids are 25% of that total. If, as you or another PP suggests, the special ed students are mostly IB (someone suggested erroneously that they have a federal constitutional right to attend a school near their home), then that means that most of the OOB students are not special ed. Murch has been overcrowded for years. This isn't something that has happened overnight. So with that persistent overcrowding, why in the heck has DCPS (or the Murch principal, if that's the case) continued to accept OOB? What's the logic of that??

[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.

So then these students must be mostly, or at least substantially IB and not included in the large OOB student number.

[Anonymous]

On the contrary, I think a court would look at the average commute time for the average child in a neighborhood school and figure some reasonable extra time commuting for children in special ed programs. The fact that DC is densely settled (contrast a suburban school district) and neighborhood kids generally do not have to travel too far to school would argue in favor of multiple programs in the city. Children in special ed programs should have the same access to education as children who are not and that include getting to and from school.

[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.

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.

No one is "advocating" for no OOB per se, but the purpose of the OOB lottery was to utilize surplus student seats in schools with excess capacity. Murch is 300 kids over-enrolled for its capacity, so it stands to reason that there should be no OOB spots. And Murch has been overcrowded for years, so the question is, why did DCPS continue to accept OOB students there? Finally, your threat that DC will not fund renovations WOTP if there are not OOB spots is hollow downright silly. Janney has had something like 3 renovations in 12 years and any OOB enrollment there is a rounding error. DC has put millions into renovating a number of EOTP schools while Murch has languished. Frankly, it would benefit everyone if more EOTP parents put their focus, political muscle and sweat equity behind improving EOTP schools programmatically as well as physically, rather than "working the system" to get their kids into already overcrowded Deal and Wilson feeder schools.

[Anonymous]

No one at DCPS wants Deal or Wilson to actually reflect the demographics of Upper NW (2/3 or more white).

[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.

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.

Must be a touchy OOB parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one at DCPS wants Deal or Wilson to actually reflect the demographics of Upper NW (2/3 or more white).

That's why they're kicking Ward 3 schools out of Deal (for example, Eaton). It's political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one at DCPS wants Deal or Wilson to actually reflect the demographics of Upper NW (2/3 or more white).

But then DCPS does stupid stuff like proposing to rename Ballou "Marion Barry High"
This will ensure that even fewer parents in DC would want their kids to go there.