Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then I hope you come to the meeting at Murch tonight and listen carefully to the other options. They may have known the Lafayette idea would provoke this response, but the reality is they don't have any other good options and are running out of time. People say they do not want to delay the Murch modernization, but for it to go forward they have to have a place to put the kids. They have looked for a place for more than 3 years and haven't found one. So batting this down just because it isn't popular at Lafayette would take yet another of some mighty slim options off the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then I hope you come to the meeting at Murch tonight and listen carefully to the other options. They may have known the Lafayette idea would provoke this response, but the reality is they don't have any other good options and are running out of time. People say they do not want to delay the Murch modernization, but for it to go forward they have to have a place to put the kids. They have looked for a place for more than 3 years and haven't found one. So batting this down just because it isn't popular at Lafayette would take yet another of some mighty slim options off the table.

I've been to all the meetings, read all of the powerpoints, and know all of the options. They're all not-great to some extent, but Lafayette is the worst of the bunch (maybe tied with swinging completely on site, and the details of UDC are too hazy to judge at this point). I'm with the Lafayette folks 100% on this--1400 kids on that site is absolute insanity.

[Anonymous]

If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

They didn't follow the process. They just have erroneous thoughts. But thank you for pointing it out yet again.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone opposes moving to Lafayette. We have to drive from Brookland every day so anything that saves us some commuting time for two years is fine by me! DS will be going to Deal by the time Murch is all done so if he's got to be in a trailer classroom it may as well be in a spot that's still Murch but located a little more centrally in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then I hope you come to the meeting at Murch tonight and listen carefully to the other options. They may have known the Lafayette idea would provoke this response, but the reality is they don't have any other good options and are running out of time. People say they do not want to delay the Murch modernization, but for it to go forward they have to have a place to put the kids. They have looked for a place for more than 3 years and haven't found one. So batting this down just because it isn't popular at Lafayette would take yet another of some mighty slim options off the table.

How much of this is cost? With an unlimited budget, what would the options look like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone opposes moving to Lafayette. We have to drive from Brookland every day so anything that saves us some commuting time for two years is fine by me! DS will be going to Deal by the time Murch is all done so if he's got to be in a trailer classroom it may as well be in a spot that's still Murch but located a little more centrally in DC.

You'll rethink this when you are sitting in traffic for 45 minutes trying to drop your kid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then I hope you come to the meeting at Murch tonight and listen carefully to the other options. They may have known the Lafayette idea would provoke this response, but the reality is they don't have any other good options and are running out of time. People say they do not want to delay the Murch modernization, but for it to go forward they have to have a place to put the kids. They have looked for a place for more than 3 years and haven't found one. So batting this down just because it isn't popular at Lafayette would take yet another of some mighty slim options off the table.

How much of this is cost? With an unlimited budget, what would the options look like?

What exactly is the problem with UDC? There's lots of space, it's close and very accessible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone opposes moving to Lafayette. We have to drive from Brookland every day so anything that saves us some commuting time for two years is fine by me! DS will be going to Deal by the time Murch is all done so if he's got to be in a trailer classroom it may as well be in a spot that's still Murch but located a little more centrally in DC.

You'll rethink this when you are sitting in traffic for 45 minutes trying to drop your kid off.

Yup. Pretty myopic.

And selfish, honestly. My kids will be out of Murch soon, too, so if I looked at it as narrowly as you are, actually delaying reno would probably be best for my family. But obviously that would be a terrible decision for the broader Murch community, so it wouldn't occur to me to advocate for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then I hope you come to the meeting at Murch tonight and listen carefully to the other options. They may have known the Lafayette idea would provoke this response, but the reality is they don't have any other good options and are running out of time. People say they do not want to delay the Murch modernization, but for it to go forward they have to have a place to put the kids. They have looked for a place for more than 3 years and haven't found one. So batting this down just because it isn't popular at Lafayette would take yet another of some mighty slim options off the table.

How much of this is cost? With an unlimited budget, what would the options look like?

The problem is that no one know what the problems are or might be. This idea was floated at the last murch SIT meeting with very little actual analysis included. The SIT will not even be able to walk through the site before tonight's meeting. Nothing on traffic, play space, safety, infrastructure. The proposal was to put trailers on the soccer field behind the buildings next to a row of embassies.


What exactly is the problem with UDC? There's lots of space, it's close and very accessible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then I hope you come to the meeting at Murch tonight and listen carefully to the other options. They may have known the Lafayette idea would provoke this response, but the reality is they don't have any other good options and are running out of time. People say they do not want to delay the Murch modernization, but for it to go forward they have to have a place to put the kids. They have looked for a place for more than 3 years and haven't found one. So batting this down just because it isn't popular at Lafayette would take yet another of some mighty slim options off the table.

How much of this is cost? With an unlimited budget, what would the options look like?

What exactly is the problem with UDC? There's lots of space, it's close and very accessible.

The problem is that no one know what the problems are or might be. This idea was floated at the last murch SIT meeting with very little actual analysis included. The SIT will not even be able to walk through the site before tonight's meeting. Nothing on traffic, play space, safety, infrastructure. The proposal was to put trailers on the soccer field behind the buildings next to a row of embassies.

Jesus.

OK, what can the rest of us do to help- I am happy to write in to Kaya, et. al, but what should we be asking for at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Similarly, Hearst has a brand-new building ready and waiting to be opened, but has been waiting months for the certificate of occupancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Similarly, Hearst has a brand-new building ready and waiting to be opened, but has been waiting months for the certificate of occupancy.

Oh wow. I didn't realize this. So previously, DGS called the shots?