Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

I love how people keep trying to turn this into a debate about "privilege", parking and traffic when the real issue is the 1400 children (ages 4-10 from BOTH Murch and Lafayette). Just because those numbers "might work" for a HIGH SCHOOL, does not mean that 1400 kids is good for elementary school. Try to remember what kinds of things and places scared or upset you (or even just made you a little uncomfortable) when you were 6yrs old versus 16years old. There is huge difference in young kids versus teenagers or tweens. Anyone who has a child at either of those schools should be highly concerned about the day to day for their own child in that environment. Some neighbors may be concerned about ancillary issues (which are real issues), but, honestly, what parent in their right mind wants their 4, 5, 6, or 7 year old or even 10yr old on a campus with 1400 other kids (and that doesn't even factor in the numbers with teachers, staff, volunteers, and regular park goers (who probably bring dogs). I believe there are other options on the table for Murch...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how people keep trying to turn this into a debate about "privilege", parking and traffic when the real issue is the 1400 children (ages 4-10 from BOTH Murch and Lafayette). Just because those numbers "might work" for a HIGH SCHOOL, does not mean that 1400 kids is good for elementary school. Try to remember what kinds of things and places scared or upset you (or even just made you a little uncomfortable) when you were 6yrs old versus 16years old. There is huge difference in young kids versus teenagers or tweens. Anyone who has a child at either of those schools should be highly concerned about the day to day for their own child in that environment. Some neighbors may be concerned about ancillary issues (which are real issues), but, honestly, what parent in their right mind wants their 4, 5, 6, or 7 year old or even 10yr old on a campus with 1400 other kids (and that doesn't even factor in the numbers with teachers, staff, volunteers, and regular park goers (who probably bring dogs). I believe there are other options on the table for Murch...

+1

Signed,
Murch parent

[Anonymous]

Lafayette parents better be careful. If you piss off DCPS Central too much, not only will they put Murch there, but they will use the Lafayette Trailerville for the next 10-15 years for every EOTP school that needs swing space during renovation. Or maybe they'll just keep the trailers and let a lot more out of boundaries kids into Lafayette. Why not, if the trailers offer all those extra seats for kids whose parents would love to have them go WOTP. If I was you, I'd just shut up and take one for the team now and hope the trailers are moved after Murch moves out.

[Anonymous]

Keeping the Lafayette trailers indefinitely would allow DCPS basically to create the equivalent on another elementary school to satisfy the almost insatiable demand of EOTP parents for WOTP school slots. It certainly would be a net vote getter for the mayor.

[Anonymous]

Considering that Gray may be running again for Mayor, I think Bowser might not want to piss off Lafayette families. Gray is most certainly more popular in Wards 7 and 8, and Bowser will need the support of Wards 3 and 4. But I am sure those savvy Lafayette families are already working that angle behind the scenes. Kaya can throw her weight around all she wants and try to check Lafayette's privilege, but in the end she answers to Muriel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering that Gray may be running again for Mayor, I think Bowser might not want to piss off Lafayette families. Gray is most certainly more popular in Wards 7 and 8, and Bowser will need the support of Wards 3 and 4. But I am sure those savvy Lafayette families are already working that angle behind the scenes. Kaya can throw her weight around all she wants and try to check Lafayette's privilege, but in the end she answers to Muriel.

Yes, but Murch families are in Ward 3 as well, so the best solution for all should be considered (and I have no idea what that should be).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering that Gray may be running again for Mayor, I think Bowser might not want to piss off Lafayette families. Gray is most certainly more popular in Wards 7 and 8, and Bowser will need the support of Wards 3 and 4. But I am sure those savvy Lafayette families are already working that angle behind the scenes. Kaya can throw her weight around all she wants and try to check Lafayette's privilege, but in the end she answers to Muriel.

Yes, but Murch families are in Ward 3 as well, so the best solution for all should be considered (and I have no idea what that should be).

Don't be naïve. Politics doesn't work in that manner. Not suggesting it is right, simply being realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Spoken like someone who has never seen Lafayette drop-off and pick-up. There are extremely narrow streets that are also used by commuters going to/from Military Road, Utah Ave., and CT. Ave. The street on which the front entrance of Lafayette will sit is a busy commuter route.

The streets are no wider or narrower than any other residential streets in the city. They are not "extremely narrow" and they are public space, to be used by commuters, school kids and the local residents. If you want to wall it off, move to a gated community in Potomac.

They just want to keep minority kids out of their neighborhood "narrow streets"

The demographics of the two schools are similar so that has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If traffic is going to be a problem having Murch and Lafayette students on the same property, can't DC just ban street parking on more streets in the area, effectively widening them? This would also move traffic faster. A win-win.

They could but specifically said they would not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any news on this decision?

Last I heard DCPS will make the decision on the swing space in mid January.

Why should Murch and Lafayette parents be so self-centered so as to deny DCPS the opportunity to save some money, which could used instead in some poor parts of DC? Is a longer commute or more traffic too much of a sacrifice for ONE CITY?!?!

Using Lafayette will not save money. Even in the estimate, which is not the cheapest option, costs such as repairing environmental damage, possible busing, are not including which would raise he cost even more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be a safety disaster to have 1400 kids on one site. DCPS legal team: get ready for major liability issues!

I am not sure I understand why it would be such a safety disaster. It is a huge space. Even so, it wouldn't be as big of a safety disaster as having 625 on site at Murch during construction, but many parents at Lafayette suggested that would be perfectly reasonable.

Murch parent here, and I'd say they are equally unsafe. Have you been in the "huge space" since they built the trailer city? Every square inch is used. The idea of 1400 kids on that site, with all of those trailers up, is a nightmare. Not to mention that the trailers were built to be used for one year, not three--why does anyone have any confidence they'll hold up that long? That the temporary plumbing won't stop working? That they won't start falling apart from wear and tear? And the traffic issue, from a safety perspective, is huge; there is no way to do drop-off and pick-up safely for that many little kids on those streets. It's just not possible (and there's no comparison to be made with Murch-Deal-Wilson, no matter what some parents claim).

Most Lafayette parents I've spoken with understand that swinging Murch totally onsite is not going to work. We should all be focused on finding a solution that is safe and reasonable for all.

As an FYI, Lafayette is swinging on-site during construction. If it's reasonable for Lafayette kids it would seem reasonable for Murch kids as well. The trailers at Lafayette are right up against the construction site as there was not anywhere else to put them.

[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.

Since Lafayette's trailers accommodate 70-90 more kids than Murch needs, they may effectively double their oob population during this relocation. The location really is so central.

Not all of the trailers will be able to be used when the new Lafayette opens since some will be blocking exits required by the fire code. I don't know what the plan is but I do know that at least parts of the trailer complex will need to be removed in order to allow occupancy in the new building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check your privilege, people! Is it too much of a sacrifice to give up some street parking for 18 months so that other students can have safe, efficient routes to their temporary school? Especially after the taxpayers of the District of Columbia are paying a lot right now to build a brand new and renovated school for YOUR kids! DC=One City!

No, but keep in mind Lafayette is not the cheapest option so you are raising two different issues. The cheapest option is for Murch to swing on-site at Murch, as Lafayette is swinging on-site during construction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be a safety disaster to have 1400 kids on one site. DCPS legal team: get ready for major liability issues!

I am not sure I understand why it would be such a safety disaster. It is a huge space. Even so, it wouldn't be as big of a safety disaster as having 625 on site at Murch during construction, but many parents at Lafayette suggested that would be perfectly reasonable.

Murch parent here, and I'd say they are equally unsafe. Have you been in the "huge space" since they built the trailer city? Every square inch is used. The idea of 1400 kids on that site, with all of those trailers up, is a nightmare. Not to mention that the trailers were built to be used for one year, not three--why does anyone have any confidence they'll hold up that long? That the temporary plumbing won't stop working? That they won't start falling apart from wear and tear? And the traffic issue, from a safety perspective, is huge; there is no way to do drop-off and pick-up safely for that many little kids on those streets. It's just not possible (and there's no comparison to be made with Murch-Deal-Wilson, no matter what some parents claim).

Most Lafayette parents I've spoken with understand that swinging Murch totally onsite is not going to work. We should all be focused on finding a solution that is safe and reasonable for all.

As an FYI, Lafayette is swinging on-site during construction. If it's reasonable for Lafayette kids it would seem reasonable for Murch kids as well. The trailers at Lafayette are right up against the construction site as there was not anywhere else to put them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any news on this decision?

Last I heard DCPS will make the decision on the swing space in mid January.

Why should Murch and Lafayette parents be so self-centered so as to deny DCPS the opportunity to save some money, which could used instead in some poor parts of DC? Is a longer commute or more traffic too much of a sacrifice for ONE CITY?!?!

Using Lafayette will not save money. Even in the estimate, which is not the cheapest option, costs such as repairing environmental damage, possible busing, are not including which would raise he cost even more.

FWIW, that is true at every location.