Any significant chance of Murch boundaries changing in the next couple of years?

[Anonymous]

+100

Eliminating pre-k 4 would immediately open up spots (50+- 78) at the highest demand Ward 3 schools.

It is a shame that the most privileged Ward in the city is getting subsidized day care when the emphasis should be on providing the highest quality pre-k 4 and 3 facilities to low-income communities. Closing gaps in early childhood has tremendous benefits for the city as a whole in terms of higher levels of academic achievement and lower delinquency rates.

Eliminating pre-k 4 in high-demand Ward 3 schools sounds like an excellent policy decision. It may also incentivize less affluent families to go east of the park.

[Anonymous]

It actually wouldn't make that much of a difference at a school like Murch. The largest cohorts of students aren't pre-k. The 4th grade is massive for example. And last year they had to add another 5th grade class. They aren't letting OOB kids in at those grades either. Strictly growth of IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+100

Eliminating pre-k 4 would immediately open up spots (50+- 78) at the highest demand Ward 3 schools.

It is a shame that the most privileged Ward in the city is getting subsidized day care when the emphasis should be on providing the highest quality pre-k 4 and 3 facilities to low-income communities. Closing gaps in early childhood has tremendous benefits for the city as a whole in terms of higher levels of academic achievement and lower delinquency rates.

Eliminating pre-k 4 in high-demand Ward 3 schools sounds like an excellent policy decision. It may also incentivize less affluent families to go east of the park.

Not quite. The same number of students would be there starting in K, eliminating preK does not make room in other grades and to the extent they have portable classrooms they can have them removed. This provides no rational reason to make older grades larger.

Also, defunding preK WOTP does nothing to fix schools elsewhere in the city. You are under the delusion that the problem elsewhere is a lack of money, it is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. As states before the southern Murch boundary is likely to slide farther north once again.

It will not. They got massive pushback in the first round. Cheh and Catania both visited and said the round 1 boundary for Murch vs. Hearst was absurd.

I think the PP is making the point that while there was tremendous pushback this time, the proposal has the boundary coming under review again shortly. With the school bursting at the seams and the renovation likely to only house the current expected students in the pipeline, if that, any further expansion of the IB population will force the Hearst-Murch boundary north again.

Correct, there will be another review. But the boundary won't move north of Albemarle again (that zones out the people closet to the school, turns walkers into drivers, and as such would be a personal embarrassment for DDOT people like Sam Zimbabwe and whoever follows who want to make their career on limiting car use in a clogged city). More likely is they will move the new Lafayette/Murch boundary south and send the new complex on Military to Lafayette. "Walkability" is in the new proposal for a reason.

Honestly, I think that is doubtful. The Murch to Lafayette is based on the projection that Lafayette's numbers will decline. That might happen in which case the proposed switch will be fine and Lafayette will not get even more overcrowded. But I suspect that they'd want to wait to see more evidence that Lafayette's number will in fact decline. Besides, Hearst is a perfectly good school with a lot of scope to take additional IB families and is close by to the area just north of Ablemarle. Sure a lot of that area is also close to Murch, but that won't be a hurdle if Murch is 800+ kids and someone just absolutely has to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. As states before the southern Murch boundary is likely to slide farther north once again.

It will not. They got massive pushback in the first round. Cheh and Catania both visited and said the round 1 boundary for Murch vs. Hearst was absurd.

I think the PP is making the point that while there was tremendous pushback this time, the proposal has the boundary coming under review again shortly. With the school bursting at the seams and the renovation likely to only house the current expected students in the pipeline, if that, any further expansion of the IB population will force the Hearst-Murch boundary north again.

Correct, there will be another review. But the boundary won't move north of Albemarle again (that zones out the people closet to the school, turns walkers into drivers, and as such would be a personal embarrassment for DDOT people like Sam Zimbabwe and whoever follows who want to make their career on limiting car use in a clogged city). More likely is they will move the new Lafayette/Murch boundary south and send the new complex on Military to Lafayette. "Walkability" is in the new proposal for a reason.

I think we all know where you live!

[Anonymous]

walkability is but one of many factors a school system needs to use to allocate resources.