Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

I'd be a little more sympathetic if the request were for equity for ALL schools getting the shaft by DCPS / DGS renovations. There are other schools similarly (or more) deserving than Murch that aren't getting renovated for years. And the more funding that gets diverted to Murch, the less will be there for our schools.
I'd be happy to support a pledge for increasing renovation funding overall so that we don't have to make dumb decisions with the Murch renovation and other high priority schools can be moved up (and done correctly).

[Anonymous]

Does no cafeteria mean no gym? Or does Murch want separate gym and separate cafeteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to talk about schools with 30 million dollar atriums and second floor kilns, but I will make the suggestion one more time to the DC community:

GIVE TEACHERS RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS that allow them to park near the schools they serve. Murch is a perfect example of how this would work well--and cheaper than building your underground parking garage and losing your preK playground.

That would require a zoning variance which takes a long time. The school isn't asking for parking, zoning requires it.

The zoning code was recently revised to reduce off-street parking requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to talk about schools with 30 million dollar atriums and second floor kilns, but I will make the suggestion one more time to the DC community:

GIVE TEACHERS RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS that allow them to park near the schools they serve. Murch is a perfect example of how this would work well--and cheaper than building your underground parking garage and losing your preK playground.

That would require a zoning variance which takes a long time. The school isn't asking for parking, zoning requires it.

The zoning code was recently revised to reduce off-street parking requirements.

Which is how they got it down to 45-55 spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to talk about schools with 30 million dollar atriums and second floor kilns, but I will make the suggestion one more time to the DC community:

GIVE TEACHERS RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS that allow them to park near the schools they serve. Murch is a perfect example of how this would work well--and cheaper than building your underground parking garage and losing your preK playground.

That would require a zoning variance which takes a long time. The school isn't asking for parking, zoning requires it.

The zoning code was recently revised to reduce off-street parking requirements.

Which is how they got it down to 45-55 spots.

DC agencies have a real bias against off-street parking these days. I guarantee that if DCPS sought a variance from off-street parking minimums, they would get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher parking is required by the union contract. The Murch site is not big enough to provide it without going underground. Going underground is expensive -- hence the latest DGS/DCPS effort not to do so at the expense of all of the facilities planned to go underground. Please lets keep focused on how the larger community can help current and future Murch families ensure that the renovation is one that includes common sense elements: a cafeteria, a gym that can actually accommodate the whole school, a modern library and a playground where 7 grades can play and exercise safely. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask -- and yet.... We could certainly use the support of any DC resident that is similarly seeking renovation or has completed or is nearing completion of the process.

The parking is a zoning requirement and the design provides the barest minimum parking required by zoning. The teacher's contract has nothing to do with it.

You both are right. But notice that DCPS did not say they are getting rid of the parking. DCPS doesn't care about the teacher contract but they don't want to hassle with a zoning variance, which calls for 45-55 spaces for a building this size. They are simply not putting it as far underground as the feasibility study concluded was the only way to fit a school with this large of an enrollment on such a small site. Remember, the city can't build on one third of the Murch site because it is National Park Service land, part of Fort Reno. The only thing that can go on that large swath of the property is play space. The addition will go where the current soccer field & basketball courts & trailers are. The parking is supposed to go under the addition.

It does seem kinda nuts that DCPS has let Murch get as large as it has. They should drastically throttle back any OOB enrollment as those student graduate and then shift more of the local school population to Hardy. This would have the effect of flipping Hardy overnight to a majority IB/neighborhood school, which the community would welcome. A win-win.

10% at-risk set aside is going to affect both Murch and Hearst. You will probably be wishing you had the former OOB families back soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher parking is required by the union contract. The Murch site is not big enough to provide it without going underground. Going underground is expensive -- hence the latest DGS/DCPS effort not to do so at the expense of all of the facilities planned to go underground. Please lets keep focused on how the larger community can help current and future Murch families ensure that the renovation is one that includes common sense elements: a cafeteria, a gym that can actually accommodate the whole school, a modern library and a playground where 7 grades can play and exercise safely. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask -- and yet.... We could certainly use the support of any DC resident that is similarly seeking renovation or has completed or is nearing completion of the process.

The parking is a zoning requirement and the design provides the barest minimum parking required by zoning. The teacher's contract has nothing to do with it.

You both are right. But notice that DCPS did not say they are getting rid of the parking. DCPS doesn't care about the teacher contract but they don't want to hassle with a zoning variance, which calls for 45-55 spaces for a building this size. They are simply not putting it as far underground as the feasibility study concluded was the only way to fit a school with this large of an enrollment on such a small site. Remember, the city can't build on one third of the Murch site because it is National Park Service land, part of Fort Reno. The only thing that can go on that large swath of the property is play space. The addition will go where the current soccer field & basketball courts & trailers are. The parking is supposed to go under the addition.

It does seem kinda nuts that DCPS has let Murch get as large as it has. They should drastically throttle back any OOB enrollment as those student graduate and then shift more of the local school population to Hardy. This would have the effect of flipping Hardy overnight to a majority IB/neighborhood school, which the community would welcome. A win-win.

10% at-risk set aside is going to affect both Murch and Hearst. You will probably be wishing you had the former OOB families back soon enough.

Is that at risk set aside even being put into place? Not sure anyone understands the logistics of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher parking is required by the union contract. The Murch site is not big enough to provide it without going underground. Going underground is expensive -- hence the latest DGS/DCPS effort not to do so at the expense of all of the facilities planned to go underground. Please lets keep focused on how the larger community can help current and future Murch families ensure that the renovation is one that includes common sense elements: a cafeteria, a gym that can actually accommodate the whole school, a modern library and a playground where 7 grades can play and exercise safely. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask -- and yet.... We could certainly use the support of any DC resident that is similarly seeking renovation or has completed or is nearing completion of the process.

The parking is a zoning requirement and the design provides the barest minimum parking required by zoning. The teacher's contract has nothing to do with it.

You both are right. But notice that DCPS did not say they are getting rid of the parking. DCPS doesn't care about the teacher contract but they don't want to hassle with a zoning variance, which calls for 45-55 spaces for a building this size. They are simply not putting it as far underground as the feasibility study concluded was the only way to fit a school with this large of an enrollment on such a small site. Remember, the city can't build on one third of the Murch site because it is National Park Service land, part of Fort Reno. The only thing that can go on that large swath of the property is play space. The addition will go where the current soccer field & basketball courts & trailers are. The parking is supposed to go under the addition.

It does seem kinda nuts that DCPS has let Murch get as large as it has. They should drastically throttle back any OOB enrollment as those student graduate and then shift more of the local school population to Hardy. This would have the effect of flipping Hardy overnight to a majority IB/neighborhood school, which the community would welcome. A win-win.

10% at-risk set aside is going to affect both Murch and Hearst. You will probably be wishing you had the former OOB families back soon enough.

Is that at risk set aside even being put into place? Not sure anyone understands the logistics of that.

How can DCPS increase the population of already large and overcrowded Murch by another 10% (or slightly less when you do the math)? It makes no sense. The only way to solve the problem and keep enrollment relatively stable is to kick neighborhood families out of the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher parking is required by the union contract. The Murch site is not big enough to provide it without going underground. Going underground is expensive -- hence the latest DGS/DCPS effort not to do so at the expense of all of the facilities planned to go underground. Please lets keep focused on how the larger community can help current and future Murch families ensure that the renovation is one that includes common sense elements: a cafeteria, a gym that can actually accommodate the whole school, a modern library and a playground where 7 grades can play and exercise safely. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask -- and yet.... We could certainly use the support of any DC resident that is similarly seeking renovation or has completed or is nearing completion of the process.

The parking is a zoning requirement and the design provides the barest minimum parking required by zoning. The teacher's contract has nothing to do with it.

You both are right. But notice that DCPS did not say they are getting rid of the parking. DCPS doesn't care about the teacher contract but they don't want to hassle with a zoning variance, which calls for 45-55 spaces for a building this size. They are simply not putting it as far underground as the feasibility study concluded was the only way to fit a school with this large of an enrollment on such a small site. Remember, the city can't build on one third of the Murch site because it is National Park Service land, part of Fort Reno. The only thing that can go on that large swath of the property is play space. The addition will go where the current soccer field & basketball courts & trailers are. The parking is supposed to go under the addition.

It does seem kinda nuts that DCPS has let Murch get as large as it has. They should drastically throttle back any OOB enrollment as those student graduate and then shift more of the local school population to Hardy. This would have the effect of flipping Hardy overnight to a majority IB/neighborhood school, which the community would welcome. A win-win.

10% at-risk set aside is going to affect both Murch and Hearst. You will probably be wishing you had the former OOB families back soon enough.

Is that at risk set aside even being put into place? Not sure anyone understands the logistics of that.

How can DCPS increase the population of already large and overcrowded Murch by another 10% (or slightly less when you do the math)? It makes no sense. The only way to solve the problem and keep enrollment relatively stable is to kick neighborhood families out of the school.

Didn't DCPS fire the architect of the 10% quota plan, Ms. Smith? If so, why are they still pursuing this strange social engineering theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a little more sympathetic if the request were for equity for ALL schools getting the shaft by DCPS / DGS renovations. There are other schools similarly (or more) deserving than Murch that aren't getting renovated for years. And the more funding that gets diverted to Murch, the less will be there for our schools.
I'd be happy to support a pledge for increasing renovation funding overall so that we don't have to make dumb decisions with the Murch renovation and other high priority schools can be moved up (and done correctly).

Oh come on, that's really unfair. Have you seen Murch? It probably should have been one of the first schools to be renovated, and I'm not a Murch parent. It bodes unwell for the entire system. Now that DGS/DCPS has been doing renovations for the past 10 years, they should know the drill.

I will be sending something out to Bowser et al. on behalf of the community tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

They really needed to adjust the boundaries in Ward 3 during the last review, both Murch and Janney are suffering because of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a little more sympathetic if the request were for equity for ALL schools getting the shaft by DCPS / DGS renovations. There are other schools similarly (or more) deserving than Murch that aren't getting renovated for years. And the more funding that gets diverted to Murch, the less will be there for our schools.
I'd be happy to support a pledge for increasing renovation funding overall so that we don't have to make dumb decisions with the Murch renovation and other high priority schools can be moved up (and done correctly).

Oh come on, that's really unfair. Have you seen Murch? It probably should have been one of the first schools to be renovated, and I'm not a Murch parent. It bodes unwell for the entire system. Now that DGS/DCPS has been doing renovations for the past 10 years, they should know the drill.

I will be sending something out to Bowser et al. on behalf of the community tomorrow.

Murch has been waiting patiently in line while schools all over the city have been renovated, some at least twice. Then it watches as DCPS says they have to go back to the drawing board and chop away because another school has incurred 100% cost overruns. Murch is hopelessly overcrowded for its present building. I appreciate that there are other schools that are also still waiting, but some of them have excess capacity. Having waited its turn (actually, well beyond it's turn), Murch now shouldn't have to sacrifice further because Bowser has spent the cupboard bare or based on some egalitarian notion of shared misery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think there needs to be a lawsuit at this point. Duke Ellington is millions and millions over budget and an audit reveals that millions were lost with no clear accounting.

Roosevelt was just completed and it is a mansion now (it absolutely needed the renovation...not questioning that at all) but I would be very surprised if it too didn't go over budget.

How about Cardozo?

Time to sue DCPS and DGS and the Mayor's Office into doing the right thing by the Murch community (I do not live there and my children do not attend there).

Why don't you question it? Murch ES has more students than Roosevelt HS does.

Here's a solution: close Coolidge (which has even fewer students than Roosevelt). It's pathetic to have a HS with less than 900 students (that would be both Roosevelt and Coolidge combined). The savings of not maintaining Coolidge should more than pay for Murch's renovation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:This is outrageous. There is no other word for it. I think we should try to help Murch out here.

If you follow the link in the first post of this thread, there is a request to contact Mayor Bowser and Deputy Mayor for Education Jennifer Niles to request additional funding. Connect information in here:

http://murchschool.org/contact-information-for-city-leadership/

and a sample letter is here:

http://murchschool.org/sample-letter-to-mayor-bowser-on-underfunding-of-murch-modernization/
(put this in your own words)

I know that it is easy to write Murch off as a rich, self-absorbed WotP school, but that is really not the case. I think all of us who value quality eduction should take a minute to contact Bowser and Niles on Murch's behalf. I'd also add Council Member David Grosso to the list.

It is, Jeff. I understand the concern, but it nonetheless looks highly localized to upper NW. Did you feel the need to mobilize when DCI had several times that amount of money erased from their budget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then when you think about what DCPS has sunk into Ellington and Dunbar, you come to the conclusion that Bowser and DCPS hate young non-poor children.

Most of those decisions predate Bowser; it's the old "Chocolate City" Democrat machine in action. Now personified in Bowser.

What would it take for a more capable and inclusive leader to win DC's Democratic primary next time?

If you didn't vote for Catania, you're part of the problem.