Explain the Murch renovation saga to me please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "honest truth" does not make it okay. It is really sad to see how Murch is struggling to get any sort of renovation while Janney plows ahead.

Envious some?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mayor Bowser said she would "tweak" the boundary proposal. The disappointed Murch parents might want to visit with her to see if they can get rezoned into Hearst (as the original proposal from the Mayor Gray did). Hearst will have sparkling new, state of the art facilities in just a few weeks. Totally understand why you fought the original proposal, but given this change in renovation circumstances you should think about it. No reason your children should spend 5 years in a trailer.

Some of us didn't fight the original proposal and our kids have already been in trailers for years. So your snideness and smugness is hard to take. Residents all over the city should be frustrated that schools are falling apart while the District builds a soccer stadium and makes a pitch for the Olympics.

If you took a poll of DC voters, a majority would favor spending public money to bring the Redskins back into town before they would support more dollars for Ward 3 school renovations.

Which just shows how uninformed and uneducated most of them are.

Especially when the Redskins are having an even worse year than DCPS.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Murch is in a no-win situation. How can DCPS spend 70 million on a small elementary school?

700 kids is a small ES? In what universe?

They're spending a lot more to renovate Duke Ellington with less than half this number of students.

Ellington has 541 students according to profiles.dcps.dc.gov.

And the latest figure I heard for their renovation was $125 million.

If someone wants to complain about spending being driven by politics, this is a better place to start than Murch.

And no, the $125 million doesn't include any fundraising by the school, that's all from DC.

[Anonymous]

wow, that is so much money!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when I read the post on Murch's website I was really confused. if the NPS is going to veto any construction on the land it owns (hill, playground and area where the Kaufman building is), if the DC Historic Preservation Review Board is going to veto any change to the main building, then how the heck is the school going to be renovated in a way that can accommodate the children? the only way would be to go underground, building a nice one or two floors underground, no windows, artificial lights, really great. I am all for historic preservation but come on, this is just a red brick building built in the 20's of last century, not the coliseum. the rationale (we preserve because it is the only school of that era that has not been changed) is frankly insulting - because your school is the only one that has never been renovated, now we force you to keep it like this (while the ones that got renovations in the past can keep renovating). also, the NPS would veto any building on the site of the Kaufman wing? so we can have a decade old "temporary" building there but not a real, renovated building?

This +1000.

It infuriates me that our building is deemed historic simply because they have never gotten around to renovating/updating it. It is simply neglected. And while I love the building and wish that we could restore it - I'd much rather have a functioning school that works for our students and our teachers. Something that has been left out in this whole thread is how much of a drain having to deal with this cramped and dysfunctional building places on the teachers and staff at Murch. We have a offices in bathrooms and in the gym. They do a wonderful job. But, I'd much rather they focus on teaching not trying to find a working outlet/copier and wondering if the WiFi will be up today.

I'm seriously convinced that someone at Murch really pissed someone off at DCPS central admin at some point in the past. It really is the only thing that makes sense about the way this school is treated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when I read the post on Murch's website I was really confused. if the NPS is going to veto any construction on the land it owns (hill, playground and area where the Kaufman building is), if the DC Historic Preservation Review Board is going to veto any change to the main building, then how the heck is the school going to be renovated in a way that can accommodate the children? the only way would be to go underground, building a nice one or two floors underground, no windows, artificial lights, really great. I am all for historic preservation but come on, this is just a red brick building built in the 20's of last century, not the coliseum. the rationale (we preserve because it is the only school of that era that has not been changed) is frankly insulting - because your school is the only one that has never been renovated, now we force you to keep it like this (while the ones that got renovations in the past can keep renovating). also, the NPS would veto any building on the site of the Kaufman wing? so we can have a decade old "temporary" building there but not a real, renovated building?

This +1000.

It infuriates me that our building is deemed historic simply because they have never gotten around to renovating/updating it. It is simply neglected. And while I love the building and wish that we could restore it - I'd much rather have a functioning school that works for our students and our teachers. Something that has been left out in this whole thread is how much of a drain having to deal with this cramped and dysfunctional building places on the teachers and staff at Murch. We have a offices in bathrooms and in the gym. They do a wonderful job. But, I'd much rather they focus on teaching not trying to find a working outlet/copier and wondering if the WiFi will be up today.

I'm seriously convinced that someone at Murch really pissed someone off at DCPS central admin at some point in the past. It really is the only thing that makes sense about the way this school is treated.

Not to mention the amount of extra supervision that goes with not having a cafeteria and the kids eating in classrooms and having to have indoor recess in the classrooms. Instead of staffing these periods with 3 or 4 staff, you need 30 (one in every classroom). Teachers never have time to do their work. And I hear some of the other elementary schools have refused to play the scheduled basketball games at Murch because it isn't safe and there is no room for parents to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Murch is in a no-win situation. How can DCPS spend 70 million on a small elementary school?

700 kids is a small ES? In what universe?

They're spending a lot more to renovate Duke Ellington with less than half this number of students.

Ellington has 541 students according to profiles.dcps.dc.gov.

And the latest figure I heard for their renovation was $125 million.

If someone wants to complain about spending being driven by politics, this is a better place to start than Murch.

And no, the $125 million doesn't include any fundraising by the school, that's all from DC.

Look, if Ellington needs it, I don't begrudge them the reno. All of the kids in the city need a decent school. I'm just tired of years of red tape and zero getting accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Murch is in a no-win situation. How can DCPS spend 70 million on a small elementary school?

700 kids is a small ES? In what universe?

I thought it was 500.

Okay, so spend 70 million on an elementary??

You must be new here. Ballou HS just got a $142 million new facility with about as many students and test scores that would make you cry.

I could go on to list others but you can figure this out on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when I read the post on Murch's website I was really confused. if the NPS is going to veto any construction on the land it owns (hill, playground and area where the Kaufman building is), if the DC Historic Preservation Review Board is going to veto any change to the main building, then how the heck is the school going to be renovated in a way that can accommodate the children? the only way would be to go underground, building a nice one or two floors underground, no windows, artificial lights, really great. I am all for historic preservation but come on, this is just a red brick building built in the 20's of last century, not the coliseum. the rationale (we preserve because it is the only school of that era that has not been changed) is frankly insulting - because your school is the only one that has never been renovated, now we force you to keep it like this (while the ones that got renovations in the past can keep renovating). also, the NPS would veto any building on the site of the Kaufman wing? so we can have a decade old "temporary" building there but not a real, renovated building?

This +1000.

It infuriates me that our building is deemed historic simply because they have never gotten around to renovating/updating it. It is simply neglected. And while I love the building and wish that we could restore it - I'd much rather have a functioning school that works for our students and our teachers. Something that has been left out in this whole thread is how much of a drain having to deal with this cramped and dysfunctional building places on the teachers and staff at Murch. We have a offices in bathrooms and in the gym. They do a wonderful job. But, I'd much rather they focus on teaching not trying to find a working outlet/copier and wondering if the WiFi will be up today.

I'm seriously convinced that someone at Murch really pissed someone off at DCPS central admin at some point in the past. It really is the only thing that makes sense about the way this school is treated.

Not to mention the amount of extra supervision that goes with not having a cafeteria and the kids eating in classrooms and having to have indoor recess in the classrooms. Instead of staffing these periods with 3 or 4 staff, you need 30 (one in every classroom). Teachers never have time to do their work. And I hear some of the other elementary schools have refused to play the scheduled basketball games at Murch because it isn't safe and there is no room for parents to watch.

Excellent point about lunch supervision. Plus, the kids go completely stir crazy on rainy days as they can't play in the gym as it is used for PE/other things.

Shepard refused to play us in our gym so their coach set up the game at Deal this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Murch is in a no-win situation. How can DCPS spend 70 million on a small elementary school?

700 kids is a small ES? In what universe?

I thought it was 500.

Okay, so spend 70 million on an elementary??

The physical plant's current capacity is under 500. The school is at 650+ now and projected to be over 700 soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Murch is in a no-win situation. How can DCPS spend 70 million on a small elementary school?

700 kids is a small ES? In what universe?

I thought it was 500.

Don't worry, you weren't the only one not paying attention as Murch grew over the past 7 years.

[Anonymous]

Well then Murch should have allowed boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well then Murch should have allowed boundary changes.

In both scenarios put forth from the DME Murch's boundaries did change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well then Murch should have allowed boundary changes.

You have to stop. Seriously.

Murch did "allow" boundary changes. Its boundaries changed significantly. But whether those changes send kids to Hearst, Lafayette, or both, population growth trends mean it was going to be a 700-kid school, no matter what. The current physical plant's capacity is less than 500. No boundary changes under consideration, in either round, were going to change that.

[Anonymous]

I really feel for the Murch folks. Having gone through the process at Hearst, it really burns me that families have to go through so much to get what should be something that is done automatically and without a ton of effort (and lobbying/begging) on the part of the community. It was an exhausting effort that took time and resources away from focusing on our children's education. No one should have to go through it.