Murch meeting tonight on swing space

[Anonymous]

Negotiate with Intelsat down to $6M. Argue some version of eminent domain. Can't the supposedly powerful Murch and Lafayette parents figure out a way to do this? It is clearly the best option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Negotiate with Intelsat down to $6M. Argue some version of eminent domain. Can't the supposedly powerful Murch and Lafayette parents figure out a way to do this? It is clearly the best option.

Don't be a doofus. DC can't claim eminent domain to force a commercial lease on more favorable terms. Besides, the entire former Intlelst building is being redeveloped (though preserved).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hearst trailer only served a couple of grades with a small cafeteria.

Plus, Sidwell will begin construction in the not too distant future further aggravating an already frustrating and at times dangerous traffic situation out front of Hearst. No way that street could handle another 50+ car drop-offs every morning. Maybe if they used buses to bring the Much kids in or made the street one-way, but those are likely non starters for various reasons.

If Hearst kicked out the Maryland kids enrolled fraudulently there, it would reduce the drop off traffic problem on 37th St.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like UDC is the best option, maybe the Murch PTA should get in front of this and start researching options?

Hilarious that you think this hasn't been going on for years.

Or that the PTA has any say. If that was the case Murch would have been renovated years ago.

I personally think Murch is leaning towards UDC which means DCPS will force us to Lafayette.

Probably. Since DCPS's modus operandi seems to be to make choices so as to piss off the biggest number of people.

I'm not sure why the on-site/Forest Hills split isn't more popular. As I understand it, the main problems are the challenges of running a split school and the need to breakdown classrooms on Friday afternoons. But the split campus problem should be mitigated by the proximity of the two sites (just a few blocks apart) and the fact that there's already a separate PK specials teacher. And I'd think that additional conversations with the church could result in some amount of accommodation on the classroom front, especially if we paid the church more or hired additional admin/janitorial staff to handle that work (either of which should be possible considering that both Lafayette and UDC are more expensive).

Considering the number of unknowns about UDC and the price, why isn't this cheaper, closer option getting more attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like UDC is the best option, maybe the Murch PTA should get in front of this and start researching options?

Hilarious that you think this hasn't been going on for years.

Or that the PTA has any say. If that was the case Murch would have been renovated years ago.

I personally think Murch is leaning towards UDC which means DCPS will force us to Lafayette.

Probably. Since DCPS's modus operandi seems to be to make choices so as to piss off the biggest number of people.

I'm not sure why the on-site/Forest Hills split isn't more popular. As I understand it, the main problems are the challenges of running a split school and the need to breakdown classrooms on Friday afternoons. But the split campus problem should be mitigated by the proximity of the two sites (just a few blocks apart) and the fact that there's already a separate PK specials teacher. And I'd think that additional conversations with the church could result in some amount of accommodation on the classroom front, especially if we paid the church more or hired additional admin/janitorial staff to handle that work (either of which should be possible considering that both Lafayette and UDC are more expensive).

Considering the number of unknowns about UDC and the price, why isn't this cheaper, closer option getting more attention?

So Murch would be breaking down the classrooms on Fridays but would the Sunday School teachers also be breaking down the classroom on Sundays? Would there be crosses and other religious things up on the walls?

[Anonymous]

I would be in favor of swinging to Forest Hills but only if it could be the whole school (could they use two-story trailers as at Hearst?). I am opposed to any students swinging on site due to health, safety and learning environment issues. The idea that NPS would agree to the use of the land between Murch and Deal for play space is as uncertain, if not more so, than the deal with UDC. In addition, having counselors, reading specialists, special ed staff split their time between two sites would reduce the time they could spend with the kids who most need support - especially in the middle of the upheaval the renovation will bring.

[Anonymous]

^^ They can get pointers on this process from DCI who leases space from All Souls church. The Sunday School classrooms are reconfigured and decorations hung/unhung weekly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be in favor of swinging to Forest Hills but only if it could be the whole school (could they use two-story trailers as at Hearst?). I am opposed to any students swinging on site due to health, safety and learning environment issues. The idea that NPS would agree to the use of the land between Murch and Deal for play space is as uncertain, if not more so, than the deal with UDC. In addition, having counselors, reading specialists, special ed staff split their time between two sites would reduce the time they could spend with the kids who most need support - especially in the middle of the upheaval the renovation will bring.

Agreed. Forrest Hills is fine - if the whole school stays together. An additional Forrest Hills concern was that the playground wasn't enough for the bigger kids and there wouldn't be enough field space once all the trailers get on there. And the Nurse - if it is an urgent situation and she is on one site then what?

What makes me laugh (and not in a ha ha kindof way) is every time someone mentions the "cafeteria trailer/tent" That is already an upgrade for Much kids who eat in classrooms due to the lack of a cafeteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be in favor of swinging to Forest Hills but only if it could be the whole school (could they use two-story trailers as at Hearst?). I am opposed to any students swinging on site due to health, safety and learning environment issues. The idea that NPS would agree to the use of the land between Murch and Deal for play space is as uncertain, if not more so, than the deal with UDC. In addition, having counselors, reading specialists, special ed staff split their time between two sites would reduce the time they could spend with the kids who most need support - especially in the middle of the upheaval the renovation will bring.

In terms of splitting the school, don't split counselors, reading specialists, etc. Hire additional for the two years of reno. This would cost maybe 500K, vs. 2M more for UDC.

[Anonymous]

Yes, no cafeteria needed but they do need kitchen space for the kids who need hot lunch and it would be nice to have some meeting place a la the all-purpose room so at least some part of the school can meet as a larger group once in a awhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be in favor of swinging to Forest Hills but only if it could be the whole school (could they use two-story trailers as at Hearst?). I am opposed to any students swinging on site due to health, safety and learning environment issues. The idea that NPS would agree to the use of the land between Murch and Deal for play space is as uncertain, if not more so, than the deal with UDC. In addition, having counselors, reading specialists, special ed staff split their time between two sites would reduce the time they could spend with the kids who most need support - especially in the middle of the upheaval the renovation will bring.

In terms of splitting the school, don't split counselors, reading specialists, etc. Hire additional for the two years of reno. This would cost maybe 500K, vs. 2M more for UDC.

Still does not address health, safety and learning environment issues or the lack of play space on site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be in favor of swinging to Forest Hills but only if it could be the whole school (could they use two-story trailers as at Hearst?). I am opposed to any students swinging on site due to health, safety and learning environment issues. The idea that NPS would agree to the use of the land between Murch and Deal for play space is as uncertain, if not more so, than the deal with UDC. In addition, having counselors, reading specialists, special ed staff split their time between two sites would reduce the time they could spend with the kids who most need support - especially in the middle of the upheaval the renovation will bring.

In terms of splitting the school, don't split counselors, reading specialists, etc. Hire additional for the two years of reno. This would cost maybe 500K, vs. 2M more for UDC.

Still does not address health, safety and learning environment issues or the lack of play space on site.

Lots of questions about safety and learning environment at UDC. Lots of unknowns there.

The "what about play space?!?" thing has always seemed overwrought to me (and I'm a Murch parent fully aware of the unique role of our sacred blue top). I have confidence that will get worked out.

[Anonymous]

There might be room for swing space in the new "Marion Barry Student Center" at UDC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be in favor of swinging to Forest Hills but only if it could be the whole school (could they use two-story trailers as at Hearst?). I am opposed to any students swinging on site due to health, safety and learning environment issues. The idea that NPS would agree to the use of the land between Murch and Deal for play space is as uncertain, if not more so, than the deal with UDC. In addition, having counselors, reading specialists, special ed staff split their time between two sites would reduce the time they could spend with the kids who most need support - especially in the middle of the upheaval the renovation will bring.

In terms of splitting the school, don't split counselors, reading specialists, etc. Hire additional for the two years of reno. This would cost maybe 500K, vs. 2M more for UDC.

Still does not address health, safety and learning environment issues or the lack of play space on site.

Lots of questions about safety and learning environment at UDC. Lots of unknowns there.

The "what about play space?!?" thing has always seemed overwrought to me (and I'm a Murch parent fully aware of the unique role of our sacred blue top). I have confidence that will get worked out.

I don't agree that worrying about 620 kids have only the footprint of the blue and gold playground structure (the spongy figure 8), plus about 40 additional square feet of blue top is being overwrought; this is truly ridiculous. Looking at this inside out and upside down for a way to see it it work (as it is the most convenient for my family), I just don't see it as even remotely safe or viable option, and I really wish it were. I honestly question whether it is even legal.

Better minds than mine are trying to find a way for this work logistically and safely, but no one seems to have a plan better than your "it will work out." That's not good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be in favor of swinging to Forest Hills but only if it could be the whole school (could they use two-story trailers as at Hearst?). I am opposed to any students swinging on site due to health, safety and learning environment issues. The idea that NPS would agree to the use of the land between Murch and Deal for play space is as uncertain, if not more so, than the deal with UDC. In addition, having counselors, reading specialists, special ed staff split their time between two sites would reduce the time they could spend with the kids who most need support - especially in the middle of the upheaval the renovation will bring.

In terms of splitting the school, don't split counselors, reading specialists, etc. Hire additional for the two years of reno. This would cost maybe 500K, vs. 2M more for UDC.

Still does not address health, safety and learning environment issues or the lack of play space on site.

Lots of questions about safety and learning environment at UDC. Lots of unknowns there.

The "what about play space?!?" thing has always seemed overwrought to me (and I'm a Murch parent fully aware of the unique role of our sacred blue top). I have confidence that will get worked out.

I don't agree that worrying about 620 kids have only the footprint of the blue and gold playground structure (the spongy figure 8), plus about 40 additional square feet of blue top is being overwrought; this is truly ridiculous. Looking at this inside out and upside down for a way to see it it work (as it is the most convenient for my family), I just don't see it as even remotely safe or viable option, and I really wish it were. I honestly question whether it is even legal.

Better minds than mine are trying to find a way for this work logistically and safely, but no one seems to have a plan better than your "it will work out." That's not good enough.

I actually agree with you--the fact that we have so many open questions six months before reno is set to start is unacceptable.

But I look at a school like Eaton, which has as many kids as Murch would have onsite during reno (assuming PK and K are at the church) but pretty minimal play space, and think that this is a surmountable problem with a lot of potential creative solutions, especially when you don't have to worry about the littlest kids. Why not reserve on-site recess for grades 1-3 and see if there's a Deal field the 4th and 5th graders can use? Has NPS actually said no to using the space across Reno? Initially everyone said they wouldn't let us build play areas on the land they own in the Murch block, but that turned out not to be the case.

Meanwhile, we don't even know if the Secret Service will let Murch swing on the UDC space, nor whether it's actually a safe, secure, accessible option for 600+ kids. And I don't see how anyone who worries about the safety of sub-500 kids onsite can advocate for 1400 at Lafayette with a straight face.

What if UDC is a no-go? Are we just going to hope Lafayette's reno is actually done on time, hope the trailers can withstand two more years of hard use, and go to Lafayette rather than partially swing on-site because we won't have a big playground at Murch? Is that actually safer?