Reply to Murch meeting tonight on swing space

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Murch meeting tonight on swing space"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [b]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.[/b] [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics