Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you compared it to all the other schools in need of renovation? When the council did that last year, Murch was ranked 19th. Yet I don't see you clamoring to support renovation of 1-18 first.

I don't think we benefit from fighting among school communities, but don't expect support if you're not going to push a broader message.

For example, we could push the Mayor and council to raise the debt ceiling to allow for more money for school renovation (AND also step up better oversight of the money). Schools like ours shouldn't be forced to make stupid choices while others get extravagant and wasteful renovations.

Anonymous wrote:

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 Janney get a waiver on the 10% at risk? Can't Murch do the same due to overcrowding?

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.

Anonymous wrote:Note that the "double swing" was announced on Jan. 21 after multiple delays and now the budget issues have been announced, yet still no community meeting. DGS, DCPS, Mary Cheh, Bowser and everyone else involved should come before the community to 1) explain how this circus act swing will work and 2) explain why many of the key BASIC AMENITIES, such as a technology center, cafeteria or a gymnasium that the whole school can fit in, and reasonable play space are being eliminated or drastically reduced in size. They need to answer these questions, now.

Fitting 700+ kids on a tiny square block is insane and we as Murch parents have come to accept this as normal. We're losing our playground to a surface parking lot!

Now we're essentially getting a renovation that provides very little and takes away much (like almost the entire playground). Just band-aid the current building then. Add electrical over the summer and re-coat the lead paint and move on. This renovation is not worth it at this point. What a repeated abject failure on DC's part!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that the "double swing" was announced on Jan. 21 after multiple delays and now the budget issues have been announced, yet still no community meeting. DGS, DCPS, Mary Cheh, Bowser and everyone else involved should come before the community to 1) explain how this circus act swing will work and 2) explain why many of the key BASIC AMENITIES, such as a technology center, cafeteria or a gymnasium that the whole school can fit in, and reasonable play space are being eliminated or drastically reduced in size. They need to answer these questions, now.

Fitting 700+ kids on a tiny square block is insane and we as Murch parents have come to accept this as normal. We're losing our playground to a surface parking lot!

Now we're essentially getting a renovation that provides very little and takes away much (like almost the entire playground). Just band-aid the current building then. Add electrical over the summer and re-coat the lead paint and move on. This renovation is not worth it at this point. What a repeated abject failure on DC's part!

Hate to say it, but pp is right. Murch is basically being asked to go through a hellish, poorly-planned, crazy double swing all in order to lose its play space to a parking lot and essentially nothing else. It is absurd.
And the lack of leadership here is simply shameful.

As some one who has sat on several SITs and repeatedly seen DGS drop the ball
I have to agree. Forgo the work until there's a plan with consensus support and make sure budget is 20% more than projected

But in the meantime, file a lawsuit.
need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that the "double swing" was announced on Jan. 21 after multiple delays and now the budget issues have been announced, yet still no community meeting. DGS, DCPS, Mary Cheh, Bowser and everyone else involved should come before the community to 1) explain how this circus act swing will work and 2) explain why many of the key BASIC AMENITIES, such as a technology center, cafeteria or a gymnasium that the whole school can fit in, and reasonable play space are being eliminated or drastically reduced in size. They need to answer these questions, now.

Fitting 700+ kids on a tiny square block is insane and we as Murch parents have come to accept this as normal. We're losing our playground to a surface parking lot!

Now we're essentially getting a renovation that provides very little and takes away much (like almost the entire playground). Just band-aid the current building then. Add electrical over the summer and re-coat the lead paint and move on. This renovation is not worth it at this point. What a repeated abject failure on DC's part!

Hate to say it, but pp is right. Murch is basically being asked to go through a hellish, poorly-planned, crazy double swing all in order to lose its play space to a parking lot and essentially nothing else. It is absurd.
And the lack of leadership here is simply shameful.

Anonymous wrote:

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 Janney get a waiver on the 10% at risk? Can't Murch do the same due to overcrowding?

Anonymous wrote:Note that the "double swing" was announced on Jan. 21 after multiple delays and now the budget issues have been announced, yet still no community meeting. DGS, DCPS, Mary Cheh, Bowser and everyone else involved should come before the community to 1) explain how this circus act swing will work and 2) explain why many of the key BASIC AMENITIES, such as a technology center, cafeteria or a gymnasium that the whole school can fit in, and reasonable play space are being eliminated or drastically reduced in size. They need to answer these questions, now.

Fitting 700+ kids on a tiny square block is insane and we as Murch parents have come to accept this as normal. We're losing our playground to a surface parking lot!

Now we're essentially getting a renovation that provides very little and takes away much (like almost the entire playground). Just band-aid the current building then. Add electrical over the summer and re-coat the lead paint and move on. This renovation is not worth it at this point. What a repeated abject failure on DC's part!

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 wrote:Note that the "double swing" was announced on Jan. 21 after multiple delays and now the budget issues have been announced, yet still no community meeting. DGS, DCPS, Mary Cheh, Bowser and everyone else involved should come before the community to 1) explain how this circus act swing will work and 2) explain why many of the key BASIC AMENITIES, such as a technology center, cafeteria or a gymnasium that the whole school can fit in, and reasonable play space are being eliminated or drastically reduced in size. They need to answer these questions, now.

Fitting 700+ kids on a tiny square block is insane and we as Murch parents have come to accept this as normal. We're losing our playground to a surface parking lot!

Now we're essentially getting a renovation that provides very little and takes away much (like almost the entire playground). Just band-aid the current building then. Add electrical over the summer and re-coat the lead paint and move on. This renovation is not worth it at this point. What a repeated abject failure on DC's part!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They have a gym now and no cafeteria. That's why the kids get hot lunch from a tray in the hallway and eat in their classrooms. The gym is used for PE all day long every day. You have to look a the logistical programming requirements for running an elementary school with 700+ students. Yes, a school that big needs a gym and a cafeteria, otherwise you either cut PE or eat in classrooms.

Your privilege shows.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Really? You want to turn this into a charter vs. DCPS battle? What a perfect example of crabs in a bucket thinking.

I don't, actually. I just can't help noticing the difference in angst in this particular case. Nonetheless, I do feel very badly for the Murch community.

I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist either, but because I'm not blind it's difficult to avoid noticing the difference in how some schools (Roosevelt, Ellington) have had their cost overruns treated in comparison to Murch. Roosevelt's cost overruns are likely to met with the same success as Eastern's or Brookland Middle's - very little. High SES families don't want to go there if they have a choice.

Not expanding Murch is way of making sure that some of them don't have a choice.

Anonymous wrote:Bancroft parent here. I feel your pain as Bancroft is also very unsafe and crowded and its modernization has been delayed many times. I hope that the same doesn't happen with Bancroft's plan. I have written a letter to Bowser / Niles - all of this jerking around is absolutely crazy.