Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

From my house Murch is 2 flat blocks down 36th st. Hearst is .8 miles on a very hilly road. The first one I can do easily with my 5 year old, the second one would be almost two miles round trip - that's 35 minutes to even begin my normal commute and that's if my 5 year old can walk at my pace. I'm not going to do that, so i'll drive. And you know what, i'll probably just get in my car and keep driving to work, because metro is always a crapshoot and I'll add another car to the already congested roads, because at this point it becomes all about me and much less about what is good for others, since DC apparently doesn't care about me and my family.

And I agree that is much less convenient (although I would suggest that you needn't walk all the way back home, it would be easier and closer to walk directly to the metro after the drop-off at school). But if your argument is about congestion on the roads, the switch will actually reduce it. Because although you might get on the road, you (though not really you, because no current family is actually going to move, so you don't actually have anything to worry about) will be replacing an OOB family who is driving across the city to drop off their child. Much greater reduction in traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

From my house Murch is 2 flat blocks down 36th st. Hearst is .8 miles on a very hilly road. The first one I can do easily with my 5 year old, the second one would be almost two miles round trip - that's 35 minutes to even begin my normal commute and that's if my 5 year old can walk at my pace. I'm not going to do that, so i'll drive. And you know what, i'll probably just get in my car and keep driving to work, because metro is always a crapshoot and I'll add another car to the already congested roads, because at this point it becomes all about me and much less about what is good for others, since DC apparently doesn't care about me and my family.

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Except that is not true. They have a short walk to Murch that is true. And they would have longer walk to Hearst, and that is less desirable. But they still can walk if they want to. The two schools (a farther distance than almost any of folks in the zone would have to walk) are only a mile apart.

I think people are missing the big picture about this boundary shift most of the people who are being moved from Murch to Hearst could walk to Murch but will have to drive to Hearst - that is a huge difference. It has nothing to do with school quality and everything to do with convenience. The idea that you could live two blocks from one school but have to go to a school 15 blocks away in a city that wants to encourage more green transportation is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Be honest, if Hearst was genuinely attractive to people already currently zoned for Murch we would opt to there OOB. Why not make it a choice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

PP here. We walk to Murch and would be upset to have to drive to Hearst. I imagine that people who drive to Murch from the northern end would not mind having to drive to Lafayette instead, so they would be less upset.

If you are in the zone that is being switched you could still walk to Hearst. It is a longer walk, but still a walk. The two schools are only a mile apart.

I agree that it is curious why moving Murch families to Lafayette would make them less upset than Hearst? And despite longer term trends (which may or may not be true), Lafayette is currently a very overcrowded and very large school. Moving more families into that school right now just doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous wrote:But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

PP here. We walk to Murch and would be upset to have to drive to Hearst. I imagine that people who drive to Murch from the northern end would not mind having to drive to Lafayette instead, so they would be less upset.

But why build another school in upper NW when there is already a very good (and getting better!) school that has additional capacity to serve some additional neighborhood kids.

You may be correct that going forward the population would justify another new elementary school in the neighborhood but why not first fully utilize the schools that are already here?

Just curious, why does PP believe it would "make people less upset" to move Murch kids to Lafayette than to Hearst?

Anonymous wrote:Is the "factoid" at the start of the thread even true? The data suggest that most of the effected families are not renters. The DME put together a "dot map" showing the effected families. These families do not seem to be clustered in apartments. Or to the extent that Murch families are, they seem to be on the other side of Connecticut in a portion of the boundary that is not being changed.

"Dot map": http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Affected%20Kids%20Map_Labels%20FINAL%204-25-14.pdf

Yes a number of the "green dots" clustered in the upper right corner of the "Murch moving to Hearst" zone are renters, there are renters on both sides of Connecticut and in that building on Yuma, too, behind the car wash. Some don't have cars, by the way, so walking to Murch is important.

On the point of the "crowding at Murch" issue, transferring families who can walk to Murch may or may not relieve classroom crowding (that new construction on Connecticut may add as many as you take out with this plan) but it definitely will not relieve the current traffic congestion at drop off from all the people who drive. You often see MPD on 36th because of the car jams (drop off drivers not stopping or making K-turns after drop off). Turning Murch walkers into Hearst drivers is not a plan to relieve Murch crowding. You could move some Murch streets to Lafayette instead (and make people less upset) - why is that not happening?

This looks more like an attempt to build up Hearst with more IB, not to take the pressure off Murch.

Once Murch is renovated you will get more people than you plan for. It happened with Deal and Wilson. It's the same paradox as widening a crowded 4 lane highway to a 6 lane highway: it soon fills up because people want to use the new road. City planners know this (or should).

The 20 year solution is to build a new school in Chevy Chase. That will have to happen sooner or later. But politically they can't do it now because people in NE and SE will be resentful that NW gets something and they feel they don't.

I agree that a school, especially an ES, can get too big. The parcel of land where Murch sits is only so large (just be comparison, the Lafayette parcel is much larger). The school is expected to have approximately 680 students next year in a building built to house far fewer. Even after the renovation, it will probably be at capacity, just as Janney was the day they opened the newly renovated space.

Boundaries have to change. Moving the boundaries so that both SFHs and a few apartment buildings are moved into the Hearst area makes sense. But then you can expect that families would move to Connecticut Ave apartments to go to Murch will just rent in the buildings that are still in the Murch district.

I hope that once it becomes evident that Hearst is an up and coming (almost here!) school, then the pressure on Murch will ease somewhat.

Anonymous wrote:Is the "factoid" at the start of the thread even true? The data suggest that most of the effected families are not renters. The DME put together a "dot map" showing the effected families. These families do not seem to be clustered in apartments. Or to the extent that Murch families are, they seem to be on the other side of Connecticut in a portion of the boundary that is not being changed.

"Dot map": http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Affected%20Kids%20Map_Labels%20FINAL%204-25-14.pdf

The dot map - a meaningless picture -- does not show renters, home owners, families, or even number of children affected. Totally unclear what the dots represent, and they are "randomly assigned within census plots." The only clue is if a part of a block had less than 5 students (is this students in 2010? current students? future students?) it didn't get a dot. If they are using the census, then they are using old data anyway. This seems to be an attempt to make it look like they are basing their decisions on real data -- but I'd like to see the actual data. I don't think they have any.

What snapshot is that dot map capturing? Is it only kids already enrolled in Murch who would be moved? Is it only new kids who are born but not yet in school? The apartment buildings are transient by nature - the boundary change reduced the number of units available to families for murch and puts those spots in murch.

I am having a hard time following the arguments that some on this and other threads are making. Some of them, at least at face value, seems to be arguing that moving X number of children (in the future, no current children get moved) from one school to another will not lower the number of students in the first school.

Is the notion that families will keep moving into the school's district until the school has reached some capacity, whatever that is? After that point, the school will somehow become less desirable and families will stop. So shifting the border will not avoid the school reaching that capacity because other families will move into the new border? And it wouldn't get bigger than this capacity, whatever it is, because the school is close to it now and more families won't come in?

It strikes me that there might be something to the notion that an elementary school can get too big. Murch might be at or close to that stage. But it seems doubtful that Murch's current size will necessarily deter all new families from moving into the boundaries. Then shifting the boundary will reduce Murch's size from what it otherwise would be if the boundary had not switched.

Is the "factoid" at the start of the thread even true? The data suggest that most of the effected families are not renters. The DME put together a "dot map" showing the effected families. These families do not seem to be clustered in apartments. Or to the extent that Murch families are, they seem to be on the other side of Connecticut in a portion of the boundary that is not being changed.

"Dot map": http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Affected%20Kids%20Map_Labels%20FINAL%204-25-14.pdf