JULY 16 construction update meeting at Lafayette

http://www.lafayettehsa.org/event/construction-update-meeting/

If anyone attends, please post thoughts here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Murch should cap its enrollment to fit the site?

Can't happen. It's a public school. Students living in bounds are guaranteed right to go. Murch has no control over number of kids that have right to go.

Murch is already bigger than its IB population needs. It's being expanded so accommodate more OOB. It's part of a relentless push by DCPS to put as many kids as possible in the Deal feeders.

Only not if you go to Eaton.
Pretty obvious that Eaton families are innocent victims of nonsense politics.

Murch poster-stop saying that the school expanded because of ib kids. If that were true, the oob % would be in the single digits. Just stop.

Let me guess: everything you know about Murch you learned on DCUM. Believe that, or believe math: 650 kids, building for 400. Even if OOB were 10% (instead of the current 15%), the school would be one-third over capacity.

The current Murch IB population exceeds the capacity of the current facility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Murch should cap its enrollment to fit the site?

Can't happen. It's a public school. Students living in bounds are guaranteed right to go. Murch has no control over number of kids that have right to go.

Murch is already bigger than its IB population needs. It's being expanded so accommodate more OOB. It's part of a relentless push by DCPS to put as many kids as possible in the Deal feeders.

Only not if you go to Eaton.
Pretty obvious that Eaton families are innocent victims of nonsense politics.

Murch poster-stop saying that the school expanded because of ib kids. If that were true, the oob % would be in the single digits. Just stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Murch should cap its enrollment to fit the site?

Why would anyone say something so logical on dcum?

I would actually put your very wise suggestion in past tense. They should have capped it about 5 years ago.

Exactly. And why the parents of the school don't see this is beyond anyone. They complain about the site not fitting a huge school just fine though. It will be overcrowded before it is complete.

Are you kidding? What could possibly make you think we don't see it? More to point, what control do you think we have over it? DCPS just did the first redistricting in decades, and no proposal made Murch a smaller school; their solutions just tried to keep it from getting much bigger--not very helpful when we're already at almost 200% capacity.

The school can't just decide to limit the number of kids. The school community is trying to ensure we get the best possible solution given a very difficult set of circumstances dictated by DCPS (accommodate 700 kids on a city block where only 2/3 of the space is usable).

How can the enrollment be capped at a public school? Isn't that illegal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Murch should cap its enrollment to fit the site?

Why would anyone say something so logical on dcum?

I would actually put your very wise suggestion in past tense. They should have capped it about 5 years ago.

Exactly. And why the parents of the school don't see this is beyond anyone. They complain about the site not fitting a huge school just fine though. It will be overcrowded before it is complete.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Murch should cap its enrollment to fit the site?

Why would anyone say something so logical on dcum?

I would actually put your very wise suggestion in past tense. They should have capped it about 5 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Murch should cap its enrollment to fit the site?

Can't happen. It's a public school. Students living in bounds are guaranteed right to go. Murch has no control over number of kids that have right to go.

Murch is already bigger than its IB population needs. It's being expanded so accommodate more OOB. It's part of a relentless push by DCPS to put as many kids as possible in the Deal feeders.

This is not true. Murch is maybe 15% OOB. So IB alone is 550 kids, and the school was built for 400.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As most of you already know, Sheperd has a much larger lot than Murch. They have a lot more options of renovation than Murch which is already on a small lot which is 1/3 useable for building. In addition, Sheperd is half the enrollment of Murch. Their parking needs are much different.

This actually isn't true. The Murch plot of land is bigger than the DCPS-controlled plot of land that is home to Sheperd. The DPR park next door makes it seem bigger, but no construction could ever spread onto park land.

It amazes me the way people act like inter-agency land transfers are impossible. If the political will is there they happen all the time. Think about this: until a couple of years ago, DGS didn't exist. Then it was created, and presto! all of the land that city agencies owned was transferred to them (except for libraries). So DGS owns both parts of the Shepherd parcel. DCPS is the tenant for one part and DPR is the tenant for another. If the need exists, DGS can move tenants around.

Dealing with the federal government is a whole different kettle of fish!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As most of you already know, Sheperd has a much larger lot than Murch. They have a lot more options of renovation than Murch which is already on a small lot which is 1/3 useable for building. In addition, Sheperd is half the enrollment of Murch. Their parking needs are much different.

This actually isn't true. The Murch plot of land is bigger than the DCPS-controlled plot of land that is home to Sheperd. The DPR park next door makes it seem bigger, but no construction could ever spread onto park land.

Not true. Murch's plot is 1/3 NPS.

Residential permit parking is a concept I am still scratching my head over. I mean, I live close enough to the MD border to hear the complaints about "those Maryland people parking here," all the time, but I still don't understand it. It is one of the many things that makes DC seem less of a cohesive city to me and more of a cluster of small, arrogant villages.

Anonymous wrote:Well, the private schools in the area offer parking to the their staffs, frequently in underground lots, so it is helpful to be competitive for publics to get good teachers. The school is far enough from the Metro that most will drive, not walk. Can't speak to Shepard - but their details may well be different. Murch already needs to dig for other buildings due to site constraints.

Private schools are required by zoning to have enough on-site parking. Many of them have specific language in their zoning agreements prohibiting anyone coming to the school from parking anywhere but on school property. Public schools have no such requirement.

My neighborhood DCPS school doesn't have enough parking. The surrounding streets are all zoned residential permit parking only. We tried to get DDOT to do something -- issue teachers permits, relax the restrictions, anything. It was astonishing how resistant DDOT was to the simple idea of teachers parking on the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Murch should cap its enrollment to fit the site?

Can't happen. It's a public school. Students living in bounds are guaranteed right to go. Murch has no control over number of kids that have right to go.

Murch is already bigger than its IB population needs. It's being expanded so accommodate more OOB. It's part of a relentless push by DCPS to put as many kids as possible in the Deal feeders.

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously blaming a kid biking to school over the lost who hit them? Funny thing: bet you anything that driver lives less than a mile from the school.

I'm not blaming the child, of course not. The facts of the incident are not exactly as PP would have us believe, though, if we're talking about the same incident within the last month of school.

I will stick by my admonishment to Murch (and Deal) parents who let their kids ride bikes to those schools, though. I'm very, very well acquainted with the general habits of some of them, and some of these kids are flat out courting danger through their own behaviors. Look, you and I wouldn't let our 4 year old walk to the park by herself along Nebraska and/or Reno, for obvious reasons we don't need to explain. She's just not ready. I am asserting that there are some unattended 8 - 12 year olds on bikes heading to Murch and Deal who also appear to be not ready to handle the responsibility yet.

Note that I am NOT specifically talking about the child mentioned in PP when I say this. It's a general observation from someone who's been on foot in the area every morning for years. Some of your kids are doing immature and ultimately dangerous things, parents, while they're on their bikes and you aren't watching.