Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Murch has gone so long without renovation and been pushed aside repeatedly for Janney and Lafayette. Not saying we are entitled to anything but right now we're just trying to figure out any solution. And it is not perfectly viable. Viable yes but far from perfect. And maybe you don't ever go by the Murch playground during the day but it is rare that there are not kids out playing - recess, PE or even just a class project.

Murch renovation being delayed really has no relationship at all with the ethics of removing an entire DPR property from general public use from 8 am to 6 pm. I'm in the camp that is deeply dismayed the renovation has taken so long to materialize, as the school population just exploded.

I go by Murch playground during the day and it's almost always empty. Why: because each individual recess and PE is so very short. They're in and outta there. That's a different thing than saying there aren't 700 kids who use the playground each day for recess and PE -- obv., they do. But since they're only doing that for itty bitty stretches of time, the idea that they cannot possibly do those short stints on a smaller play space doesn't hold up. see, e.g., Eaton one mile down the road on Reno. Optimal? no, but more than doable

Yes, Eaton has a small playground but it has 475 students compared to 620 (Murch). Someone else mentioned Ross as a comparable small urban playground but Ross has only 166 students. Contrary to what you might think, the Murch playground is a huge part of the school culture. It's also a major community hub after school and on the weekends, more so than some DPR sites. Using NPS land (part of Ft. Reno) across the street is dicey -- kids would have to be constantly escorted across Reno Road, which poses safety concerns and eats into instructional time. Plus, under the grass, part of that field is basically an abandoned road and is not great for running around. In any case, NPS hasn't exactly laid out the welcome mat.

I'm the poster who cited Eaton and Ross. And I'm a Murch parent, so I'm well aware of the role the playground plays in Murch school culture. I love the afterschool scene at Murch and taking my kids up to play on weekends. And yet...I believe that giving this up is far, far preferable to cramming 1200+ kids onto the Lafayette site.

In fact, if we're going to go the "maintain school culture" route, in what universe does having Murch kids go to school in trailers outside their neighborhood accomplish that goal? We aren't going to have the Murch playground space for two years, regardless of whether the kids stay on site or not. Why is it better to remove them from the site altogether--assuming the site can be made safe--than to maintain walking, pick-up, drop-off, and aftercare routines?

Anonymous wrote:

Murch has gone so long without renovation and been pushed aside repeatedly for Janney and Lafayette. Not saying we are entitled to anything but right now we're just trying to figure out any solution. And it is not perfectly viable. Viable yes but far from perfect. And maybe you don't ever go by the Murch playground during the day but it is rare that there are not kids out playing - recess, PE or even just a class project.

Murch renovation being delayed really has no relationship at all with the ethics of removing an entire DPR property from general public use from 8 am to 6 pm. I'm in the camp that is deeply dismayed the renovation has taken so long to materialize, as the school population just exploded.

I go by Murch playground during the day and it's almost always empty. Why: because each individual recess and PE is so very short. They're in and outta there. That's a different thing than saying there aren't 700 kids who use the playground each day for recess and PE -- obv., they do. But since they're only doing that for itty bitty stretches of time, the idea that they cannot possibly do those short stints on a smaller play space doesn't hold up. see, e.g., Eaton one mile down the road on Reno. Optimal? no, but more than doable

Yes, Eaton has a small playground but it has 475 students compared to 620 (Murch). Someone else mentioned Ross as a comparable small urban playground but Ross has only 166 students. Contrary to what you might think, the Murch playground is a huge part of the school culture. It's also a major community hub after school and on the weekends, more so than some DPR sites. Using NPS land (part of Ft. Reno) across the street is dicey -- kids would have to be constantly escorted across Reno Road, which poses safety concerns and eats into instructional time. Plus, under the grass, part of that field is basically an abandoned road and is not great for running around. In any case, NPS hasn't exactly laid out the welcome mat.

To my Chevy Chase neighbors, please tone down the rhetoric, you are making us all look nasty and selfish. That is not the neighborhood I chose to live in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They can be in trailers on the Murch site. That is perfectly viable, but parents don't like it.

This. The audacity of assuming that the school population should storm a private church and tennis court/ball field/playground offered to the entire city -- and take them out of commission -- is rather entitled. But the Murch parents don't even hear themselves talk.

Just stay where you are, accept that you don't need that much play space, anyway, because as a DCPS there frankly isn't many minutes of recess, and be done with it.

Wow...just wow. Murch has gone so long without renovation and been pushed aside repeatedly for Janney and Lafayette. Not saying we are entitled to anything but right now we're just trying to figure out any solution. And it is not perfectly viable. Viable yes but far from perfect. And maybe you don't ever go by the Murch playground during the day but it is rare that there are not kids out playing - recess, PE or even just a class project.

The idea that Murch is calling the shots here is laughable. Murch has been at the mercy of DGS, DCPS , and city politics for years. The Murch SIT has been nagging DGS and DCPS about swing space since its first meeting, which, incidentally, was five years ago. Murch is not to blame for this foot-dragging.

The school is operating under some unique constraints -- a huge in-boundary enrollment and very limited space as the National Park Service owns 1/3 of the Murch site and will not permit the city to build on it. This isn't about entitlement by Murch families. Far from it. This is about making sure that 600+ kids can get through the next two years of elementary school in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning. If DGS and the builder can demonstrate that swinging on site can be done safely and with minimal disruption, great. If not, DGS has to find another solution. Since the city has already erected a temporary school on city land at Lafayettee, it seems silly to dismiss that option out of hand. Not that it's a perfect solution by any means. It's only one of several highly imperfect scenarios being explored. Nobody is out to "storm" anything. Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They can be in trailers on the Murch site. That is perfectly viable, but parents don't like it.

This. The audacity of assuming that the school population should storm a private church and tennis court/ball field/playground offered to the entire city -- and take them out of commission -- is rather entitled. But the Murch parents don't even hear themselves talk.

Just stay where you are, accept that you don't need that much play space, anyway, because as a DCPS there frankly isn't many minutes of recess, and be done with it.

Wow...just wow. Murch has gone so long without renovation and been pushed aside repeatedly for Janney and Lafayette. Not saying we are entitled to anything but right now we're just trying to figure out any solution. And it is not perfectly viable. Viable yes but far from perfect. And maybe you don't ever go by the Murch playground during the day but it is rare that there are not kids out playing - recess, PE or even just a class project.

Murch better be prepared to stand aside again because DC's first priority right now is the Duke Ellington renovation, which is closing on $200 million and counting.

Right, but the city can't afford double decker trailers to house 700 little kids and save some space to line up in the morning to enter the building and maybe even stretch a little during recess.

What gets me is that if you read through the presentation at the last SIT meeting with DGS there is no mention of Lafayette anywhere in the proposal.

Part of me thinks they are throwing this idea out there to get everyone riled up on how bad things could be just so the next idea they present looks better by comparison.

http://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/Murch%20SIT%20Meeting%2011.23.15.pdf

As a Murch parent I actually laughed off the thought of swinging at Lafayette. 1200+ kids on one site? Then I drove by their trailer city. Looks perfect. Tons of room and those trailers are nice!

My only concern is that Lafayette won't be down in time for their kids to move out of the trailers and for us to move in. Though considering the cost savings for the city I bet Lafayette is the fastest moving reno ever.

I personally think you can do buses from Murch to Lafayette to ease traffic for drop off/pick up. It won't eliminate the traffic but ease it.

Definitely going to the meeting to make sure my feelings are known, though I have already e-mailed city, DCPS, SIT and my ANC rep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Hearst has only one trailer ...

There are traffic jams each morning currently at Hearst for drop off. No way they could handle another 50+ drop offs. If only the southern Murch families did not oppose the boundary change to Hearst, they'd already be enjoying brand new, state of the art facilities...

This is because over 80% of the Hearst students live out of boundaries, the vast majority east of the Park and nearly all arrive by car. Some even arrive in Maryland cars (hmmm?). This is no way for DCPS to run a "neighborhood school system."

OOB is now 73%. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hearst+Elementary+School

and IB is even higher than that for the 2015 - 16 year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Hearst has only one trailer ...

There are traffic jams each morning currently at Hearst for drop off. No way they could handle another 50+ drop offs. If only the southern Murch families did not oppose the boundary change to Hearst, they'd already be enjoying brand new, state of the art facilities...

This is because over 80% of the Hearst students live out of boundaries, the vast majority east of the Park and nearly all arrive by car. Some even arrive in Maryland cars (hmmm?). This is no way for DCPS to run a "neighborhood school system."

OOB is now 73%. http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Hearst+Elementary+School

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Lafayette parent who is vehemently opposed to the idea of moving the entire school to our trailers for 2 years.

HOWEVER - what if they only moved part of the school? PK-1 or whatever. They would then need less trailers at murch, would only need some of the Lafayette trailers, thus allowing the play space to be rebuilt and some of the field to be reclaimed...

Thoughts?

Agree with this. They could move families north of Murch to Lafayette and south of Murch could swing on-site or go to Chesapeake Park. Or the upper grades could stay at Murch and the lower ones go to Chesapeake. Or the north families use Lafayette trailers and the south families use the Hearst trailers. An influx of 300 students is a lot less daunting than an influx of 600.

Hearst has only one trailer ...

There are traffic jams each morning currently at Hearst for drop off. No way they could handle another 50+ drop offs. If only the southern Murch families did not oppose the boundary change to Hearst, they'd already be enjoying brand new, state of the art facilities...

This is because over 80% of the Hearst students live out of boundaries, the vast majority east of the Park and nearly all arrive by car. Some even arrive in Maryland cars (hmmm?). This is no way for DCPS to run a "neighborhood school system."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They can be in trailers on the Murch site. That is perfectly viable, but parents don't like it.

This. The audacity of assuming that the school population should storm a private church and tennis court/ball field/playground offered to the entire city -- and take them out of commission -- is rather entitled. But the Murch parents don't even hear themselves talk.

Just stay where you are, accept that you don't need that much play space, anyway, because as a DCPS there frankly isn't many minutes of recess, and be done with it.

Wow...just wow. Murch has gone so long without renovation and been pushed aside repeatedly for Janney and Lafayette. Not saying we are entitled to anything but right now we're just trying to figure out any solution. And it is not perfectly viable. Viable yes but far from perfect. And maybe you don't ever go by the Murch playground during the day but it is rare that there are not kids out playing - recess, PE or even just a class project.

Murch better be prepared to stand aside again because DC's first priority right now is the Duke Ellington renovation, which is closing on $200 million and counting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way all the Lafayette people come here with doom and gloom scenarios. Yes, there needs to be proper planning, but there is simply no reason to build another demountable farm further away when a perfectly good one exists.

When was the last time Lafayette students needed to be evacuated to Blessed Sacrament?

I'm a Murch person, I think swinging at Lafayette is a terrible idea. Why is having 1400 kids on site at Lafayette better than staying on site at Murch?

The arguments I've seen against swinging on site amount to two things: that it's dangerous to be on a live construction site (which Lafayette kids have been doing this year, without any problems) and that there won't be enough play space (which doubling the number of kids on Lafayette's site while leaving trailers on the fields doesn't really address).

I can't understand the loud aversion to swinging on site, but it's a real thing among a certain subset of Murch families. Most of the kids would stay in the building during the renovation. Why is that not preferable to schlepping up to a bunch of trailers on a field for two years?

Because the kids wouldn't stay in the building during renovation - all would be in trailers which while not an issue means a serious lack of any other space. All of the Murch grounds would be covered with trailers up to within 10 feet of the new building being constructed. As a fellow Murch parent - I don't really see any good solution to this. I've been against swinging in space mainly because it will take longer and I'd like to get it done as soon as possible. And Lafayette would be a crazy amount of kids in one block. That said, the real problem is that DGS has continually failed to deal with the real issues or come up with workable solutions. They just assumed we could swing in space and didn't think over all the details. Not that it couldn't work but they haven't talked to NPS to see if they could use the land across the street...etc.

This is not true, at least according to the deck presented to the Murch SIT in November. The building WOULD stay in use throughout the renovation. I urge everyone with an opinion to look at this deck and make sure it's an informed one: http://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/Murch%20SIT%20Meeting%2011.23.15.pdf

Murch has gone so long without renovation and been pushed aside repeatedly for Janney and Lafayette. Not saying we are entitled to anything but right now we're just trying to figure out any solution. And it is not perfectly viable. Viable yes but far from perfect. And maybe you don't ever go by the Murch playground during the day but it is rare that there are not kids out playing - recess, PE or even just a class project.

Murch renovation being delayed really has no relationship at all with the ethics of removing an entire DPR property from general public use from 8 am to 6 pm. I'm in the camp that is deeply dismayed the renovation has taken so long to materialize, as the school population just exploded.

I go by Murch playground during the day and it's almost always empty. Why: because each individual recess and PE is so very short. They're in and outta there. That's a different thing than saying there aren't 700 kids who use the playground each day for recess and PE -- obv., they do. But since they're only doing that for itty bitty stretches of time, the idea that they cannot possibly do those short stints on a smaller play space doesn't hold up. see, e.g., Eaton one mile down the road on Reno. Optimal? no, but more than doable

Anonymous wrote:

They can be in trailers on the Murch site. That is perfectly viable, but parents don't like it.

This. The audacity of assuming that the school population should storm a private church and tennis court/ball field/playground offered to the entire city -- and take them out of commission -- is rather entitled. But the Murch parents don't even hear themselves talk.

Just stay where you are, accept that you don't need that much play space, anyway, because as a DCPS there frankly isn't many minutes of recess, and be done with it.

Wow...just wow. Murch has gone so long without renovation and been pushed aside repeatedly for Janney and Lafayette. Not saying we are entitled to anything but right now we're just trying to figure out any solution. And it is not perfectly viable. Viable yes but far from perfect. And maybe you don't ever go by the Murch playground during the day but it is rare that there are not kids out playing - recess, PE or even just a class project.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way all the Lafayette people come here with doom and gloom scenarios. Yes, there needs to be proper planning, but there is simply no reason to build another demountable farm further away when a perfectly good one exists.

When was the last time Lafayette students needed to be evacuated to Blessed Sacrament?

I'm a Murch person, I think swinging at Lafayette is a terrible idea. Why is having 1400 kids on site at Lafayette better than staying on site at Murch?

The arguments I've seen against swinging on site amount to two things: that it's dangerous to be on a live construction site (which Lafayette kids have been doing this year, without any problems) and that there won't be enough play space (which doubling the number of kids on Lafayette's site while leaving trailers on the fields doesn't really address).

I can't understand the loud aversion to swinging on site, but it's a real thing among a certain subset of Murch families. Most of the kids would stay in the building during the renovation. Why is that not preferable to schlepping up to a bunch of trailers on a field for two years?

Because the kids wouldn't stay in the building during renovation - all would be in trailers which while not an issue means a serious lack of any other space. All of the Murch grounds would be covered with trailers up to within 10 feet of the new building being constructed. As a fellow Murch parent - I don't really see any good solution to this. I've been against swinging in space mainly because it will take longer and I'd like to get it done as soon as possible. And Lafayette would be a crazy amount of kids in one block. That said, the real problem is that DGS has continually failed to deal with the real issues or come up with workable solutions. They just assumed we could swing in space and didn't think over all the details. Not that it couldn't work but they haven't talked to NPS to see if they could use the land across the street...etc.