Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

The proposal isn't going through because it makes no sense. The proposal has a section go from Murch to Hearst while an area that is the exact same size moves from Hearst to Murch. Nonsensical boundaries DC style.

Oh no. Not you again. Still haven't figured out "population density" of those blocks?

The DCPS numbers demonstrate that the school age population is the same for both areas.

Completely untrue.

Indeed. Absolutely no one in the "Murch to Hearst" area goes to public school (DCPS or charter). Of course, given that it really doesn't matter which boundary it is in.

Yes, I will have zero sympathy for Murch parents complaining about overcrowding given how irrationally they fought sensible boundary changes. I do hope they have a great renovation though. Wouldn't wish the fight one has to have with this city to get a renovation on anyone.

Anonymous wrote:As long as there is capacity at Hearst, DCPS should not be spending money to super-size Murch to cope with a (temporary) enrollment spike. I don't care if they have to put the school in a dogleg in its own boundary.

Murch can't be super sized regardless due to land constraints. It does a great job with a completely crumbling facility now. Most current Murch are happy to add more trailers and carry on rather than deal with a renovation.

As long as there is capacity at Hearst, DCPS should not be spending money to super-size Murch to cope with a (temporary) enrollment spike. I don't care if they have to put the school in a dogleg in its own boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

The proposal isn't going through because it makes no sense. The proposal has a section go from Murch to Hearst while an area that is the exact same size moves from Hearst to Murch. Nonsensical boundaries DC style.

Oh no. Not you again. Still haven't figured out "population density" of those blocks?

Ha, ha. This poster is like a broken cuckoo clock that won't stop chiming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

The proposal isn't going through because it makes no sense. The proposal has a section go from Murch to Hearst while an area that is the exact same size moves from Hearst to Murch. Nonsensical boundaries DC style.

Oh no. Not you again. Still haven't figured out "population density" of those blocks?

The DCPS numbers demonstrate that the school age population is the same for both areas.

Completely untrue.

The new pre-k is an autism classroom that I am assuming will have to take kids city-wide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there a substantial number of OOB students still at Murch? If there are, why are they changing the boundaries? Just let the OOB students graduate, don't take any more (or a lot fewer) OOB students going forward, and see if capacity is sufficient for the IB population. Only if it isn't (and is projected not to be over a sustained period) should DCPS fool around with the boundaries.

+1

Weren't there three or four PreK classes this past year? At least I know they added a PreK class to accommodate more IB kids. Looking at that, without exact numbers, it would seem the IB population is high and maybe in the upper grades there is still a smattering of OOB families. Tinkering with the borders makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst has 300 kids, right? How many after the construction and how many are at Murch?

287 kids at Hearst this year. Construction capacity set at 325 +/-. Murch enrollment this year (per DCPS site) is 626.

Murch is also going to get hit by The HUGE new apartment building at Conn and Military. Those will all feed to Murch.

The proposal isn't going through because it makes no sense. The proposal has a section go from Murch to Hearst while an area that is the exact same size moves from Hearst to Murch. Nonsensical boundaries DC style.

Oh no. Not you again. Still haven't figured out "population density" of those blocks?

The DCPS numbers demonstrate that the school age population is the same for both areas.

Anonymous wrote:The parking lot will be replaced by more trailers next month. That part will be built on for sure, but it won't be enough. All building (and parking) options are being explored. The amount of extra square footage needed by code for 700-800 elementary students is pretty staggering.

The CCCC is a good idea - it was a DCPS school before it became the community center. And DCPS has several schools that dual function as community centers (like Stoddert).

btw- the CBA language on parking is "if possible," with agreement to "explore other options." But teacher parking is important.

The entitlement of and misinformation offered by Murch parents (also, Janney) is always vaguely amusing, yet a touch offensive.

The national park service isn't going to give you national park land -- held in trust for all Americans, per federal law -- for your dream school. And, the greater CCDC community isn't going to hand over its heavily used community center for a stand alone center to (non-compulsory) early childhood education. CM Cheh can't make this one go through the hurdles it would face.

The CC community center, built in the 1960's - 1970, was never a dcps school. An early 1900s school at Chevy chase circle was demolished at some point prior, though. There are zero community centers in nwdc that were taken away from broader community use and turned into schools. Sometimes the two types of buildings coexist on the same piece of city-owned land (stoddert; Hearst rec center / former hardy MS).

Anonymous wrote:Are there a substantial number of OOB students still at Murch? If there are, why are they changing the boundaries? Just let the OOB students graduate, don't take any more (or a lot fewer) OOB students going forward, and see if capacity is sufficient for the IB population. Only if it isn't (and is projected not to be over a sustained period) should DCPS fool around with the boundaries.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want this to go through in two years or sooner, vote for Bowser. If you think changes like this shouldn't be rushed, vote to Catania.

So if I want DCPS to do the logical thing I should vote for Bowser?

Bowser at first was supportive of DME' far-reaching proposal. Then she heard how outraged DCPS parents were, and she's muddled her statements. She strikes me as someone who's inclination is to back up the bureaucracy.

Are there a substantial number of OOB students still at Murch? If there are, why are they changing the boundaries? Just let the OOB students graduate, don't take any more (or a lot fewer) OOB students going forward, and see if capacity is sufficient for the IB population. Only if it isn't (and is projected not to be over a sustained period) should DCPS fool around with the boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:As a DC taxpayer I would be quite upset if city money were spent on an underground parking lot at Murch, without reasonable changes to make the boundary smaller.

No proposal I have seen has included underground parking for teachers. They won't have it next year when the lot is filled with trailers. Have you heard the outrage about lack of parking for teachers? Nope.

As a DC taxpayer I would be quite upset if city money were spent on an underground parking lot at Murch, without reasonable changes to make the boundary smaller.