Anonymous wrote:Hearst has room for less than 300 kids. The lower grades are more than 60% IB. I understand that the new pre-k has higher IB numbers than this and is quickly losing the diversity that Hearst parents love so much. Murch and Janney have long IB waiting lists for pre-k all of these kids just don't fit into Hearst.

What I am hearing in this argument is that unless all Ward 3 schools become overwhelmingly white and accept no OOB children the area does not deserve remodeling or new schools. Seems like the exact opposite of the ideal urban school that families EOTP and WOTP want.

I also don't understand why current families advocate for boundary changes when what they are doing is obligating DCPS to tinker, something they do so poorly.

The round one proposal zoned families out of district that lived less than a block away from their elementary schools. How is that in any way sensible or sustainable?

My child is in a school that is considered overcrowded. I can tell you that I care about my neighborhood and community and would never ask a central office bureaucrat to kick my neighbors out of my school.

It is not accurate to say 'the lower grades are more than 60% IB. The incoming PK 4 lottery spots were awarded to ~60% IB , have to see where enrolled students shake out. Incoming K, 1 and 2 are 50% or less. There is plenty of room for Hearst to increase it's neighborhood participation to levels closer to the other neighborhood schools .

The round one proposal is off the table so why bring that up again?

Hearst has room for less than 300 kids. The lower grades are more than 60% IB. I understand that the new pre-k has higher IB numbers than this and is quickly losing the diversity that Hearst parents love so much. Murch and Janney have long IB waiting lists for pre-k all of these kids just don't fit into Hearst.

What I am hearing in this argument is that unless all Ward 3 schools become overwhelmingly white and accept no OOB children the area does not deserve remodeling or new schools. Seems like the exact opposite of the ideal urban school that families EOTP and WOTP want.

I also don't understand why current families advocate for boundary changes when what they are doing is obligating DCPS to tinker, something they do so poorly.

The round one proposal zoned families out of district that lived less than a block away from their elementary schools. How is that in any way sensible or sustainable?

My child is in a school that is considered overcrowded. I can tell you that I care about my neighborhood and community and would never ask a central office bureaucrat to kick my neighbors out of my school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

Thank you PP. Your comments reflect common sense and open-mindedness which sometimes seems in short supply in these boundary/school assignment conversations. Thank you.

Early childhood center generally means pre-K through 1 or 2 so most of it is compulsory. Community center use is worth a good discussion.

My feeling on this is same as PP and an prior post I wrote. I would not support DC putting a single $ into any new campus/facilities beyond the existing DCPS elementary schools in the neighborhood until all existing schools are more fully utilized by the neighborhood. In other words - until Hearst is equal IB % to Janney/Murch/Lafayette no way it makes sense to spend $ on a new/repurposed facility. Does not make sense for the neighborhood nor does it make sense when you consider the DCPS system as a whole where frankly there are much greater needs in other wards than in Ward 3.

We are already there. There are more IB students starting K than can be handled with the current per grade capacity of these schools combined.

Except that we are not there. The IB % ages at Hearst are still significantly lower than at Murch and Janney. Until they are equally high / eg 90% ish there is no logical argument for $ spent on additional school buildings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

Thank you PP. Your comments reflect common sense and open-mindedness which sometimes seems in short supply in these boundary/school assignment conversations. Thank you.

Early childhood center generally means pre-K through 1 or 2 so most of it is compulsory. Community center use is worth a good discussion.

My feeling on this is same as PP and an prior post I wrote. I would not support DC putting a single $ into any new campus/facilities beyond the existing DCPS elementary schools in the neighborhood until all existing schools are more fully utilized by the neighborhood. In other words - until Hearst is equal IB % to Janney/Murch/Lafayette no way it makes sense to spend $ on a new/repurposed facility. Does not make sense for the neighborhood nor does it make sense when you consider the DCPS system as a whole where frankly there are much greater needs in other wards than in Ward 3.

We are already there. There are more IB students starting K than can be handled with the current per grade capacity of these schools combined.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This isn't how it works. It is not like the entire 5th grade is OOB and everyone else is IB, such that 4 classrooms will be empty when they graduate. The OOB population is spread across the whole school with only 0-2 OOB students per classroom. Expelling all of these great kids today would not open up a single physical classroom. The need for addition physical space is entirely driven by IB population.

Don't be silly. You don't "expel" OOB students but you let them work through the systems as the school stops taking more. If the school is over capacity, it needs to stop taking OOB students.

I know that -- I was using an extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point that even in the absence of OOB students (if they all disappeared tomorrow to be more extreme) there would be no reduction in the number of classrooms needed per grade at Murch. OOB students fill in the extra one or two seats created when the IB population pushes a grade to need another classroom. Overcrowding is caused by the need to add physical classrooms for IB students, not by filling the few extra seats in a classroom with OOB students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This isn't how it works. It is not like the entire 5th grade is OOB and everyone else is IB, such that 4 classrooms will be empty when they graduate. The OOB population is spread across the whole school with only 0-2 OOB students per classroom. Expelling all of these great kids today would not open up a single physical classroom. The need for addition physical space is entirely driven by IB population.

Don't be silly. You don't "expel" OOB students but you let them work through the systems as the school stops taking more. If the school is over capacity, it needs to stop taking OOB students.

So if you have too many kids for 3 k classes, but if you do 4 there will only 19 in two of the classes you just don't fill the classrooms to capacity? That seems kind of selfish if there are families that want those spots for their children. What exactly the benefit of this plan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

Thank you PP. Your comments reflect common sense and open-mindedness which sometimes seems in short supply in these boundary/school assignment conversations. Thank you.

Early childhood center generally means pre-K through 1 or 2 so most of it is compulsory. Community center use is worth a good discussion.

Early childhood centers are preschool, so, no. Not 1st and 2nd grade

This idea is a complete nonstarter, for so many reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

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

This isn't how it works. It is not like the entire 5th grade is OOB and everyone else is IB, such that 4 classrooms will be empty when they graduate. The OOB population is spread across the whole school with only 0-2 OOB students per classroom. Expelling all of these great kids today would not open up a single physical classroom. The need for addition physical space is entirely driven by IB population.

Don't be silly. You don't "expel" OOB students but you let them work through the systems as the school stops taking more. If the school is over capacity, it needs to stop taking OOB students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

Thank you PP. Your comments reflect common sense and open-mindedness which sometimes seems in short supply in these boundary/school assignment conversations. Thank you.

Early childhood center generally means pre-K through 1 or 2 so most of it is compulsory. Community center use is worth a good discussion.

My feeling on this is same as PP and an prior post I wrote. I would not support DC putting a single $ into any new campus/facilities beyond the existing DCPS elementary schools in the neighborhood until all existing schools are more fully utilized by the neighborhood. In other words - until Hearst is equal IB % to Janney/Murch/Lafayette no way it makes sense to spend $ on a new/repurposed facility. Does not make sense for the neighborhood nor does it make sense when you consider the DCPS system as a whole where frankly there are much greater needs in other wards than in Ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

Most of the city would kill to to to Hardy also, but hard(l)y anyone from west of Rock Creek Park wants to go there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

Thank you PP. Your comments reflect common sense and open-mindedness which sometimes seems in short supply in these boundary/school assignment conversations. Thank you.

Early childhood center generally means pre-K through 1 or 2 so most of it is compulsory. Community center use is worth a good discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

Thank you PP. Your comments reflect common sense and open-mindedness which sometimes seems in short supply in these boundary/school assignment conversations. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Except there are many of us who realize that we need to have our boundaries shrunken especially with our land constraints. At least - we'll always have a good playground

And yes - it would bite but it's not like Lafayette and Hearst aren't perfectly good options. Most of the city would kill to be able to go to Hearst. It's been renovated. If a sizable portion of Murch goes there - that will help the IB situation. There is more diversity which can be actually be a good thing.

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

This isn't how it works. It is not like the entire 5th grade is OOB and everyone else is IB, such that 4 classrooms will be empty when they graduate. The OOB population is spread across the whole school with only 0-2 OOB students per classroom. Expelling all of these great kids today would not open up a single physical classroom. The need for addition physical space is entirely driven by IB population.

Anonymous wrote:

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).

There is nothing wrong with brainstorming ideas. It is OK for you to not like them, but no one suggested any entitlement here.

Discussions between DGS and NPS are in progress regarding building and egress restrictions for the NPS land already swapped with DC, which Murch has been using since the school opened. There are two odd points about that long-ago swap that are causing feasibility issues for the renovation on Murch's current lot -- no one is talking about a grant of new park land currently being used by the nation's public. I won't criticize you for being uninformed about this because it is hard to find this information if you are not at Murch or involved in these issues. The issue about school size depends on whether or not DC and NPS can resolve those issues. Reasonable people are having reasonable discussions about it.

As for the community center, first, the comment was that dual purpose facilities are not unprecedented. This is true. Second: "The Chevy Chase School, located on land now occupied by the Chevy Chase Community Center and the Chevy Chase Library, on Connecticut Avenue between McKinley and Northampton Streets, was renamed for Elizabeth Virginia Brown in 1915." .... "The number of students continued to increase and portable buildings were erected: one in 1921, one in 1925, one in 1926, five in 1928, and one in 1929. To ease the pressure of overcrowding, in 1928
attendance was restricted to D.C. residents. The Chevy Chase Citizens Association asked Congress to build more schools. By 1929 portable buildings covered the entire playground: there were 300 children in portable buildings and 960 in the school’s 16 rooms, which had a capacity of 640, forty to a classroom. Portable buildings were also constructed in 1928 at Connecticut Avenue and Grant Road, now the site of the Murch School. In the same year, two portable buildings were built at Northampton Street and Broad Branch Road, now the site of the Lafayette Elementary School. As a last resort, schools were placed on half-day sessions to accommodate the large number of students." .... "Enrollment at the E.V. Brown school decreased rapidly after the new schools opened. The school was closed in 1942, and the building was used by the Office of Price Administration during World War II. After the war, the citizens succeeded in obtaining the building for a community center and the Chevy Chase Branch Library. In 1968 the building was torn down and replaced by the present library building and adjoining community center." http://www.chevychasecitizens.org/100YearHistory/ccca_history.pdf

So today's parents, faced with similar crowding issues, are looking for solutions -- there is no sense of entitlement, just a lot of discussion and creative problem-solving through proper channels. I don't see how that is offensive.