Anonymous
02/29/2016 13:45
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wait, do posters here really think that there will be boundary changes, just for Mutch, between now and June?
Just not happening.
Not to mention that probably the only people who are even thinking about it are posting on this board.
From the FAQ http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Tweaks%20FAQ%20%282%29.pdf
Q: Are any future modifications to the boundary process planned?
A: No. We do not expect any additional significant modifications to the boundary process.
I suspect you're right that Mayor Bowser won't make another last-minute "tweak" to the student assignment process to keep Murch within its capacity rating. It's much easier for her to make tweaks that allow for more students, not fewer.
I think PP's reference to boundary changes might have referred to the next planned boundary adjustments, not to Mayor Bowser's politics-driven tweaks.
Q: When will the next comprehensive boundary revision process occur?
A: The anticipated next comprehensive boundary review process is expected to occur in 2022, in coordination with the release of the next decennial Census.
Anonymous
02/29/2016 13:29
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wait, do posters here really think that there will be boundary changes, just for Mutch, between now and June?
Just not happening.
Not to mention that probably the only people who are even thinking about it are posting on this board.
From the FAQ http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Tweaks%20FAQ%20%282%29.pdf
Q: Are any future modifications to the boundary process planned?
A: No. We do not expect any additional significant modifications to the boundary process.
They're missing a FAQs on there:
Q: Are you able to plan farther than the end of your nose?
A: No because it's mostly driven by politics anyway, so our expectations don't mean much.
Anonymous
02/29/2016 13:18
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Wait, do posters here really think that there will be boundary changes, just for Mutch, between now and June?
Just not happening.
Not to mention that probably the only people who are even thinking about it are posting on this board.
From the FAQ http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Tweaks%20FAQ%20%282%29.pdf
Q: Are any future modifications to the boundary process planned?
A: No. We do not expect any additional significant modifications to the boundary process.
Anonymous
02/29/2016 13:02
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.
You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.
Where are those 150 kids going? And which kids?
You're not going to move the boundaries between now and August.
They don't exist yet. DCPS is insisting on building for a larger student body then the school has now; but won't get the funding needed to make that happen. This last minute redesign just highlights how ridiculous it is to try to increase the size of the student body on this lot. They can't do it. There aren't even enough classrooms in the reconfiguration.
Then DCPS will just bring back the trailers I suppose, which would be most unfortunate. This renovation needs to happen soon. The trailers (surrounded by chain link fence) are starting to resemble a low security prison camp. Depressing.
Anonymous
02/29/2016 10:25
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.
You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.
Where are those 150 kids going? And which kids?
You're not going to move the boundaries between now and August.
They don't exist yet. DCPS is insisting on building for a larger student body then the school has now; but won't get the funding needed to make that happen. This last minute redesign just highlights how ridiculous it is to try to increase the size of the student body on this lot. They can't do it. There aren't even enough classrooms in the reconfiguration.
Anonymous
02/29/2016 09:02
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Over time, Murch needs to attrit the 100 or so OOB student slots at the school, as they leave or "graduate." It's nonsensical to have OOB students when the school is so overcrowded.
I agree. Even with the new boundary changes that reduced the number of children within Murch's boundary, Murch could barely fit all its anticipated in-boundary students into the school. And to make matters worse, DCPS is projecting the in-boundary student population for Murch to increase by 43% by 2020. That's a crowded school. I'm not sure how much the renovation might increase the capacity when all the changes are done. But it's almost certain the only way all the in-boundary will even fit is if the OOB is reduced.
Current Murch building capacity = 488
Enrollment 2013-14 = 626
Number of grade-appropriate public school students in the revised boundary = 476
Expected in-bounds student population by 2020 (+43%) = 681
Anticipated capacity of renovated Murch = 700
OOB spaces available after renovations = 19 (depending on actual enrollment obviously)
Source for the numbers above: http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Murch%20ES.pdf
Anonymous
02/29/2016 09:02
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Over time, Murch needs to attrit the 100 or so OOB student slots at the school, as they leave or "graduate." It's nonsensical to have OOB students when the school is so overcrowded.
I agree. Even with the new boundary changes that reduced the number of children within Murch's boundary, Murch could barely fit all its anticipated in-boundary students into the school. And to make matters worse, DCPS is projecting the in-boundary student population for Murch to increase by 43% by 2020. That's a crowded school. I'm not sure how much the renovation might increase the capacity when all the changes are done. But it's almost certain the only way all the in-boundary will even fit is if the OOB is reduced.
Current Murch building capacity = 488
Enrollment 2013-14 = 626
Number of grade-appropriate public school students in the revised boundary = 476
Expected in-bounds student population by 2020 (+43%) = 681
Anticipated capacity of renovated Murch = 700
OOB spaces available after renovations = 19 (depending on actual enrollment obviously)
Anonymous
02/29/2016 08:47
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Wait, do posters here really think that there will be boundary changes, just for Mutch, between now and June?
Just not happening.
Just not happening.
Anonymous
02/29/2016 08:42
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Its not 700 kids into a cafeteria that's the problem. Its 700 kids into a footprint that's meant for 400. It's the boundaries that need to be changed, not the building plans.
I agree but too late for that. Gotta wait till next time and make it work in the meantime.
Not true. The Mayor could tweak the boundaries tomorrow. Others will tell you it is not possible, not a good idea, not fair, blah, blah, blah. But it is the truth.
Sure, Mayor Bowser could tweak the boundaries, but there's absolutely no way she will tweak them in a way that reduces Murch overcrowding. Her last tweak was when she extended by seven years the period when zoned-out students could continue to attend Deal and Wilson. Bowser seems intent on pushing more students into the NWDC schools, rather than making the politically unpopular choices necessary to reduce enrollment.
Anonymous
02/29/2016 07:40
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.
You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.
Where are those 150 kids going? And which kids?
You're not going to move the boundaries between now and August.
Over time, Murch needs to attrit the 100 or so OOB student slots at the school, as they leave or "graduate." It's nonsensical to have OOB students when the school is so overcrowded.
Anonymous
02/28/2016 22:07
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.
You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.
Where are those 150 kids going? And which kids?
You're not going to move the boundaries between now and August.
Anonymous
02/28/2016 22:04
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.
You move 150 kids and there is a real chance you can swing on site and save the DC tax payers millions of dollars and preserve open space. Is this not worth exploring, maybe just a little bit? Pretty please.
Anonymous
02/28/2016 21:57
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
It would be really obvious to take some pressure off of Murch, to move some kids. Maybe 100-150, but to argue that the student body size is irrelevant to the renovation issues at hand is not being honest about the challenges of the space on site.
Anonymous
02/28/2016 21:51
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Its not 700 kids into a cafeteria that's the problem. Its 700 kids into a footprint that's meant for 400. It's the boundaries that need to be changed, not the building plans.
I agree but too late for that. Gotta wait till next time and make it work in the meantime.
Not true. The Mayor could tweak the boundaries tomorrow. Others will tell you it is not possible, not a good idea, not fair, blah, blah, blah. But it is the truth.
Anonymous
02/28/2016 21:51
Subject: Murch- Getting screwed again?
+1 The solution is obvious people are missing it. If you wait 10 years until the next boundary revision, Murch will be unbearably overcrowded, yet again.Anonymous wrote:Its not 700 kids into a cafeteria that's the problem. Its 700 kids into a footprint that's meant for 400. It's the boundaries that need to be changed, not the building plans.