Anonymous wrote:I think we have to stop trying to help the PP understand Murch boundaries and head count. Nothing will help PP understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?

Um.....again you clearly didn't follow the process. That proposal DID NOT REDUCE the headcount at Much. Is there another way to state it to help you?

Exactly. Because some southern Murch parents FOUGHT the headcount reduction. I sat with them at some of the "listening sessions." You think DME thought it was a wonderful idea to keep all those Murch kids in trailers when there was plenty of classroom space just a few blocks away? If these parents had not made a fuss or even, god forbid, requested to be moved to Hearst, everyone would have won. But that did not happen, so here we are.

Hypothetical: Let's assume the boundary change was Chesapeake Street instead of Albemarle. Done, passed, put through, in effect now. This is what you wanted. How many students would be in Murch's building today? Answer: still 620. How many would Murch be projecting for swing space? Answer: Exact same number as they are projecting now. In other words, the point you are arguing has no impact whatsoever on the renovation or swing space. None. And it was never meant to.

Logical next question: What difference is the final boundary change expected to have then? It is expected to offset the rampant future enrollment growth within the remaining boundary in hopes of keeping the student body below 800. Murch pushed back on that number and after the feasibility study DCPS dropped it to 700 (though I hear they creeped it back up to 730 without public comment). And because the boundary change was meant to manage future growth, they built in a review of the boundary for some time after the construction dust settles and enrollment patterns stabilize again. Then they will know whether or not the large cuts to the north (which, by the way, were not in the original proposal) and the cuts to the south were sufficient. But none of it was ever intended or designed to reduce the size of Murch. DCPS intended for Murch to grow to 800, but that is not physically possible on the Murch lot, so now 730. (And the families from Chesapeake to Albemarle were fighting to be a part of the 730 count).

The families from Cumberland to Albermarle should have been moved to Hearst starting last school year. That's right, the kids should have been transferred immediately. SHOCK: other schools systems like Fairfax do this. The kids will survive and see their old friends again at Deal. Believe it or not DCPS also has a responsibility to the taxpayers of DC, many of which do not have children, to keep costs under control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?

Um.....again you clearly didn't follow the process. That proposal DID NOT REDUCE the headcount at Much. Is there another way to state it to help you?

Exactly. Because some southern Murch parents FOUGHT the headcount reduction. I sat with them at some of the "listening sessions." You think DME thought it was a wonderful idea to keep all those Murch kids in trailers when there was plenty of classroom space just a few blocks away? If these parents had not made a fuss or even, god forbid, requested to be moved to Hearst, everyone would have won. But that did not happen, so here we are.

Hypothetical: Let's assume the boundary change was Chesapeake Street instead of Albemarle. Done, passed, put through, in effect now. This is what you wanted. How many students would be in Murch's building today? Answer: still 620. How many would Murch be projecting for swing space? Answer: Exact same number as they are projecting now. In other words, the point you are arguing has no impact whatsoever on the renovation or swing space. None. And it was never meant to.

Logical next question: What difference is the final boundary change expected to have then? It is expected to offset the rampant future enrollment growth within the remaining boundary in hopes of keeping the student body below 800. Murch pushed back on that number and after the feasibility study DCPS dropped it to 700 (though I hear they creeped it back up to 730 without public comment). And because the boundary change was meant to manage future growth, they built in a review of the boundary for some time after the construction dust settles and enrollment patterns stabilize again. Then they will know whether or not the large cuts to the north (which, by the way, were not in the original proposal) and the cuts to the south were sufficient. But none of it was ever intended or designed to reduce the size of Murch. DCPS intended for Murch to grow to 800, but that is not physically possible on the Murch lot, so now 730. (And the families from Chesapeake to Albemarle were fighting to be a part of the 730 count).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?

Um.....again you clearly didn't follow the process. That proposal DID NOT REDUCE the headcount at Much. Is there another way to state it to help you?

Exactly. Because some southern Murch parents FOUGHT the headcount reduction. I sat with them at some of the "listening sessions." You think DME thought it was a wonderful idea to keep all those Murch kids in trailers when there was plenty of classroom space just a few blocks away? If these parents had not made a fuss or even, god forbid, requested to be moved to Hearst, everyone would have won. But that did not happen, so here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone opposes moving to Lafayette. We have to drive from Brookland every day so anything that saves us some commuting time for two years is fine by me! DS will be going to Deal by the time Murch is all done so if he's got to be in a trailer classroom it may as well be in a spot that's still Murch but located a little more centrally in DC.

You'll rethink this when you are sitting in traffic for 45 minutes trying to drop your kid off.

Yup. Pretty myopic.

And selfish, honestly. My kids will be out of Murch soon, too, so if I looked at it as narrowly as you are, actually delaying reno would probably be best for my family. But obviously that would be a terrible decision for the broader Murch community, so it wouldn't occur to me to advocate for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: WaPo story. In any case, the reporter missed the underlying story, which is that this is about a turf war between DGS and DCPS. Did you notice how many times Kenny Diggs blamed DCPS for MAKING them consider Lafayette as an option at this late date? What most people may not realize is that while DGS is in charge of the Lafayette project, under the new administration, DCPS is now in charge of Murch and other modernizations going forward. These two agencies don't seem to be working that collaboratively and these schools are caught in the middle.

Similarly, Hearst has a brand-new building ready and waiting to be opened, but has been waiting months for the certificate of occupancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?

Um.....again you clearly didn't follow the process. That proposal DID NOT REDUCE the headcount at Much. Is there another way to state it to help you?

Exactly. Because some southern Murch parents FOUGHT the headcount reduction. I sat with them at some of the "listening sessions." You think DME thought it was a wonderful idea to keep all those Murch kids in trailers when there was plenty of classroom space just a few blocks away? If these parents had not made a fuss or even, god forbid, requested to be moved to Hearst, everyone would have won. But that did not happen, so here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?

Um.....again you clearly didn't follow the process. That proposal DID NOT REDUCE the headcount at Much. Is there another way to state it to help you?

Exactly. Because some southern Murch parents FOUGHT the headcount reduction. I sat with them at some of the "listening sessions." You think DME thought it was a wonderful idea to keep all those Murch kids in trailers when there was plenty of classroom space just a few blocks away? If these parents had not made a fuss or even, god forbid, requested to be moved to Hearst, everyone would have won. But that did not happen, so here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP's point about what we should be asking for is spot on. As a Lafayette parent I am not thrilled about the idea of having 1400 kids on that campus for two years - it strikes me as a safety disaster. As a neighborhood resident I'm even less thrilled about the loss of the park and all the traffic and safety concerns that go with this proposal. But honestly, nothing has been studied or evaluated or presented in a way that gives me any reassurance that anyone really understands the problems, pitfalls, costs of any of these options. I can't form an informed opinion without actual data and facts, and that's what I feel like I'm lacking here - both with the Lafayette proposal and with the other options. If Lafayette were really the ONLY viable option, or even the best viable option, I would be a lot more understanding about the situation than I am right now. But it doesn't seem like there has been any research or meaningful data to support that case.

Thank you for this. I think it is close to how many Murch families feel. I hope we will know soon whether Lafayette is the "ONLY viable option, or even the best viable option" but I think people need to recognize that it probably is on the table now because that is a real possibility.

Then there needs to be pressure to actually study ALL the proposed locations and bring that information to light. If there is no such research done about the other possibilities, it's pretty hard for Lafayette to not strenuously object. How can we push DGS/DCPS to actually do their homework?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP's point about what we should be asking for is spot on. As a Lafayette parent I am not thrilled about the idea of having 1400 kids on that campus for two years - it strikes me as a safety disaster. As a neighborhood resident I'm even less thrilled about the loss of the park and all the traffic and safety concerns that go with this proposal. But honestly, nothing has been studied or evaluated or presented in a way that gives me any reassurance that anyone really understands the problems, pitfalls, costs of any of these options. I can't form an informed opinion without actual data and facts, and that's what I feel like I'm lacking here - both with the Lafayette proposal and with the other options. If Lafayette were really the ONLY viable option, or even the best viable option, I would be a lot more understanding about the situation than I am right now. But it doesn't seem like there has been any research or meaningful data to support that case.

Thank you for this. I think it is close to how many Murch families feel. I hope we will know soon whether Lafayette is the "ONLY viable option, or even the best viable option" but I think people need to recognize that it probably is on the table now because that is a real possibility.

Anonymous wrote:I think PP's point about what we should be asking for is spot on. As a Lafayette parent I am not thrilled about the idea of having 1400 kids on that campus for two years - it strikes me as a safety disaster. As a neighborhood resident I'm even less thrilled about the loss of the park and all the traffic and safety concerns that go with this proposal. But honestly, nothing has been studied or evaluated or presented in a way that gives me any reassurance that anyone really understands the problems, pitfalls, costs of any of these options. I can't form an informed opinion without actual data and facts, and that's what I feel like I'm lacking here - both with the Lafayette proposal and with the other options. If Lafayette were really the ONLY viable option, or even the best viable option, I would be a lot more understanding about the situation than I am right now. But it doesn't seem like there has been any research or meaningful data to support that case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?

Um.....again you clearly didn't follow the process. That proposal DID NOT REDUCE the headcount at Much. Is there another way to state it to help you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If enough Janney and Murch had thought it through during the recent boundary revisions and accepted reassignment to Hearst, we would not be having this conversation. By now, they'd be happily settled in at a brand new 90%+ IB school. Janney classes would not be comically overcrowded and the Murch reno could have been smaller and not have required massive swing space. Murch probably could have stayed on site during construction. But these families didn't think it through. And now everyone is going to have to pay in time, money and aggravation. Karma is a strange thing. The Hearst renovation looks amazing BTW...

I don't know why I feel compelled to reply to these comments, but I do. Sigh.

The boundary revision proposals--neither the original one that sent more kids to Hearst, nor the final one that sent more kids to Lafayette--DID NOT reduce Murch's headcount.

There was no proposal to reduce Murch's headcount on the table. I don't know why people get such joy out of perpetuating this lie. Please be a human being, not a troll.

Not going to take the time to dig this up, but one of the earlier maps would have moved Murch's southern boundary much further north. But somehow that did not make it into the final product. Wonder why?