Mundo Verde/Mitchell Park Playground Controversy

[Anonymous]

I'd like some illumination as to what "direct benefits" the neighbors are entitled too. Complimentary dry cleaning pickup, or perhaps one day a month when their cars are detailed by the kindergardeners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like some neighbors have askd you to limit your use of the playground. What's your response?

In my opinion, the neighbors would like to tell 60 3-5 year-old children each day that they won't get to play or run around at all that day (assuming this cuts down the usage to half of the school throughout the day). To me, that is an unacceptable solution.

I agree with you 100%. But this should be a wake-up call for the school to reach out to the neighborhood to see how it can help the neighbors (since waiting for them to come to you has yeilded untenable results.

And I think it furthers the point that charter school neighbors are inconvenienced with zero direct benefits.

I fail to see how they, as DC residents, are not benefitting by the growing availability of decent public education in the city. Good educational opportunities mean families can stay and the city can become a vibrant place. Property values will rise, and there will be fewer undereducated people, thus decreasing unemployment and crime. . But, yes, it means there will be more children. Instead of trying to shoo away the children, they should help to make the city more welcoming to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like some neighbors have askd you to limit your use of the playground. What's your response?

As I understand, DPR has asked MV to limit the use of the playground to 25 kids at a time. If that is the case, that would mean one classroom at a time. My child was at AppleTree last year and they arranged the school-wide schedule so that each class (I believe there were 6) went to the playground at least one time at different times of the day. Right now, I believe MV is sending 2 classes at a time (approximately 40 kids) with some overlap with additional grades. If DPR insists, as a MV parent, I think the school should be able to accommodate their request and still make sure all of the classes get recess at the park. Each classroom does not have to be on the same schedule. I think this is the best solution instead of pissing off the neighbors, especially since the school is moving next year. IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion, the neighbors would like to tell 60 3-5 year-old children each day that they won't get to play or run around at all that day (assuming this cuts down the usage to half of the school throughout the day). To me, that is an unacceptable solution.

I'm certain that schools - including charter schools - are required to provide adequate play space for their children, just as DC public schools are. I'm a public school parent and know that, even though we're of course a neighborhood school, it is frowned upon to use the nearby, already heavily used public playground. Seems logical to me.

[Anonymous]

Can't speak to MV but my DC is at Bridges and on a day I visited recently, his class (<20 students, I think it is 16 or 18 students) went to the playground. They have a whiteboard right by the door where the teachers post if the class goes out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like some neighbors have askd you to limit your use of the playground. What's your response?

In my opinion, the neighbors would like to tell 60 3-5 year-old children each day that they won't get to play or run around at all that day (assuming this cuts down the usage to half of the school throughout the day). To me, that is an unacceptable solution.

I agree with you 100%. But this should be a wake-up call for the school to reach out to the neighborhood to see how it can help the neighbors (since waiting for them to come to you has yeilded untenable results.

And I think it furthers the point that charter school neighbors are inconvenienced with zero direct benefits.

Not an MV parent, but I have to disagree with this. Neighborhoods with no children (such as DuPont) can have an artificial character to them. Children - well-mannered and sweet and cute ones anyway - add a lot to a neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I think this is the best solution instead of pissing off the neighbors, especially since the school is moving next year. IMO

True. We need to accommodate people living in proximity to a playground, who might get "pissed off" because that playground is actually used. Next thing you know, they'll start allowing those pesky motorcars to drive down the confounded streets. Pish, I say!

[Anonymous]

I can see both sides of this issue. I'm a big supporter of charters and think MV is fantastic. However, I used to bring my kids to my neighborhood playground at Taylor & 8th St frequently, but eventually quit going in the morning because there were so many kids there from nearby preschools and daycares that my children were overwhelmed. I will say that Bridges seemed to manage their kids pretty well, but the staff of the other preschools/daycares were not engaged and attentive and it felt unsafe for my smaller children to be in such an overcrowded area. I've been to Mitchell Park numerous times and it is not that large. Accommodating 40 kids plus the kids (likely younger and smaller) from the neighborhood might pose some challenges. I could see how some parents and caregivers might feel pushed out. I wish charters had more money for better real estate!

[Anonymous]

The real issue is that DC needs more playgrounds.

[Anonymous]

It could be a safety issue. May the max # of kids the playground who can use the playground safely is 25. IF something were to happen to a child while on the playground would MV or DCPR be liable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It could be a safety issue. May the max # of kids the playground who can use the playground safely is 25. IF something were to happen to a child while on the playground would MV or DCPR be liable?

I was gonna' say that 25 children would comfortably fill that playground and I'd worry about an increased risk of accidents with 40. It seems like coordination and scheduling is all that's required to ease what sounds to me like DPR jitters about their liability. Maybe the two MV classes could walk together, one would be assigned to the grass area for a bit, and then they'd switch, no?

[Anonymous]

The real issue is that DC needs more playgrounds.

the actual issue is that charter schools and private preschools need to get their stuff together and select sites that come with private outdoor space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The real issue is that DC needs more playgrounds.

the actual issue is that charter schools and private preschools need to get their stuff together and select sites that come with private outdoor space.

See, I don't like that solution because it would push those schools out of dense, walkable, desirable urban neighborhoods... which is where an increasing number of young parents intend to stay. It is really very normal for schools in dense areas to make use of public recreational spaces. This is common in NYC, London, and probably many other "real cities" that are beyond my personal experience. It's also nice for little kids to interact with the neighborhood when they walk to the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The real issue is that DC needs more playgrounds.

the actual issue is that charter schools and private preschools need to get their stuff together and select sites that come with private outdoor space.

Your ignorance shows! The process of starting a charter school, finding available and appropriate space and funding is more complicated than getting "their stuff together". The successful charters in DC do have their act together! Finding appropriate space and serving kids in dense urban areas is not easy and I think MV is doing a good job.

[Anonymous]

Adding 150 young children to a small neighborhood playground has to affect others. There is a DPR preschool that is probably upset and their parents are paying tuition.