WaPo Editorial today on DCPS/charter collaboration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. In the middle of the city in particular, it's probably not the worst idea to hang onto well-located DCPS buildings for their use in the near-ish future as re-envisioned DCPS middle schools.

Your 3 year olds are going to be in middle and high school, you know this, right? And they can't all go to Deal.

1. I don't have a 3 year old.

2. I'm not zoned for Deal.

[Anonymous]

DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1000. My kids have been in charters since PK3 and are now entering 6th and 9th grade.

They are getting good academic educations but have yet to attend a school with a gym or a cafeteria, not to mention decent play space. Meanwhile DCPS is building Taj Mahal buildings (Roosevelt HS) and letting plenty of other spaces sit empty. It's maddening.

We drive by Shaw Middle every day. Why is that school sitting empty - I know plenty of charter schools that would jump on the chance to make that a quality school.

Or how about any of the other school/city buildings just sitting empty.

Shaw Middle was a potential site for City Center Middle School. So charters and DCPS schools are equally getting the shaft. As a parent of a DCPS elementary student, I was hoping that it would go toward a DCPS middle school, but if not, something ought to be done with that building. Charter or whatever. It is an eye sore.

It's depressing to see Shaw Middle school. It's been boarded up for years at this point. Probably will go to a luxury condo developer if Muriel can get it past all the protests.

Look at all the Taj Mahal schools being built or already built at 1/2 capacity like Dunbar.

And Walker Jones If you build it...they still wont come

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it is depressing that DCPS buildings sit empty (and rotting) when they could be put to other purpose. If not for charters, then for something else. See this 2012 thread on the empty Shaw middle school building in a prime area of the city. It's nearing the end of 2015 and it's still empty with no plans for it.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/231105.page

We have to finish paying for Ellington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it is depressing that DCPS buildings sit empty (and rotting) when they could be put to other purpose. If not for charters, then for something else. See this 2012 thread on the empty Shaw middle school building in a prime area of the city. It's nearing the end of 2015 and it's still empty with no plans for it.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/231105.page

We have to finish paying for Ellington.

That school operates more like a charter in terms of independence, but with an oversized share of DCPS budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

[Anonymous]

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

No. The whole point of charters is not to have a gladiatorial death match, competing with local schools for students. The point of charters SHOULD BE to provide alternative methods of learning, because not every child thrives in the same environment. Another point of charters SHOULD be to bring communities together, by drawing students from all over the city. Those are positive goals. COMPETITION FOR FUNDING is bullshit. And not the point of education.

Now, granted, I've been known to rant myself on how DCPS seems to like lighting money on fire to build underground parking garages, but charters are no better in those circumstances. It's amazing how well-appointed so many of them are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

No. The whole point of charters is not to have a gladiatorial death match, competing with local schools for students. The point of charters SHOULD BE to provide alternative methods of learning, because not every child thrives in the same environment. Another point of charters SHOULD be to bring communities together, by drawing students from all over the city. Those are positive goals. COMPETITION FOR FUNDING is bullshit. And not the point of education.

Now, granted, I've been known to rant myself on how DCPS seems to like lighting money on fire to build underground parking garages, but charters are no better in those circumstances. It's amazing how well-appointed so many of them are.

Please tell us which charters are so well-appointed. I have never been in a charter that has anything like any of the newly built or rehabbed DCPS buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

I think at the boundary review process, we were looking at projected DCPS growth - not charters. So charter schools will need to look for new buildings too. Why is that DCPS problem?

[Anonymous]

I've never seen a DC school of any kind that didn't have brand-new everything. Coming from a different city, it's a real shock how nice everything is. Now, many of those school lack actual, practical resources. Some even lack playgrounds. But the physical facilities are immaculate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

As a charter school parent who has lived in the city for 20+ years I really resent the term "give away" that keeps getting used.

Charter and DCPS are both DC children and both pay taxes. The buildings are for our kids - ALL of our kids. My children are already in a school with a permanent location, but I will still work for those school who need a home. Not sure why others won't do the same. All kids should have a safe school and a permanent location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

If trends continue, 40-50% of that projected growth - will want to attend charter schools.

No one is askign DCPS to 'give away' the buildings - most that ever happens are 10-20 year leases.

I think at the boundary review process, we were looking at projected DCPS growth - not charters. So charter schools will need to look for new buildings too. Why is that DCPS problem?

Ew. So what you are saying is you don't care about educating all kids. You just care about educating kids as long as they choose DCPS?

You are just gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen a DC school of any kind that didn't have brand-new everything. Coming from a different city, it's a real shock how nice everything is. Now, many of those school lack actual, practical resources. Some even lack playgrounds. But the physical facilities are immaculate.

Leave Ward 3 please. Have you seen Garrison? Have you seen any of the schools in Ward 7 or 8?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whole point of charters is that they are forced to compete for students (and thus funding) and that this competitive pressure is what drives the charters to perform.

No. The whole point of charters is not to have a gladiatorial death match, competing with local schools for students. The point of charters SHOULD BE to provide alternative methods of learning, because not every child thrives in the same environment. Another point of charters SHOULD be to bring communities together, by drawing students from all over the city. Those are positive goals. COMPETITION FOR FUNDING is bullshit. And not the point of education.

Now, granted, I've been known to rant myself on how DCPS seems to like lighting money on fire to build underground parking garages, but charters are no better in those circumstances. It's amazing how well-appointed so many of them are.

Please tell us which charters are so well-appointed. I have never been in a charter that has anything like any of the newly built or rehabbed DCPS buildings.

Yu Ying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS has a responsibility to build for future enrollment. So yeah, some buildings are not at capacity now, but will be in the future. Just look at population projections for the next 5-10 years.

DCPCS doesn't have that same responsibility. They can accept what they have space for and don't have to take anyone else.

If DCPS gives away a bunch of their buildings, then where are they going to build into? As far as I can tell, no charter wants a 5 year lease on a run down building.

As a charter school parent who has lived in the city for 20+ years I really resent the term "give away" that keeps getting used.

Charter and DCPS are both DC children and both pay taxes. The buildings are for our kids - ALL of our kids. My children are already in a school with a permanent location, but I will still work for those school who need a home. Not sure why others won't do the same. All kids should have a safe school and a permanent location.

It is a give away. Under DCPS, they're owned by the government (public), and we can put political pressure (haha, ok - some) to get the city to do the right thing. When one is given to a charter school, it is no longer under public control - it belongs to an autonomous private company. I don't expect that a school given away will ever be given back.

I think there could be some interesting opportunities to use DCPS buildings in collaboration with charter schools. But then DCPCS would have to collaborate, so that probably won't happen.