Breakthrough Location

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the original charter , but if they were approved based on serving a economically disadvantaged population -- why aren't they relocating to Wards 7 or 8. High SES parents have the resources to commute. Nothing wrong with them being the public Montessori for the wealthy. There's always Lee and Shining Stars. Maybe one or both will expand and have locations in 7 or 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the original charter , but if they were approved based on serving a economically disadvantaged population -- why aren't they relocating to Wards 7 or 8. High SES parents have the resources to commute. Nothing wrong with them being the public Montessori for the wealthy. There's always Lee and Shining Stars. Maybe one or both will expand and have locations in 7 or 8.

Their original charter stated Ward 1, not 7/8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the original charter , but if they were approved based on serving a economically disadvantaged population -- why aren't they relocating to Wards 7 or 8. High SES parents have the resources to commute. Nothing wrong with them being the public Montessori for the wealthy. There's always Lee and Shining Stars. Maybe one or both will expand and have locations in 7 or 8.

That's the $5M question. Other schools have opened facilities in Wards 7 and 8 in last 2 years (Rocketship comes to mind).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the original charter , but if they were approved based on serving a economically disadvantaged population -- why aren't they relocating to Wards 7 or 8. High SES parents have the resources to commute. Nothing wrong with them being the public Montessori for the wealthy. There's always Lee and Shining Stars. Maybe one or both will expand and have locations in 7 or 8.

Their original charter stated Ward 1, not 7/8.

The one on the DCPCSB site is redacted post-approval and location finding. Let me find the original. I have it somewhere.

[Anonymous]

For those claiming it's hard to find spaces that are affordable and already configured for a school, so property values are less in Petworth than lets say Deanwood or Anacoatia? Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the original charter , but if they were approved based on serving a economically disadvantaged population -- why aren't they relocating to Wards 7 or 8. High SES parents have the resources to commute. Nothing wrong with them being the public Montessori for the wealthy. There's always Lee and Shining Stars. Maybe one or both will expand and have locations in 7 or 8.

That's the $5M question. Other schools have opened facilities in Wards 7 and 8 in last 2 years (Rocketship comes to mind).

You people are so infuriating. You assume that just because a charter ends up in a certain location, that's the ONLY location they looked at. Seriously? In any case, I happen to know for a fact that they DID try to go to Ward 7 and were actively looking at a site there. For whatever reason it fell through. It's hard in the city to find space for a school. Then you do and the landlord wants too much money, or the building needs too much work. It happens. Ask any of the other charters that have looked for years for a good space and inevitably ended up in Brookland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the original charter , but if they were approved based on serving a economically disadvantaged population -- why aren't they relocating to Wards 7 or 8. High SES parents have the resources to commute. Nothing wrong with them being the public Montessori for the wealthy. There's always Lee and Shining Stars. Maybe one or both will expand and have locations in 7 or 8.

Their original charter stated Ward 1, not 7/8.

To me, this is always something to look at with a critical eye with regard to charter approval. Because the track record has been to talk about Ward 1 and its needs, then suddenly discover right away or after a short time in incubator space on 16th Street that Ward 1 is dense, built-up, and large buildings are expensive, hence a space 2 miles north among the Ward 4 or Ward 5 rowhouses was what the poor students of Ward 1 needed.

I think they are also able to move up that corridor by citing the number of Spanish-speakers up in Ward 4 and 5, but I just want to see these schools actually held to their "demographic service" promises, when instead they just keep turning into vehicles for those-who-don't-want-to-tell-their-neighbors-why-they-won't-go-to-the-local-DCPS-by-the-way-gotta-walk-the-dog-bye...

[Anonymous]

Who are the he charters that inevitably landed in Broomland. Is that a bad location/neighborhood? Or am I missing something. New to DC

[Anonymous]

Typos. Apologies. Brookland not Broomland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the original charter , but if they were approved based on serving a economically disadvantaged population -- why aren't they relocating to Wards 7 or 8. High SES parents have the resources to commute. Nothing wrong with them being the public Montessori for the wealthy. There's always Lee and Shining Stars. Maybe one or both will expand and have locations in 7 or 8.

That's the $5M question. Other schools have opened facilities in Wards 7 and 8 in last 2 years (Rocketship comes to mind).

You people are so infuriating. You assume that just because a charter ends up in a certain location, that's the ONLY location they looked at. Seriously? In any case, I happen to know for a fact that they DID try to go to Ward 7 and were actively looking at a site there. For whatever reason it fell through. It's hard in the city to find space for a school. Then you do and the landlord wants too much money, or the building needs too much work. It happens. Ask any of the other charters that have looked for years for a good space and inevitably ended up in Brookland.

I think they looked at that building on East Capitol EOTR very close to MD? Maya Angelou maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are the he charters that inevitably landed in Broomland. Is that a bad location/neighborhood? Or am I missing something. New to DC

Not at all a bad location; not sure why that poster mentioned that as that helped the "other" here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very shocked that this Montessori School that claims that it wants to serve underserved children is still locating in gentrification central.

Very shocked.
(not shocked at all)

Shut up.

Does it hurt when someone points out your hypocrisy?

Not the PP, but it's incredibly irritating when people chime in with sarcasm on a known issue for DC schools. It's hard to find spaces that are affordable and already configured for a school. This is hardly the first school to be located in this location. Hell, it's not even the first Montessori school to be interested in being located in that area. There are plenty of under-served children in and near Ward 4. A large number of charters end up in Wards 4 and 5 specifically because spaces exist in those areas that can accommodate them. I was not terribly surprised when I learned that that's where they were locating initially. I am even less surprised that they're staying put for another year while they try to find another location.

In any case, your snark isn't funny or helpful.

Exactly. And if the school was located EOTR, there wouldn't be a lot of higher SES kids enrolling and the school would have much lower SES diversity, which benefits the underserved children.

[Anonymous]

In the school's defense, they completely revamped their recruitment this year to try and increase their underserved populations. It was a big focus on their recruitment for this year's lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the school's defense, they completely revamped their recruitment this year to try and increase their underserved populations. It was a big focus on their recruitment for this year's lottery.

Are they still eliminating free/low cost aftercare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the school's defense, they completely revamped their recruitment this year to try and increase their underserved populations. It was a big focus on their recruitment for this year's lottery.

Are they still eliminating free/low cost aftercare?

It's hard to fund that, PP. There are always trade offs.