Bridges Families - What have you been told about the new Taylor Street location next door?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused about about Bridges at Sharpe because I distinctly remember reading on DCUM that people were visiting the Sharpe campus for open houses at Bridges back in January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe the point is that these actors wouldn't be in the position of fighting over scraps if DCPS would actually hand over the 20+ sides of beef it has in the meat locker, quietly developing frostbite

Right - so I guess this removes responsibility from anyone behaving less than appropriately? I don't think so. Hey "the lack of facilities made me do it". People still have the ability and fortitude to behave responsibly in a less than optimal environment right?

What current DCPS buildings are vacant? The ones in my neighborhood (Ward 4) are all housed by Charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused about about Bridges at Sharpe because I distinctly remember reading on DCUM that people were visiting the Sharpe campus for open houses at Bridges back in January.

Sharpe is a sticky situation. Currently, the upper grades of Bridges are housed in Sharpe. Bridges would like to take over the entire school, but Sharpe doesn’t want to move to its future new location. I also attended a meeting where “DCPS” may have plans for Roosevelt to use the Sharpe space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to chime in that SSMA is definitely bringing this up to the PSCB and asking that a policy be put into place to prevent this from happening again.

It sucks that it happened and the administration wants to make sure it doesn't happen to another school (bc honestly, the situation isn't going to get much better). From the meeting last night, the school wasn't interested in 'punishing' Bridges or going after the landlord, they just want to make sure no other school has to deal with something similar going forward.

Thank you for mentioning this really important point. The director was asked at one point if she's gone to the press or sought political avenues to try and reconcile the situation, but her response was no, that her priority was to find a new space which is in the best interest of the school. The deal between bridges and the landlord is signed and I doubt the (Atlanta-based) landlord cares too much about the implications of pitting two DC charters against each other.

The accusations that SSMA did something similar to Sela are completely inaccurate. There may have been early discussions, but no formal negotiation began on the property as it was never a desired location among the families.

SS had a signed LOI with Sela. When Ayize left and SS got a new ED, they fired their previous broker and hired the new one who found (and lost) the Taylor St. building. SS had made several site visits and was in formal lease negotiations, aka "dating" to quote SS.

What? Where on earth are you getting your info?

We had never even heard Sela was an option until after Ayize left. He was going after a location that Howard owns. SSMA definitely made site visits, they visited several sites. Sela was on the final 5 list, as was a co-location by Gallaudet, the Howard location, St Sophia's on Wisconsin and the Taylor St. building.

And I completely agree with PP at 14:34, why the automatic assumption that it's all SSMA's fault? They have issues, but I really don't understand the total contempt shown by a few posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, there are actual actors here who made decisions that caused this to happen. Are we really to believe that DCPS held a gun to these people's heads by not releasing other properties? They were fighting over buildings already in the mix. Can't these actors be held responsible for their actions without blaming DCPS. It's really far-fetched.

I believe the point is that these actors wouldn't be in the position of fighting over scraps if DCPS would actually hand over the 20+ sides of beef it has in the meat locker, quietly developing frostbite.

I love how charter boosters are free market ... until they arent. You chose to add competition to the equation. Now ypu have to live with it, not demand that more public assets be handed over to you preferentially!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

Speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, Langley is not supported by the neighborhood. If Langley had a great team, then its scores wouldn't be below the (already lowest in the nation) DC average. Harmony's are above the Texas average, which is far above DC's. They have a 100% college acceptance rate. If that's the kind of background you call odd, then DC needs to get a lot more odd.

And speaking as someone who also lives in the neighborhood (and has almost certainly lived there significantly longer than you have), I can tell you that Langley is MUCH more supported (even by those who don't send their kids there, like me) than Harmony whose stated goal has been to "become" the neighborhood school. If you were aware of the neighborhood schooling options you'd also realize that Langley's statistics are for Langley Education Campus which no longer exists. Langley ES has only been in existence for one year, with a brand new team and an excellent Principal and you will certainly see changes when this year's results are published. Sure, it will take a little while, but I have to ask - have you actually toured the school? Met the principal? Spoken to parents? Thought not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, there are actual actors here who made decisions that caused this to happen. Are we really to believe that DCPS held a gun to these people's heads by not releasing other properties? They were fighting over buildings already in the mix. Can't these actors be held responsible for their actions without blaming DCPS. It's really far-fetched.

I believe the point is that these actors wouldn't be in the position of fighting over scraps if DCPS would actually hand over the 20+ sides of beef it has in the meat locker, quietly developing frostbite.

I love how charter boosters are free market ... until they arent. You chose to add competition to the equation. Now ypu have to live with it, not demand that more public assets be handed over to you preferentially!!

Except that it's the law that A) all students receive the same funding (which doesn't occur when DCPS has free buildings) and B) charters are supposed to get the empty buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

Bridges has always had PS3 classes. It originally opened as just PS3/PK4. Now it's growing up to 5th grade and the oldest class is the rising 2nd grade. So, yes these are students they're already serving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

Speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, Langley is not supported by the neighborhood. If Langley had a great team, then its scores wouldn't be below the (already lowest in the nation) DC average. Harmony's are above the Texas average, which is far above DC's. They have a 100% college acceptance rate. If that's the kind of background you call odd, then DC needs to get a lot more odd.

And speaking as someone who also lives in the neighborhood (and has almost certainly lived there significantly longer than you have), I can tell you that Langley is MUCH more supported (even by those who don't send their kids there, like me) than Harmony whose stated goal has been to "become" the neighborhood school. If you were aware of the neighborhood schooling options you'd also realize that Langley's statistics are for Langley Education Campus which no longer exists. Langley ES has only been in existence for one year, with a brand new team and an excellent Principal and you will certainly see changes when this year's results are published. Sure, it will take a little while, but I have to ask - have you actually toured the school? Met the principal? Spoken to parents? Thought not.

No, most families in the neighborhood are more interested in Seaton than in Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

Speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, Langley is not supported by the neighborhood. If Langley had a great team, then its scores wouldn't be below the (already lowest in the nation) DC average. Harmony's are above the Texas average, which is far above DC's. They have a 100% college acceptance rate. If that's the kind of background you call odd, then DC needs to get a lot more odd.

And speaking as someone who also lives in the neighborhood (and has almost certainly lived there significantly longer than you have), I can tell you that Langley is MUCH more supported (even by those who don't send their kids there, like me) than Harmony whose stated goal has been to "become" the neighborhood school. If you were aware of the neighborhood schooling options you'd also realize that Langley's statistics are for Langley Education Campus which no longer exists. Langley ES has only been in existence for one year, with a brand new team and an excellent Principal and you will certainly see changes when this year's results are published. Sure, it will take a little while, but I have to ask - have you actually toured the school? Met the principal? Spoken to parents? Thought not.

No, most families in the neighborhood are more interested in Seaton than in Langley.

The interest in Seaton in Bloomingdale is VERY recent so your concept of "most families" is myopic. You just proved my point that you haven't been living here long. Even earlier this year when it looked as if Bloomingdale was going to become out of boundary for Langley there were a lot of concerned neighbors who lobbied hard for that not to be the case. They were successful and current plans indicate that Bloomingdale will stay inbound for Langley and no longer be in bound for Seaton. While I know several people who are sending their kids to Seaton this year, this is the very first time that I've heard anyone in the neighborhood mention it, yet Langley has been on the collective radar screen for years and I know many families that have sent or considered sending their kids to Langley since it was created (as an education campus, formerly Emery) about 4 years ago. This is completely off topic, but it pisses me off when people come in and trash neighborhood schools that they know nothing about, especially when they are doing good things. They DO have a great team - and one that is heavily supported by DCPS and a principal who is regarded as a high flyer within DCPS - but it is a brand new team starting in 2013, so their work is not yet reflected in the stats which haven't even been released for the first year.

So, Langley may not be a popular school, but it has a lot more community support than Harmony which has just parachuted in and has created very little goodwill so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, there are actual actors here who made decisions that caused this to happen. Are we really to believe that DCPS held a gun to these people's heads by not releasing other properties? They were fighting over buildings already in the mix. Can't these actors be held responsible for their actions without blaming DCPS. It's really far-fetched.

I believe the point is that these actors wouldn't be in the position of fighting over scraps if DCPS would actually hand over the 20+ sides of beef it has in the meat locker, quietly developing frostbite.

I love how charter boosters are free market ... until they arent. You chose to add competition to the equation. Now ypu have to live with it, not demand that more public assets be handed over to you preferentially!!

Except that it's the law that A) all students receive the same funding (which doesn't occur when DCPS has free buildings) and B) charters are supposed to get the empty buildings.

If that is true then charters have even less claim to autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

Bridges has always had PS3 classes. It originally opened as just PS3/PK4. Now it's growing up to 5th grade and the oldest class is the rising 2nd grade. So, yes these are students they're already serving.

I'm aware that they've always had PS3. What I was told was that they were adding additional PS3 classes - in addition to the ones they already had. This was not from anyone at the school though - just a person with a 3 year old on the waitlist for Bridges with low numbers. Adding several classes of three year olds and needing to expand to accommodate them is not meeting the needs of current students. If they had been unable to obtain space, they would not be adding those classes and the children they already serve would attend class in their current space(s).

[Anonymous]

1) it is utterly irresponsible to place fault anywhere here. There are 4 sides to this story, Bridges', SS', owner's, and the truth.

As a real estate professional:
There is no such thing as "formal" negotiations, one does not pull a permit without having a signed agreement. Any real estate attorney or agent worth their suit would draft a contract with contingency clauses with capability to renegotiate (or walk away) pending final inspections, rehab estimates, ability to permit etc. It really is just an unfortunate situation. I understand the emotional instinct to place blame, but it's impossible to do so without having all the facts from all the parties.

-Non SS/Bridges parent but another charter parent that understands "the struggle"

[Anonymous]

Bridges parent here,

To answer the OP's question, I never heard about any of this until reading this thread. How does it make me feel?
I'm not swayed in either direction. I don't know if this is true or not. What I do know is that the school serves a lot of special needs students, my child included. I think that in the long run the good they do outweighs the bad.