DCPS Playground Use

[Anonymous]

If a school has a private aftercare vendor, that vendor pays to lease the space to run the program, so they do have a right to control who uses the playground and fields during their hours of operation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may depend on the school. We have been able to take our kids to Murch after school without any problem, but we were asked to leave Eaton.

I was just at Murch a couple of weeks ago to vote. I recall the sign on the fence said the playground was private property from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm for school and aftercare activities. But not sure how they would know if your kid was part of aftercare or not if you are just playing on the playground.

I'd like to think that the aftercare staff would be able to recognize a non-student.

Murch's playground is huge and overrun with non-aftercare kids all afternoon after school. Regardless of what the sign says, anyone with kids can go up there and play once school is out.

Murch is a little different because the two after-care programs are privately run and are officially housed in space they lease in a church across the street from the school. They do not have exclusive use of Murch's outdoor space during their program hours, though they do make use of it. There are lots of Murch kids who stay after school with parent/sitter supervision to play on the playground.

[Anonymous]

I now know another question to ask a future aftercare provider. Thanks, I would never want strange people coming in and out of the environment.

[Anonymous]

Bancroft's playground serves the students first in my opinion. Of course community involvement is integral; however, it seems that community use can be honored during other times. Seems fair.

[Anonymous]

I'm having trouble believing this is even a question. In order to even volunteer in a school, you have to be fingerprinted and have a background check. Aftercare programs cannot have a bunch of unknown adults wandering around among the kids.

[Anonymous]

One irrational policy done in the name of safety (fingerprinting volunteers) doesn't justify another one (banning 2 year olds from their neighborhood playground).

[Anonymous]

I suppose there's always the fear of lawsuits. I think that has really been a real detriment to playgrounds for years.

And also I guess keeping the playground open to the public means extra work for the custodians so you DC don't play midst cigarette butts and condoms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2. Why can't Bancroft allow children under the age of 6 ---who are accompanied by and supervised by an adult---come onto the playground to use the toddler playground (there are actually three separate playground areas at Bancroft---so it actually wouldn't be too difficult to cordon off one portion of the playground for neighborhood use). It's really the toddlers we're talking about here---elementary school age kids are usually off at activities or doing homework.

Until one of those 3 yo in aftercare from PS3, who has a right to be there, runs into your kid, and you scream about lack of supervision. Oh, what's that? You'll keep an eve on your kid, and make sure the other kids play nice? So a private citizen will act as an authority figure to kids in DCPS aftercare.

It simply can't be that you can't see the problems with this.

I get that it stinks, and I get that you were used to going to the playground. But at bottom, this is a school prohibiting outsiders from using school facilities at the same time it is responsible for kids using those facilities. That is unquestionably reasonable, and it's absurd that some other state of affairs has been allowed to continue for any length of time.

Yet another difference between schools like Mann and schools like Bancroft...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a school has a private aftercare vendor, that vendor pays to lease the space to run the program, so they do have a right to control who uses the playground and fields during their hours of operation.

Evidence? I highly doubt that private aftercare providers at DCPS schools lease the school playground.

[Anonymous]

I think that this policy is necessary for Bancroft. I have often seen many unsupervised kids there acting like fools. A lot of foul and sexual language. In the past year alone (on weekends and later in the evening) I have seen the police come and chase people off. Teenagers and young adults smoke in the playground often. A few times I had to step in and correct some unsavory behavior with some kids. They were very disrespectful.

I am not happy with that new policy because it limits when we can go but I think it had to be done. I think the issue now is how do we stop that behavior on the weekends. Sometimes I do worry about safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One irrational policy done in the name of safety (fingerprinting volunteers) doesn't justify another one (banning 2 year olds from their neighborhood playground).

It's not the neighborhood playground. It's a school playground. There is a difference, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One irrational policy done in the name of safety (fingerprinting volunteers) doesn't justify another one (banning 2 year olds from their neighborhood playground).

It's not the neighborhood playground. It's a school playground. There is a difference, you know.

Yes, there is a legal difference and I have no reason to doubt that the PTA has the legal authority to adopt this policy. Maybe they would have the authority to bar all non-Bancroft kids from the playground at all times if they wanted to. But, as a matter of fact, Bancroft is the only playground in the neighborhood, so in that sense it is the "neighborhood playground" of all the kids in the neighborhood. I think this policy fails to adequately take that reality into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One irrational policy done in the name of safety (fingerprinting volunteers) doesn't justify another one (banning 2 year olds from their neighborhood playground).

It's not the neighborhood playground. It's a school playground. There is a difference, you know.

Yes, there is a legal difference and I have no reason to doubt that the PTA has the legal authority to adopt this policy. Maybe they would have the authority to bar all non-Bancroft kids from the playground at all times if they wanted to. But, as a matter of fact, Bancroft is the only playground in the neighborhood, so in that sense it is the "neighborhood playground" of all the kids in the neighborhood. I think this policy fails to adequately take that reality into account.

Poor you! Forced to wait until 6 pm on weekdays to use the playground! Surely you don't think it is Bancroft's responsibility to provide a playspace for all neighborhood children at all hours? Please take this up with your councilmember if you feel that there are not adequate facilities for neighborhood use. We live in Ward 5 and have no decent playgrounds within walking distance, a fact that I accepted when I purchased my home.

[Anonymous]

Surely you don't think it is Bancroft's responsibility to provide a playspace for all neighborhood children at all hours?

What an unnecessarily nasty sentiment. Playgrounds are a space where the community can come together, and while I understand the school's reasoning in making these rules, I certainly hope that your message doesn't reflect the overall tone of Bancroft parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Surely you don't think it is Bancroft's responsibility to provide a playspace for all neighborhood children at all hours?

What an unnecessarily nasty sentiment. Playgrounds are a space where the community can come together, and while I understand the school's reasoning in making these rules, I certainly hope that your message doesn't reflect the overall tone of Bancroft parents.

I'm sorry if you felt it was nasty; someone on this thread is non-stop whining. Unlike you, that person does not understand the school's reasoning; he or she does feel that the school is being "ridiculous." I am not a Bancroft parent; the ones who weighed in here said that they were in support of of the PTA decision.