Mundo Verde/Mitchell Park Playground Controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

You understand that your resentment doesn't make logical sense, right? You have the exact same odds getting in as any other family. Contrast that with your odds of getting in to a good JKLM via OOB?

Do you always try to drag everyone else down, instead of pulling yourself up?

Yup, the exact same odds. And headaches that lucky families don't have.

What I've said throughout this thread is that charters should not be shocked to meet resentment from their neighbors, and should work to make themselves a visible positive presence in the community where they're located. Not by boasting that the're helping improve the quality of education District-wide, but by working to actually mitigate their presence--say, by helping clean up the park where their students play, and working with the neighborhood to find solutions when problems arise (rather than by explaining that the neighborhood should approach them, or it's because they've worked so hard to set up the school they have no energy for anything else, or the city won't give them enough money for a playground of their own...)

Yes, but no one officially at the school said that the neighborhood should approach them. This is a thread started by a parent. Also, the park is not trashed by the kids (they don't bring snacks or trash the place). Helping maintain the park would be a good thing for the school to do, but let's not mis-characterize what is actually happening. I don't have a problem limiting the number of kids at any given time to accommodate the other children in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

You understand that your resentment doesn't make logical sense, right? You have the exact same odds getting in as any other family. Contrast that with your odds of getting in to a good JKLM via OOB?

Do you always try to drag everyone else down, instead of pulling yourself up?

Yup, the exact same odds. And headaches that lucky families don't have.

What I've said throughout this thread is that charters should not be shocked to meet resentment from their neighbors, and should work to make themselves a visible positive presence in the community where they're located. Not by boasting that the're helping improve the quality of education District-wide, but by working to actually mitigate their presence--say, by helping clean up the park where their students play, and working with the neighborhood to find solutions when problems arise (rather than by explaining that the neighborhood should approach them, or it's because they've worked so hard to set up the school they have no energy for anything else, or the city won't give them enough money for a playground of their own...)

Yes, but no one officially at the school said that the neighborhood should approach them. This is a thread started by a parent. Also, the park is not trashed by the kids (they don't bring snacks or trash the place). Helping maintain the park would be a good thing for the school to do, but let's not mis-characterize what is actually happening. I don't have a problem limiting the number of kids at any given time to accommodate the other children in the neighborhood.

I think we're in agreement here. As I said way, way upthread, I assume that MV's administration is competent enough that they're already in dialogue with their ANC rep, and they'll work with him/her and DPR both to mitigate the neighbors' concerns and to increase the school's visibility as a positive force for the neighborhood. Every well-run charter school should do this; just about all the ones I've seen in operation do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

You understand that your resentment doesn't make logical sense, right? You have the exact same odds getting in as any other family. Contrast that with your odds of getting in to a good JKLM via OOB?

Do you always try to drag everyone else down, instead of pulling yourself up?

Yup, the exact same odds. And headaches that lucky families don't have.

What I've said throughout this thread is that charters should not be shocked to meet resentment from their neighbors, and should work to make themselves a visible positive presence in the community where they're located. Not by boasting that the're helping improve the quality of education District-wide, but by working to actually mitigate their presence--say, by helping clean up the park where their students play, and working with the neighborhood to find solutions when problems arise (rather than by explaining that the neighborhood should approach them, or it's because they've worked so hard to set up the school they have no energy for anything else, or the city won't give them enough money for a playground of their own...)

Sorry, still can't unpack this statement. As a property owner, I want to see highly-regarded schools in my neighborhood. I want to see them whether or not I have children, whether or not my children attend them, and whether or not they are charters/magnets/neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

If this is actually how you think it is working, then you should look into it a bit more. Your child has much more opportunity than you believe. Pk4 is actually a much easier entry point for many schools than PS3. That was certainly the case at MV. The original lists may have been of comparable length, but after the shake-out, they went much, much deeper into that list for Pk-4. I do not know of a single person that got shut out of all of their top choices for Pk-4. In the meantime, if you are unhappy with the school that your child is attending, I would suggest that you check out Appletree in Columbia Heights. I know that they had openings in both Ps3 and pk-4. I am not certain that they are accepting new students this far into the school year, but I would certainly check if I were you.

As more good schools open, there are more spaces available for all kids. In just the past two years, we have already started to see how that will change the landscape and make the situation that you are speaking about rare if not elimated. Two years ago, there were many children applying to Charters that were getting shut out. This year, most secured several spots and had choices. Many of those decisions were based at least partially on location. The more good schools that open in the all neighborhoods, the easier it will be for all neighborhood children to have the option to go to a good school nearby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

You understand that your resentment doesn't make logical sense, right? You have the exact same odds getting in as any other family. Contrast that with your odds of getting in to a good JKLM via OOB?

Do you always try to drag everyone else down, instead of pulling yourself up?

Yup, the exact same odds. And headaches that lucky families don't have.

What I've said throughout this thread is that charters should not be shocked to meet resentment from their neighbors, and should work to make themselves a visible positive presence in the community where they're located. Not by boasting that the're helping improve the quality of education District-wide, but by working to actually mitigate their presence--say, by helping clean up the park where their students play, and working with the neighborhood to find solutions when problems arise (rather than by explaining that the neighborhood should approach them, or it's because they've worked so hard to set up the school they have no energy for anything else, or the city won't give them enough money for a playground of their own...)

Sorry, still can't unpack this statement. As a property owner, I want to see highly-regarded schools in my neighborhood. I want to see them whether or not I have children, whether or not my children attend them, and whether or not they are charters/magnets/neighborhood schools.

The headaches I was referring to were those that come with any school's presence in the neighborhood. Traffic is a constant; there can also be construction noise, illegal/unsafe parking, kids from the school overrunning the playground or the library story hour...

[Anonymous]

The location of charters in higher-poverty neighborhoods (not talking about MV here) brings education's "haves" right into the midst of the "have-nots". This, coupled with occasional eggregious acts of entitlement on the part of charter parents or administrators, is a recipe for tension & resentment.

If you don't resent the charter school in your neighborhood, or can't imagine doing so, good for you--the world is a better place because of your attitude. However, it's naive to think that everyone feels this way. I believe that it's the job of charter schools to reach out to their neighborhoods, to try to head off problems before they start. It may not be fair that it's on the charter schools to do this--they're already facing challenges that are beyond their control--but it's necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

You understand that your resentment doesn't make logical sense, right? You have the exact same odds getting in as any other family. Contrast that with your odds of getting in to a good JKLM via OOB?

Do you always try to drag everyone else down, instead of pulling yourself up?

Yup, the exact same odds. And headaches that lucky families don't have.

What I've said throughout this thread is that charters should not be shocked to meet resentment from their neighbors, and should work to make themselves a visible positive presence in the community where they're located. Not by boasting that the're helping improve the quality of education District-wide, but by working to actually mitigate their presence--say, by helping clean up the park where their students play, and working with the neighborhood to find solutions when problems arise (rather than by explaining that the neighborhood should approach them, or it's because they've worked so hard to set up the school they have no energy for anything else, or the city won't give them enough money for a playground of their own...)

Sorry, still can't unpack this statement. As a property owner, I want to see highly-regarded schools in my neighborhood. I want to see them whether or not I have children, whether or not my children attend them, and whether or not they are charters/magnets/neighborhood schools.

The headaches I was referring to were those that come with any school's presence in the neighborhood. Traffic is a constant; there can also be construction noise, illegal/unsafe parking, kids from the school overrunning the playground or the library story hour...

If you want to live in a place where your neighbors are empty houses, then you need to be in the suburbs. Cities have activity. It's a result of so many people choosing to live in them, relatively close together, along with work places, hospitals, retail stores, restaurants, entertainment venues, and even schools.

[Anonymous]

Best to select a school location that discourages driving drop-offs and facilitates walking/ public transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best to select a school location that discourages driving drop-offs and facilitates walking/ public transit.

I agree. That is one of the best aspects of Mundo Verde's location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best to select a school location that discourages driving drop-offs and facilitates walking/ public transit.

Brand new schools choose an incubation space based on what's available or even possible. MV is what, 2 months old?

[Anonymous]

Hey I renovated Ross ES with the help of numerous donors and community people in 2002-3 while MItchell was also struggling to be viable. All of us who lead these improvements assumed it would be an inviting, welcoming space that addressed the growing family populations in these neighborhoods. Neighbors dedicated to Mitchell always imagined it to become a destination city park. Ross went through lots of community BS before defining community use, being on school property; Mitchell should not have any similar restrictions and welcome the various charters that come through our neighborhood -- they enrich us all.

[Anonymous]

When I first read this, I figured it was either the rose gardening friends of the park complaining about wear and tear, or maybe SAHMs used to having the park all to themselves not appreciating a regular influx of rough and tumble school kids overwhelming the small play area? I wonder who complained to DCPR?
I used to visit Mitchell Park with my DD when I lived in Kalorama Triangle. We didn't go there very often, because in the summer the rubberized blacktop was too hot, and in the winter it was too far to walk when we had Walter Pierce and Kalorama Park so close by. It has a nice little building that was always locked but looked like a nice place to have a small party and the gardens are of course gorgeous.
I have a hard time imagining any kind of anti-kids-from-across-the-tracks complaint coming from the neighbors. The park is close to a very nice bilingual daycare, which happens to be in a church that has a sizeable Hispanic component of the congregation on weekends. Generally I think of that neighborhood as upscale, but also international. There are middle class small families that live there are in apartments and condos, and there are a lot of embassies and multi-million dollar row houses.

[Anonymous]

If it weren't for the various charters/churches/preschools that park would have no life during the week days. Many of the surrounding homes are empty half the years, the owners retired or they are second ho owners. I live in this neighborhood and the visiting students make it vibrant and alive. I hope they hold their ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I believe the DPR preschool you are referring to is the Mitchell Park Coop. Kids generally go there before they enter public preschools/charter schools. It's quite inexpensive and this year has been struggling to maintain enrollment. I believe right now they have 6 kids enrolled. Yes, 6, and it's hours are 9-12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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.

I believe the DPR preschool you are referring to is the Mitchell Park Coop. Kids generally go there before they enter public preschools/charter schools. It's quite inexpensive and this year has been struggling to maintain enrollment. I believe right now they have 6 kids enrolled. Yes, 6, and it's hours are 9-12.

So, a struggling pre-pre-school Co-Op wants to harrass an already-popular DC charter school. And, this charter school is just trying to manage its way through a year in its incubation space. Like almost every DCPS east of the park, this school is failing and lashing out - often irrationally.

Sorry about your school! Striking out at Mundo Verde isn't going to the help.