Open house impressions thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen it happen in a different city. Admittedly, DC does seem to have provincial, almost tribal, issues with integrating its socioeconomic populations... But this is only exacerbated by the "start your own unicorn charter" approach.

A school of 700 kids is also not unreasonable. About 4 or 5 classes per grade, and with that comes increased amenities, increased fundraising, increased opportunity.
The fact that so many of you oppose it because you're afraid of the children that might attend is not encouraging.

I'm not the other PP saying you have a lot of nerve, so just to be clear, I'm a different poster saying "You have a lot of nerve!"

Several of the most in demand charters in DC have THE MOST socioeconomic and racial diversity of all public schools in DC (Yu Ying, Creative Minds, Mundo Verde, Stokes, Inspired Teaching, etc.).

You say you've worked on this in another jurisdiction; if that's so, it's incredible to me that you don't get the idea that some of us feel it's egregious and unacceptable to let grade after grade after grade get crappy instruction and crappy resources while people like you insist it has to be a district approach. Do you realize that DC has a history of decades of waiting for DCPS to get it's act together and some of the thousands of kids getting a better education at charters than at their IB only have another option because of the parents and efforts you're so quick to dismiss? Who are you to decide which number of years of students are acceptable to throw away because only charters of 700+ students or no charters at all are acceptable? If I had a kid I'd rather take the unicorn school now than have zero options because I can't afford to live in the few boundaries with actually decent or good schools.

Lastly, you're woefully ignorant and ridiculously judgmental to say "The fact that so many of you oppose it because you're afraid of the children that might attend is not encouraging." On what basis do you draw that conclusion? For the last 2 years I've worked in one of the most stressed, dysfunctional DCPS elementary schools there is. I work there because EVERY KID IN DC deserves a good or great school, and this school is worse than most people can imagine. I could work in a better school or a charter, but I don't, because I want to be somewhere where maybe I can make an even bigger difference. You want to talk about being around kids that adults are often afraid of, that's where I am. You don't know who all you're talking to here, and your gross generalizations and big assumptions just damage your argument that much more.

And even with my work in DCPS I still support charters and I support the efforts and hard work of parents, community members, founders, anyone who is putting in time, effort, money and/or working to improve DCPS or charters. Lastly, I see some good things happening in DCPS and I believe over all charters have put some good stress and competition into the mix (although there are plenty of bad charters and plenty of charters that actually set up to poach from DCPS schools, so that makes things difficult, but DCPS should focus on having such good schools that no one cares if charters open across the street). That last part is the part I'm working on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Initially, yes. But the successful charters could expand to be that size. Existing buildings I've seen could accommodate that fairly easily. In moco they already would be.

Not all schools are made to accommodate 700 kids. Ain't gonna happen. Average DCPS is like 400 kids. My neighborhood schools (Shepherd) is under 400 kids and is the perfect size. We do not need dozens of Janneys around the city. That idea is horrible. Inspired Teaching and I believe Creative Minds are 2-3 classes per grade and should not expand IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen it happen in a different city. Admittedly, DC does seem to have provincial, almost tribal, issues with integrating its socioeconomic populations... But this is only exacerbated by the "start your own unicorn charter" approach.

A school of 700 kids is also not unreasonable. About 4 or 5 classes per grade, and with that comes increased amenities, increased fundraising, increased opportunity.
The fact that so many of you oppose it because you're afraid of the children that might attend is not encouraging.

Are you assuming all the posters here are white? Or rich? What is your post saying...what children are we afraid of?

[Anonymous]

I think many of these "700 kids" posters are new to Washington and probably don't even know how many kids this city serves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've seen it happen in a different city. Admittedly, DC does seem to have provincial, almost tribal, issues with integrating its socioeconomic populations... But this is only exacerbated by the "start your own unicorn charter" approach.

A school of 700 kids is also not unreasonable. About 4 or 5 classes per grade, and with that comes increased amenities, increased fundraising, increased opportunity.
The fact that so many of you oppose it because you're afraid of the children that might attend is not encouraging.

I'm not the other PP saying you have a lot of nerve, so just to be clear, I'm a different poster saying "You have a lot of nerve!"

Several of the most in demand charters in DC have THE MOST socioeconomic and racial diversity of all public schools in DC (Yu Ying, Creative Minds, Mundo Verde, Stokes, Inspired Teaching, etc.).

You say you've worked on this in another jurisdiction; if that's so, it's incredible to me that you don't get the idea that some of us feel it's egregious and unacceptable to let grade after grade after grade get crappy instruction and crappy resources while people like you insist it has to be a district approach. Do you realize that DC has a history of decades of waiting for DCPS to get it's act together and some of the thousands of kids getting a better education at charters than at their IB only have another option because of the parents and efforts you're so quick to dismiss? Who are you to decide which number of years of students are acceptable to throw away because only charters of 700+ students or no charters at all are acceptable? If I had a kid I'd rather take the unicorn school now than have zero options because I can't afford to live in the few boundaries with actually decent or good schools.

Lastly, you're woefully ignorant and ridiculously judgmental to say "The fact that so many of you oppose it because you're afraid of the children that might attend is not encouraging." On what basis do you draw that conclusion? For the last 2 years I've worked in one of the most stressed, dysfunctional DCPS elementary schools there is. I work there because EVERY KID IN DC deserves a good or great school, and this school is worse than most people can imagine. I could work in a better school or a charter, but I don't, because I want to be somewhere where maybe I can make an even bigger difference. You want to talk about being around kids that adults are often afraid of, that's where I am. You don't know who all you're talking to here, and your gross generalizations and big assumptions just damage your argument that much more.

And even with my work in DCPS I still support charters and I support the efforts and hard work of parents, community members, founders, anyone who is putting in time, effort, money and/or working to improve DCPS or charters. Lastly, I see some good things happening in DCPS and I believe over all charters have put some good stress and competition into the mix (although there are plenty of bad charters and plenty of charters that actually set up to poach from DCPS schools, so that makes things difficult, but DCPS should focus on having such good schools that no one cares if charters open across the street). That last part is the part I'm working on.

I am sending you a huge high-five. Well said. And thank you for the work you are doing to improve DCPS. It is shameful that our nation's capital has had such a terrible school system for so long. The ramifications of the poor educational system will continue to be felt for decades. It's going to take a village to fix it-- at charters AND DCPS!

[Anonymous]

For all the positives in the DC system as it is now, I see a lot of negatives. I am probably ignorant, and I won't deny that--but if that's your entire takeaway from my post, I wish you'd listen a little more.

School renovations. Funny, you bring up Shepherd as a perfect dcps school, because I am more familiar with it as a school that spent millions for underground parking and a second floor kiln... For, I believe, 300 students? At least Murch's underground parking might help the teachers of 700 park.

Shepherd is another example of a successful school that could expand its reach. It's not just charters who could do that--as examples like Much and Janney, who have, prove. (To be fair, Shepherd did add prek.)

DC schools--all of them--suffer from massive churn. Principals, teachers and students. You say the charters are diverse, and you're not wrong; but if the families currently living near Bruce Monroe, or Barnard, or Cooke, or Tubman invested in those schools, they'd be diverse too. And they'd feed into middle schools that would reflect the same diversity. And people wouldn't be wasting gasoline and time driving their kids halfway across the city.

Look, I do know things aren't that simple--and I'm a hypocrite, sending my children to a diverse charter school and not our local--but in my defense, I did try our local first. We tried to make it work, we tried really hard. It didn't work. The old adage, that one school is not for all kids is apparently true. And our local did not work for our kids.

But that is all the more reason for successful programs to expand--so that kids who need them can find them. And can get into them. I may be expressing this badly, but I've noticed a certain smug elitism from parents at other hrcs. It's all there in the, "how could we possibly have more than two or three grades per class?" And the, "I've heard MV has some disruptive children."

Again, all I am saying is, if something is working, money should be spent to make it work for more kids. And perhaps not on underground parking and kilns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the positives in the DC system as it is now, I see a lot of negatives. I am probably ignorant, and I won't deny that--but if that's your entire takeaway from my post, I wish you'd listen a little more.

School renovations. Funny, you bring up Shepherd as a perfect dcps school, because I am more familiar with it as a school that spent millions for underground parking and a second floor kiln... For, I believe, 300 students? At least Murch's underground parking might help the teachers of 700 park.

Shepherd is another example of a successful school that could expand its reach. It's not just charters who could do that--as examples like Much and Janney, who have, prove. (To be fair, Shepherd did add prek.)

DC schools--all of them--suffer from massive churn. Principals, teachers and students. You say the charters are diverse, and you're not wrong; but if the families currently living near Bruce Monroe, or Barnard, or Cooke, or Tubman invested in those schools, they'd be diverse too. And they'd feed into middle schools that would reflect the same diversity. And people wouldn't be wasting gasoline and time driving their kids halfway across the city.

Look, I do know things aren't that simple--and I'm a hypocrite, sending my children to a diverse charter school and not our local--but in my defense, I did try our local first. We tried to make it work, we tried really hard. It didn't work. The old adage, that one school is not for all kids is apparently true. And our local did not work for our kids.

But that is all the more reason for successful programs to expand--so that kids who need them can find them. And can get into them. I may be expressing this badly, but I've noticed a certain smug elitism from parents at other hrcs. It's all there in the, "how could we possibly have more than two or three grades per class?" And the, "I've heard MV has some disruptive children."

Again, all I am saying is, if something is working, money should be spent to make it work for more kids. And perhaps not on underground parking and kilns.

I don't know anything about the underground parking or kilns, but I do know a thing or two about running a school. You simply don't get it: there is a huge difference between expanding an already successful school, and learning from what is working at that school and getting other leaders to apply it/implement it elsewhere. Seems like many have tried already to explain to you, and maybe your heels are just too dug in and you're beyond learning anything new about this, but you cannot just take schools that are working at a certain size and demand that they increase in classes significantly - for a variety of reasons.

But instead of explaining it to you again, because others have already made their points, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and go work at a school or volunteer at a school that you think is working well. You have your child in a charter - volunteer there and ask the leadership why they don't expand to 700 students or double their number of classes.

Then report back on what their response is and whether you convinced them and they will indeed double in size or move into a bigger building, since you said it must be done.

[Anonymous]

Nope. Not going to happen. You can call it smug HRCS parents all you want, I call it taking a huge risk on a brand new school before they even opened. Guess what? There is a chance for anyone that wants to do the same and get on the ground about every year. Last year it was Lee, this year it is Breakthrough. I wish them all the luck in the world. But you are not going to mandate my school that only wants a certain amount of kids and already has a hard enough time hiring and retaining quality teachers to double their school size.

[Anonymous]

The "hard of hearing" poster needs to open up her own Charter school.

Let's us know now that goes....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the positives in the DC system as it is now, I see a lot of negatives. I am probably ignorant, and I won't deny that--but if that's your entire takeaway from my post, I wish you'd listen a little more.

School renovations. Funny, you bring up Shepherd as a perfect dcps school, because I am more familiar with it as a school that spent millions for underground parking and a second floor kiln... For, I believe, 300 students? At least Murch's underground parking might help the teachers of 700 park.

Shepherd is another example of a successful school that could expand its reach. It's not just charters who could do that--as examples like Much and Janney, who have, prove. (To be fair, Shepherd did add prek.)

DC schools--all of them--suffer from massive churn. Principals, teachers and students. You say the charters are diverse, and you're not wrong; but if the families currently living near Bruce Monroe, or Barnard, or Cooke, or Tubman invested in those schools, they'd be diverse too. And they'd feed into middle schools that would reflect the same diversity. And people wouldn't be wasting gasoline and time driving their kids halfway across the city.

Look, I do know things aren't that simple--and I'm a hypocrite, sending my children to a diverse charter school and not our local--but in my defense, I did try our local first. We tried to make it work, we tried really hard. It didn't work. The old adage, that one school is not for all kids is apparently true. And our local did not work for our kids.

But that is all the more reason for successful programs to expand--so that kids who need them can find them. And can get into them. I may be expressing this badly, but I've noticed a certain smug elitism from parents at other hrcs. It's all there in the, "how could we possibly have more than two or three grades per class?" And the, "I've heard MV has some disruptive children."

Again, all I am saying is, if something is working, money should be spent to make it work for more kids. And perhaps not on underground parking and kilns.

Current Shepherd parent here. Underground parking was slated for Shepherd originally, but is not part of the current modernization plan. Also, there are other DCPS schools that got underground parking as part of their renovations (e.g., Janney), so it is not unheard of. I don't know about any kiln but haven't read anything about that recently in any renovation update docs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the positives in the DC system as it is now, I see a lot of negatives. I am probably ignorant, and I won't deny that--but if that's your entire takeaway from my post, I wish you'd listen a little more.

School renovations. Funny, you bring up Shepherd as a perfect dcps school, because I am more familiar with it as a school that spent millions for underground parking and a second floor kiln... For, I believe, 300 students? At least Murch's underground parking might help the teachers of 700 park.

Shepherd is another example of a successful school that could expand its reach. It's not just charters who could do that--as examples like Much and Janney, who have, prove. (To be fair, Shepherd did add prek.)

DC schools--all of them--suffer from massive churn. Principals, teachers and students. You say the charters are diverse, and you're not wrong; but if the families currently living near Bruce Monroe, or Barnard, or Cooke, or Tubman invested in those schools, they'd be diverse too. And they'd feed into middle schools that would reflect the same diversity. And people wouldn't be wasting gasoline and time driving their kids halfway across the city.

Look, I do know things aren't that simple--and I'm a hypocrite, sending my children to a diverse charter school and not our local--but in my defense, I did try our local first. We tried to make it work, we tried really hard. It didn't work. The old adage, that one school is not for all kids is apparently true. And our local did not work for our kids.

But that is all the more reason for successful programs to expand--so that kids who need them can find them. And can get into them. I may be expressing this badly, but I've noticed a certain smug elitism from parents at other hrcs. It's all there in the, "how could we possibly have more than two or three grades per class?" And the, "I've heard MV has some disruptive children."

Again, all I am saying is, if something is working, money should be spent to make it work for more kids. And perhaps not on underground parking and kilns.

Current Shepherd parent here. Underground parking was slated for Shepherd originally, but is not part of the current modernization plan. Also, there are other DCPS schools that got underground parking as part of their renovations (e.g., Janney), so it is not unheard of. I don't know about any kiln but haven't read anything about that recently in any renovation update docs.

On a practical level, when a school needs to expand and there is no land to expand on, underground parking seems like a valid option. If you want more space for kids the space you have needs to be used effeciently.

in the grand scheme kilns aren't that expensive and ceramics is a great addition to a visual arts program. The tactile process is different than painting or drawing, it triggers a different part of the brain.

[Anonymous]

Shepherd installed steel beams into an existing 1950's structure, to accommodate the weight of their kiln... instead of doing something basic, like putting it on the first floor. It's true, I read it here first--but then I researched it. Look it up. They are also, I believe, in the process of putting in their underground parking. It won't serve all the teachers, but a few.

As for this:

I don't know anything about the underground parking or kilns, but I do know a thing or two about running a school. You simply don't get it: there is a huge difference between expanding an already successful school, and learning from what is working at that school and getting other leaders to apply it/implement it elsewhere. Seems like many have tried already to explain to you, and maybe your heels are just too dug in and you're beyond learning anything new about this, but you cannot just take schools that are working at a certain size and demand that they increase in classes significantly - for a variety of reasons.

But instead of explaining it to you again, because others have already made their points, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and go work at a school or volunteer at a school that you think is working well. You have your child in a charter - volunteer there and ask the leadership why they don't expand to 700 students or double their number of classes.

I am not talking out of my ass. I've seen a successful public school expand, from about 400 kids when our kids started there to 700 five years later. And the school now has national recognition, about a 50% free lunch population, and a diverse student body. It's really not that complicated. Hire two assistant principals instead of one, expand your teaching staff. I volunteeered at this school for five years and watched the transformation. Helped with it. Really--not that hard.

[Anonymous]

On a practical level, when a school needs to expand and there is no land to expand on, underground parking seems like a valid option. If you want more space for kids the space you have needs to be used effeciently.

And no. This is never a practical option, unless your neighbors are so wedded to their space in front of their houses that they can't dream of having strange cars parked there. Which... oh, right. We're in DC. This is true here. Give teacher's visitor's permits and done.

[Anonymous]

http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/DocUploads/DataShop/DS_212.pdf

Here's a link to Shepherd's renovation plans.... c. 2007.

Note: an art room on th e first floor, and a projected enrollment of 400 kids. I don't think they're very close to this enrollment, even with this renovation work done. And now the art room is on the second floor, which necessitated the pile driving of steel beams to support the 50's structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shepherd installed steel beams into an existing 1950's structure, to accommodate the weight of their kiln... instead of doing something basic, like putting it on the first floor. It's true, I read it here first--but then I researched it. Look it up. They are also, I believe, in the process of putting in their underground parking. It won't serve all the teachers, but a few.

As for this:

I don't know anything about the underground parking or kilns, but I do know a thing or two about running a school. You simply don't get it: there is a huge difference between expanding an already successful school, and learning from what is working at that school and getting other leaders to apply it/implement it elsewhere. Seems like many have tried already to explain to you, and maybe your heels are just too dug in and you're beyond learning anything new about this, but you cannot just take schools that are working at a certain size and demand that they increase in classes significantly - for a variety of reasons.

But instead of explaining it to you again, because others have already made their points, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and go work at a school or volunteer at a school that you think is working well. You have your child in a charter - volunteer there and ask the leadership why they don't expand to 700 students or double their number of classes.

I am not talking out of my ass. I've seen a successful public school expand, from about 400 kids when our kids started there to 700 five years later. And the school now has national recognition, about a 50% free lunch population, and a diverse student body. It's really not that complicated. Hire two assistant principals instead of one, expand your teaching staff. I volunteeered at this school for five years and watched the transformation. Helped with it. Really--not that hard.

But many of the schools that you are pointing to "expand" are in the beginning stages of growth. Schools like YY, MV, CMI have been open for 5 years or so. So while they seem like successful schools and are doing a great job - they are really not in a place to expand yet. From an administrative, financially, or even from a facilities POV. These schools don't have a central office, or steady funding stream. Your understanding of school expansion from traditional public doesn't translate to charter, because they are on their own.