Lee Montessori Location Announced

[Anonymous]

I'm just surprised about WLA because I thought their charter application had been all about serving Wards 7 and 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I drove past the school, it looks like there are three very defined wings. Administration said in their email separate spaces, entrances, etc. The Lee portion at least is being financed through Building Hope, our development partner.

That's what I figured, makes sense. They are probably financing each part separately. Building Hope will be able to get the Lee part done with no problem. A little surprised about the Washington Leadership Academy, that's a lot of space and couldn't have come cheap. To be able to get that as a school which hasn't opened yet, they might have some big money backers who are kicking in a ton of equity.

I interpreted the email to mean that Building Hope will be buying the entire building along with some property developers. WLA will lease from them.

And Walton Fdtn. is an investment partner of Building Hope - have provided $9 million to finance Building Hope to finance charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I drove past the school, it looks like there are three very defined wings. Administration said in their email separate spaces, entrances, etc. The Lee portion at least is being financed through Building Hope, our development partner.

That's what I figured, makes sense. They are probably financing each part separately. Building Hope will be able to get the Lee part done with no problem. A little surprised about the Washington Leadership Academy, that's a lot of space and couldn't have come cheap. To be able to get that as a school which hasn't opened yet, they might have some big money backers who are kicking in a ton of equity.

I interpreted the email to mean that Building Hope will be buying the entire building along with some property developers. WLA will lease from them.

Got it, that makes even more sense. Then you can still do separate deals for each user, with the development team as the final owner/lessor. Building Hope has some long-term funders who aren't as concerned about immediate payback as a traditional bank lender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just surprised about WLA because I thought their charter application had been all about serving Wards 7 and 8.

Wasn't Breakthrough going to be in 7 or 8 too?

The real estate available doesn't always match what the initial charters plans were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just surprised about WLA because I thought their charter application had been all about serving Wards 7 and 8.

Wasn't Breakthrough going to be in 7 or 8 too?

The real estate available doesn't always match what the initial charters plans were.

In Lee's case it did. Ward five was always the plan which is fantastic for ward five families!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be a fan of sharing long term with high school and other unknown entities but it's a beautiful building, closer to metro, and better than some of the other options that were floating around.

Come on DCUM, surely you can do better than this? You must have more petty ways to rain on our parade than this. I mean a beautiful, historic building that's near Metro, near the current location and has beautiful green space and plenty of room can't be perfect, there must be DCUM complaints to put those "mean" Lee moms in their place.

I don't argue with you one bit. It's an amazing building with great space, closer to metro (did you not read my post). My concerns still stand. Lee is used to sharing space so it's probably NBD for them but sharing space with an unknown school permanently (that is nowhere close to a school like ITS) would raise concern for me. Lee is a smallish school, one does wonder how the finances will impact them long term. Nobody can't have it all (Wel, YY) so yes there has to be sacrifices. Congrats on the building.

You sound jealous.

Not at all. We are supporting Lee all the way, have lots of friends there. We are at a beautiful school that has permanent home as well. Why would anyone be jealous of a charter actually getting a nice building? Why can't you just take it for what it is - a concern I would have (and probably others). Not a huge deal-breaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations Lee families and good job for your administration for finding a great work around in a year when DGS isn't letting any surplus buildings for bid.

It's been an all around good year. SSMA did a great job too!

It has been a good facility year in a year DGS let no facilities (which needs to change). I hope this also means that Potomac Lighthouse building can rebuild/recharter in place so those families aren't disrupted.

Out of curiosity, what buildings would you would have wanted that DGS is holding on to? It's my understanding, there aren't many other that Shaw (which we all know will never be released).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be a fan of sharing long term with high school and other unknown entities but it's a beautiful building, closer to metro, and better than some of the other options that were floating around.

Come on DCUM, surely you can do better than this? You must have more petty ways to rain on our parade than this. I mean a beautiful, historic building that's near Metro, near the current location and has beautiful green space and plenty of room can't be perfect, there must be DCUM complaints to put those "mean" Lee moms in their place.

I don't argue with you one bit. It's an amazing building with great space, closer to metro (did you not read my post). My concerns still stand. Lee is used to sharing space so it's probably NBD for them but sharing space with an unknown school permanently (that is nowhere close to a school like ITS) would raise concern for me. Lee is a smallish school, one does wonder how the finances will impact them long term. Nobody can't have it all (Wel, YY) so yes there has to be sacrifices. Congrats on the building.

Financially, I don't think it will be a big stretch because there are a lot of other entities in that building footing the bill. We only have two floors and the room we need/will need. We don't own it (community hope owns it). We do have a long term lease, and I'm not sure how long but we were told they were interested in buildings with 25 year leases renewable for another 25.

And for things like the playground, we have an untapped PTA ready to give.

The sharing may bother others but not me (I'm very conservative financially and prefer this to taking on a building alone)

Oh well that makes a lot more sense financially. Congrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations Lee families and good job for your administration for finding a great work around in a year when DGS isn't letting any surplus buildings for bid.

It's been an all around good year. SSMA did a great job too!

It has been a good facility year in a year DGS let no facilities (which needs to change). I hope this also means that Potomac Lighthouse building can rebuild/recharter in place so those families aren't disrupted.

Out of curiosity, what buildings would you would have wanted that DGS is holding on to? It's my understanding, there aren't many other that Shaw (which we all know will never be released).

Not necessarily ones I would choose for my kids school (we live in Petworth), but other empty DCPS schools include Emery, Marshall, Shaw

I also wonder about the affect of Brookland Middle on Burroughs, Langdon, Bunker Hill and Noyes. By moving out 3 grades from those already underenrolled schools, should there be some realignment in Woodridge/Brookland/Langdon neighborhoods, or is the school age population growth really that great?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I drove past the school, it looks like there are three very defined wings. Administration said in their email separate spaces, entrances, etc. The Lee portion at least is being financed through Building Hope, our development partner.

That's what I figured, makes sense. They are probably financing each part separately. Building Hope will be able to get the Lee part done with no problem. A little surprised about the Washington Leadership Academy, that's a lot of space and couldn't have come cheap. To be able to get that as a school which hasn't opened yet, they might have some big money backers who are kicking in a ton of equity.

I interpreted the email to mean that Building Hope will be buying the entire building along with some property developers. WLA will lease from them.

And Walton Fdtn. is an investment partner of Building Hope - have provided $9 million to finance Building Hope to finance charters.

i wondered where they got their money!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I drove past the school, it looks like there are three very defined wings. Administration said in their email separate spaces, entrances, etc. The Lee portion at least is being financed through Building Hope, our development partner.

That's what I figured, makes sense. They are probably financing each part separately. Building Hope will be able to get the Lee part done with no problem. A little surprised about the Washington Leadership Academy, that's a lot of space and couldn't have come cheap. To be able to get that as a school which hasn't opened yet, they might have some big money backers who are kicking in a ton of equity.

I interpreted the email to mean that Building Hope will be buying the entire building along with some property developers. WLA will lease from them.

And Walton Fdtn. is an investment partner of Building Hope - have provided $9 million to finance Building Hope to finance charters.

i wondered where they got their money!

The other listed investment partners are OSSE, US Department of Education, the JA and Kathryn Albertson Foundation, US Department of Treasury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most beautiful public charter school building in the city!

I don't know, YY, Potomac Lighthouse, Perry Street prep are all gorgeous. It's more distinctive perhaps. Very exciting nonetheless. Now I need to stop thinking about this and get to work.

Why go and start this stuff on what could have been a great, supportive thread. There are plenty of other great buildings in the charter world, ones listed above, ITS, Bridges (next year), Haynes, CMI, Stokes to name a few more. MV is nice but lacks playground. And these are secured 100% by the school, not a few floors. It's a win-win for all, no need to bring out nasty competitiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations Lee families and good job for your administration for finding a great work around in a year when DGS isn't letting any surplus buildings for bid.

It's been an all around good year. SSMA did a great job too!

It has been a good facility year in a year DGS let no facilities (which needs to change). I hope this also means that Potomac Lighthouse building can rebuild/recharter in place so those families aren't disrupted.

Out of curiosity, what buildings would you would have wanted that DGS is holding on to? It's my understanding, there aren't many other that Shaw (which we all know will never be released).

Not necessarily ones I would choose for my kids school (we live in Petworth), but other empty DCPS schools include Emery, Marshall, Shaw

I also wonder about the affect of Brookland Middle on Burroughs, Langdon, Bunker Hill and Noyes. By moving out 3 grades from those already underenrolled schools, should there be some realignment in Woodridge/Brookland/Langdon neighborhoods, or is the school age population growth really that great?

Exactly no buildings anyone wants anyway. You can't release schools that are currently enrolled and even if they did realign, it would take a while to make sure before they made assignment changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations Lee families and good job for your administration for finding a great work around in a year when DGS isn't letting any surplus buildings for bid.

It's been an all around good year. SSMA did a great job too!

It has been a good facility year in a year DGS let no facilities (which needs to change). I hope this also means that Potomac Lighthouse building can rebuild/recharter in place so those families aren't disrupted.

Out of curiosity, what buildings would you would have wanted that DGS is holding on to? It's my understanding, there aren't many other that Shaw (which we all know will never be released).

Not necessarily ones I would choose for my kids school (we live in Petworth), but other empty DCPS schools include Emery, Marshall, Shaw

I also wonder about the affect of Brookland Middle on Burroughs, Langdon, Bunker Hill and Noyes. By moving out 3 grades from those already underenrolled schools, should there be some realignment in Woodridge/Brookland/Langdon neighborhoods, or is the school age population growth really that great?

Exactly no buildings anyone wants anyway. You can't release schools that are currently enrolled and even if they did realign, it would take a while to make sure before they made assignment changes.

Langdon and Bunker Hill are both on lovely pieces of land (and I like the buildings with some updates). I haven't been inside Burroughs (but great greenspace) or Noyes (across the street from a park). Is the Breakthrough location temporary or permanent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations Lee families and good job for your administration for finding a great work around in a year when DGS isn't letting any surplus buildings for bid.

It's been an all around good year. SSMA did a great job too!

It has been a good facility year in a year DGS let no facilities (which needs to change). I hope this also means that Potomac Lighthouse building can rebuild/recharter in place so those families aren't disrupted.

Out of curiosity, what buildings would you would have wanted that DGS is holding on to? It's my understanding, there aren't many other that Shaw (which we all know will never be released).

Not necessarily ones I would choose for my kids school (we live in Petworth), but other empty DCPS schools include Emery, Marshall, Shaw

I also wonder about the affect of Brookland Middle on Burroughs, Langdon, Bunker Hill and Noyes. By moving out 3 grades from those already underenrolled schools, should there be some realignment in Woodridge/Brookland/Langdon neighborhoods, or is the school age population growth really that great?

Exactly no buildings anyone wants anyway. You can't release schools that are currently enrolled and even if they did realign, it would take a while to make sure before they made assignment changes.

Langdon and Bunker Hill are both on lovely pieces of land (and I like the buildings with some updates). I haven't been inside Burroughs (but great greenspace) or Noyes (across the street from a park). Is the Breakthrough location temporary or permanent?

And these are schools that are currently open. Why exactly would DGS release these buildings?