I'm the the 10-year parent, but in the span of 5 years I see it. Less people seem to see charters as a leading edge frontier they must help to tame and more of an entitlement to a private school environment with public school benefits. And yes, I am being inflammatory and over-generalizing the issue. At our charter the newest group of parents this year are truly overbearing. They actually spent weeks arguing that kids in pre-K would die if they were served whole baby carrots or goldfish crackers. There incessant outrage over choking hazards made it so that no one under the age of 5 can have grapes.

Anonymous wrote:13:13, wow so with you on this one. It was bad enough to go thru the learning experience (literally!) with a great group of parents, most for whom were just so grateful to have a DCPS alternative that they pitched in and were not too pushy. This was 10 years ago.

The new type of parent with a 3 year old acts like they are shopping at whole foods... Such a consumerist approach. And the naïveté is extraordinary, considering the resources out there now.

I think that is what would keep me from a new charter more than anything. Because the school would have to deal with these parents 24/7.

I think that statement is a little inflammatory, but I'm going to take the bait. Do you truly see a difference between 1st time parents today and 1st time parents of 10 years ago? I can see how that's theoretically possible. 10 years is about halfway through a generation, so I do think some shift in attitudes is possible. Maybe it's even to be expected as generational shifts won't happen overnight.

My older one is 8 and younger one is 4, but I think parenting age follows the oldest child, not the youngest. I'm not sure if I've got enough distance to see it.

13:13, wow so with you on this one. It was bad enough to go thru the learning experience (literally!) with a great group of parents, most for whom were just so grateful to have a DCPS alternative that they pitched in and were not too pushy. This was 10 years ago.

The new type of parent with a 3 year old acts like they are shopping at whole foods... Such a consumerist approach. And the naïveté is extraordinary, considering the resources out there now.

I think that is what would keep me from a new charter more than anything. Because the school would have to deal with these parents 24/7.

ugh-
"there" not "their". oops.

We were first year of a charter that is now on year 4. There are always significant growing pains in any organization. Some of those are beneficial, some of them are necessary evils and others present the dichotomy of benefit/disservice. For example, having a shrewd business person at the helm is very important for financial solvency and physical strategy. However, it is unlikely that person would have any experience in education, psychology, etc. (and vice versa). Bringing in teachers who have the motivation and hours in the day to start up a school from scratch means that they either don't have children yet and will leave in a short period of time, they will burn out quickly and leave, or they have their own children at the school- which leaves much to be desired. Small issues can become magnified when parents are unsure of things like facilities or teaching staff or program changes. Communication can suffer because the administration is overworked. In the absence of communication parents get more stressed and the empty space can turn into a chasm.

I went to an open house for a new charter today. I was overwhelmed with the number of fretful, overbearing parents of kids new to school. They were filled with intense and naive questions like "how do schools get funded" and "are their reduced fees for low income". I feel that I don't have the mental reserves to put my littlest one in a new charter after all, especially after having done it once with my older kids. It was a good experience, but you need to be ready to work hard, be patient, be flexible and help the school along. By that I mean that you need to help them problem solve sometimes and not expect immediate, high-quality responses without working with them on it.

I enrolled my child at IT this year based on the strong reputation of the Center for Inspired Teaching and my knowledge of their work with teachers. I probably would never have considered it without that. Their experience as educators and being fully cognizant of the issues of schools and learning and teaching (as opposed to just being smart people who start a charter) - their backing and founding this school made me have faith that it would be a great place - and it has been for my child in so many ways.

OP here. Thank you SO much for the considered replies. Some of these describe issues that never would have occurred to me at all. DC will only be three years old, but I'm not sure I'll have the mental or emotional energy to deal with such roller-coaster things this fall, given that I'll probably be in a new job and also have other stressful things on my plate.

To 12:37, I'd love to hear more about how the issues were different at your "under-enrolled, dilapidated, and somewhat under-invested DCPS" school. That describes our other choice, except for the under-enrolled part.

Someone brought up the taxing aspects of dealing with other parents, too, which is one of the things that hadn't occurred to me. I guess it would be a very different set of parents at a charter school vs. a DCPS school. One perhaps TOO involved and assertive and opinionated, and the other perhaps not involved enough?

Anonymous wrote:The place I will never again enroll my child is the first year of a leading edge class. The charter first year thing is iffy. But say the school is starting with K to 3rd graders, and adding 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.

I would enroll a K or 1st in that school (possibly). I would not enroll a 3rd, so that every year was the first year the school had taught the grade, for the child's education from 3rd to 8th grade. That is too many years of my child as a guinea pig.

but it does depend on what your alternative is. if it was lead grade of JKLM it is a no-brainer. how about lead grade OR a 3rd tier school?

The place I will never again enroll my child is the first year of a leading edge class. The charter first year thing is iffy. But say the school is starting with K to 3rd graders, and adding 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.

I would enroll a K or 1st in that school (possibly). I would not enroll a 3rd, so that every year was the first year the school had taught the grade, for the child's education from 3rd to 8th grade. That is too many years of my child as a guinea pig.

We started in a new immersion charter when our child was 3 (not in DC!). The school now has a great reputation but the initial 2-3 years were really horrible. The problems that were most acute, to the point that I wouldn't repeat the experience for anything until the school is well on its way, were the following:
- The charismatic leadership was very passionate about the school but also extremely amateurish in the most basic aspects, the kinds of aspects that you can find in a routine parent handbook in any established school. The passion and ownership of the leadership turned into something of a tyranny when relatively minor conflicts arose. (The school was in the end actually "taken over" by the parents and rolled forward well once the new co-ownership committee had put in place new leadership staff.
- I think due to the very set-up starting a new school, most of the parents were at least as passionate but amateurish about their involvement. Virtually all of them enrolled firstborns. This makes for a somewhat fretful and overbearing parent community with few cool-headed and pragmatic forces, which certainly was in part to blame for the rocky start.
- The focus was on building the organization, which such things as building management, front desk staffing and routines, accounting questions, a lot of hiring absorbing resources, all of it clearly dominating operations. Highly motivated and certainly mostly very gifted teachers, were left in a total void. The problem was augmented because, in their situation as new teachers, even if experienced, at a new school, for some in a new city, they actually needed the support most. This created very high turnover, actual burn-out, and in one instance a in hindsight dangerous situation (with a classroom in charge of a mentally unstable teacher).
- The curriculum seemed very well thought through and the school days very well planned on paper and many attractive specials listed, all of which is what attracted us to the school (which a relocation firm had recommended we check out). But very basic problems had not been accounted for, for instance how to enroll new non immersion language speakers at higher grade levels, what math curriculum to use and how to train all teachers in that one math curriculum so it would connect across grade-levels. The specials just never materialized until way into the second year. Bullying, probably exacerbated by a somewhat laissez-faire environment in that initial stage was a problem no one had ever thought of.
- The building had significant investment needs. The funds were available but no one really accounted for the fact that pretty much an additional person would have been needed to manage all of that while also building and consolidating the educational piece while also building a non-existing community and find common grounds.

I have to emphasize that our child, even though supervised for several months by someone who shouldn't have been in the classroom as we later found out, did fine. He obviously does not bear lasting scars. But he was only 3 and 4. So the described shortfalls, while maybe compromising his safety at a couple of turns, did not set him back academically. That he was with a bunch of largely just really nice kids also helped.

I can compare this situation to the next one, which brought us to an under-enrolled, dilapidated, and somewhat under-invested DCPS. Although I can't say I didn't lose any hair over this experience, the problems were very different, and in a way more manageable, less taxing, and less roller-coaster like I feel. Happy to elaborate on this but that wasn't the question.

Good news is that you are in.

Bad news is that there's a huge learning curve. I don't care how much planning and experience the charter organizers have, there's just simply a huge learning curve. And they are learning on your guinea pig (I mean " dear child").

Is it awful? No, not necessarily. But expect a lot of surprises, be ready to pitch in, don't expect smooth communications or extras (science fair! field trips! parent website/newsletter!).

My biggest worry is for parents of kids who will need support, either already on an IEP or 504, or who are undiagnosed at this point. This is an extremely difficult and complicated area for any school, but a charter is the whole school district so there are no other resources to draw on, unlike in a school district where there is a department set up to handle those situations. Now, once a charter gets that aspect of its program going, there's no question in my mind that it will be light years better than most traditional DCPS schools, but they will not get there their first year (or three). And it's very hard for parents to navigate that either unless they have experience. Those will be lost years, lost services, time not used in early prevention.

I agree. A lot depends on the grade and how competent the administration is. My child is in the lead class at a well regarded charter and I have a younger child at the same school. It is a very different experience.

We are in a new charter in its first year this year (MV), and the experience has been great. I think it brings together a great group of families that are willing to pitch in and be very active. It does make it a little difficult at first, however, as policies are bound to change throughout the year as the actual effects are learned. There are risks also, especially in the bleeding years. If you get a good feeling from the founders, are openminded and willing to help out when necessary, you should go for it. If you really want the school to fit some idealized picture of your own childhood education, you should probably should keep looking for another choice.

A lot depends on the who or what organization is founding the school (background, experience, funding) and what grade your child will be entering. Upper grade lead classes are tough in most established DC schools. The issues are often magnified in a new charter. Pre school programs are usually fine. It's hard to mess up ABC/123.

We're considering applying to a charter that will be opening this fall, but I'm wary of sending my kid to a brand new school that is an unknown quantity, where I can't see any classrooms in action already, and where they'll presumably still be figuring things out for a while. What has been the experience of others who've taken the leap? Pros/cons? I'm sure it varies and depends on the leadership, etc., but there are probably some common experiences.