Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks all -- I was asking the question because I didn't for sure know the answer. It's making more sense now...
Let me guess, OP. You bought a house in Brightwood? Michigan Park? But you don't want to send your kid to the local school because it's "not an option" so you're looking at charters?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks all -- I was asking the question because I didn't for sure know the answer. It's making more sense now...
Let me guess, OP. You bought a house in Brightwood? Michigan Park? But you don't want to send your kid to the local school because it's "not an option" so you're looking at charters?
Anonymous wrote:Thanks all -- I was asking the question because I didn't for sure know the answer. It's making more sense now...
Anonymous wrote:Charters can also offer niche programming to compete with high-performing public schools (immersion, Montessori, etc.) But real estate costs and the central office are both deterrents to locating these schools in affluent areas. And since affluent families generally do not object to high-performing neighborhood schools, and/or have the means to transport a child to a remote location if they feel the program is worth it, the absence of charters in affluent neighborhoods is not an issue that inspires much advocacy.
Anonymous wrote:I could probably answer my own question: real estate is less expensive in these areas. I guess it's not as big of a deal if they have all their activities on the campus of the school, but when they have to walk a bit to get to the nearest playground this makes me nervous.