Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Who says Dupont has no children?

2) The thought of having to haul out to NE and SE from Dupont and other central neighborhoods (and then make it back for in time for work) is really unappealing, especially when you consider that the NE/SE areas are relatively poorly served by public transit. I'd much rather walk my kid to a nice but small space in my own general neighborhood.

NE and SE should be developed and should get enhanced school options for those who live nearby, but this is not the best way to support parents who want to stay in central neighborhoods.

Talking about where the children who would benefit from MV or any other charter may live is beside the point. Charter schools can't have a neighborhood preference. If they could, they would probably be much more welcome as neighbors.

Take it up with the Charter Board. I live in NW DC. I would like to send my child to school. DCPS has not provided an acceptable option in my neighborhood or anywhere nearby. I do not want to spend 2-3 hours a day bussing to and from NE or SE to get my child to school. If that were the only option, I would have to leave the city. Luckily, there are people who are willing to start Charter schools to provide options for my child and thousands of other children that have been similarly let down by DCPS. But, those schools have to operate within the rules, which are that they can't have neighborhood preference. Should they then abandon all attempts to provide decent education within a reasonable distance from where those children live?

We are already seeing that more children are able to get into their first choice schools as more options are opening. We should be encouraging this growth, not discouraging it. Good schools should not be a NIMBY issue!

Anonymous wrote:1) Who says Dupont has no children?

2) The thought of having to haul out to NE and SE from Dupont and other central neighborhoods (and then make it back for in time for work) is really unappealing, especially when you consider that the NE/SE areas are relatively poorly served by public transit. I'd much rather walk my kid to a nice but small space in my own general neighborhood.

NE and SE should be developed and should get enhanced school options for those who live nearby, but this is not the best way to support parents who want to stay in central neighborhoods.

Talking about where the children who would benefit from MV or any other charter may live is beside the point. Charter schools can't have a neighborhood preference. If they could, they would probably be much more welcome as neighbors.

Maybe if DC matched charter school facilities allowance with that of children enrolled in DCPS, the charters would have more financial flexibility to explore alternative play spaces.

I can see as a how you might not understand how the neighbors are affected and why they might take issue with such an influx of kids at their neighborhood park. But as a person who has experienced the postivies and negatives I will give you my perspective. I live near a park that is crowded every day with kids from a private preschool. Neighbors wanting to use their local park have to elbow in for space and watch their littler kids carefully when droves of bigger kids are getting energy out. It can be very frustrating. Also, as a neighbor I personally was involved in rehabbing the park and the preschool has caused a lot of physical wear and tear without pitching in, in any way, to remediate that wear.

Mitchell is pretty lightly used during the day, but I think it is reasonable for DPR to ask that they limit it to 25 kids at a time. The other schools you mention don't have that many kids so it is less of a concern. the DPR co-op takes 12 kids max.

1) Who says Dupont has no children?

2) The thought of having to haul out to NE and SE from Dupont and other central neighborhoods (and then make it back for in time for work) is really unappealing, especially when you consider that the NE/SE areas are relatively poorly served by public transit. I'd much rather walk my kid to a nice but small space in my own general neighborhood.

NE and SE should be developed and should get enhanced school options for those who live nearby, but this is not the best way to support parents who want to stay in central neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

. If you know how they can "get their stuff together and select sites that come with private outdoor space" while still opening in the areas in which they are needed, I am sure that everyone would be grateful if you would share.

Why I'd be happy to share! Throughout NE and SE in the District of Columbia, there is a surplus of open space (ie, big empty lots), underutilized buildings, and children in need of alternatives to DCPS. The price tends to be right, too, when compared with, oh, say Embassy Row.

Not PP, but MV is there for 1 year and plan to move to their target area, Columbia Heights as this is a bilingual schools that seeks serve ELL which are concentrated in that area. The current location has been used as a incubator/temporary space for charters. The current location is about convenience (metro accessible and close to target area). Not about being in Embassy Row. SMH

. If you know how they can "get their stuff together and select sites that come with private outdoor space" while still opening in the areas in which they are needed, I am sure that everyone would be grateful if you would share.

Why I'd be happy to share! Throughout NE and SE in the District of Columbia, there is a surplus of open space (ie, big empty lots), underutilized buildings, and children in need of alternatives to DCPS. The price tends to be right, too, when compared with, oh, say Embassy Row.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like some neighbors have askd you to limit your use of the playground. What's your response?

In my opinion, the neighbors would like to tell 60 3-5 year-old children each day that they won't get to play or run around at all that day (assuming this cuts down the usage to half of the school throughout the day). To me, that is an unacceptable solution.

I agree with you 100%. But this should be a wake-up call for the school to reach out to the neighborhood to see how it can help the neighbors (since waiting for them to come to you has yeilded untenable results.

And I think it furthers the point that charter school neighbors are inconvenienced with zero direct benefits.

Not an MV parent, but I have to disagree with this. Neighborhoods with no children (such as DuPont) can have an artificial character to them. Children - well-mannered and sweet and cute ones anyway - add a lot to a neighborhood.

Back in my 20s I would have heartily disagreed. In fact I still do. It's nice to have neighborhoods that you can go hang out in that are largely child-free IMO. Otherwise it can be hard to remember that life is not 100000% about parenting.

Actually it is. Life is about successful reproduction. Ask the dinosaurs.

It's a DPR preschool so they can prioritize who access like they do with camps and pools. DCPS limits who can use their playgrounds too.

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.

Oh, so DPR only belongs to those who can or choose to pay for private pre-school? And here I thought the taxpayers supported DPR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like some neighbors have askd you to limit your use of the playground. What's your response?

In my opinion, the neighbors would like to tell 60 3-5 year-old children each day that they won't get to play or run around at all that day (assuming this cuts down the usage to half of the school throughout the day). To me, that is an unacceptable solution.

I agree with you 100%. But this should be a wake-up call for the school to reach out to the neighborhood to see how it can help the neighbors (since waiting for them to come to you has yeilded untenable results.

And I think it furthers the point that charter school neighbors are inconvenienced with zero direct benefits.

Not an MV parent, but I have to disagree with this. Neighborhoods with no children (such as DuPont) can have an artificial character to them. Children - well-mannered and sweet and cute ones anyway - add a lot to a neighborhood.

Back in my 20s I would have heartily disagreed. In fact I still do. It's nice to have neighborhoods that you can go hang out in that are largely child-free IMO. Otherwise it can be hard to remember that life is not 100000% about parenting.

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.

Oh, so DPR only belongs to those who can or choose to pay for private pre-school? And here I thought the taxpayers supported DPR.

I don't know if it's appropriate to make this all about charter schools and whether they are good or bad for the neighborhood. The point is that it's a small park, and other schools that use it make an effort to avoid sending too many kids to the park at once (I don't know if this is a result of neighborhood or DC govt request, or simply a good practice for managing kids of different ages.) It seems to me that MV could do the same; but I'm not a parent there, so maybe I'm missing something.

I think that charter schools should be allowed to set up shop wherever zoning permits them, and should have the same rights to neighborhood resources as any other child or group of children.

But I also believe that having a school in a neighborhood will disrupt neighbors' routines. Some examples would be increased traffic, taking up valuable parking, and yes, making it harder for neighborhood children to use the local playground. For a regular DCPS school, folks who are inconvenienced at least have the comfort of knowing that their children could attend the school. Charter schools don't offer that sort of comfort--you get in by luck if at all.

In light of this, I think that charter schools need to prioritize good relations with their neighbors, and if they're smart they'll reach out proactively. The Mitchell Park situation seems like a good opportunity for MV to practice what it says it teaches its students: "preparing them to be successful and compassionate global stewards of their communities."

Anonymous wrote:

The real issue is that DC needs more playgrounds.

the actual issue is that charter schools and private preschools need to get their stuff together and select sites that come with private outdoor space.

Yes, there is a fundamental problem with the space that Charter Schools can use. They do not have the resources to purchase land in centrally-located places that has enough room for private outdoor space. Thus, they are forced into spaces that are not ideal. In my opinion, however, the Charters are vital to improving public education in the District, as the DCPS system has proven itself to be an unreliable solution, especially those children that do not live in Ward 3. But, the Charters are stepping in to fill the gap. For the first time in a long, long time, families are finding it possible to stay in the city, and this is due in large part to the rise of the Charters. If you know how they can "get their stuff together and select sites that come with private outdoor space" while still opening in the areas in which they are needed, I am sure that everyone would be grateful if you would share.

We all pay taxes and are entitled to use public parks. Sure, MV should coordinate with the DPR school re. times because they're both large groups, but the DPR school can't claim priority.