My children attend Brent, the principal and the school community view the school yard as a public space after 3:15 on weekdays and on weekends and holidays.

A lot of the kids who don't go to aftercare like to stay and play on the playground for exercise and a lot of nannies/parents hang out there while one child is in an afterschool enrichment class and the siblings play on the playground.

There was a brief period of time when the playground was locked on the weekends and after 6 pm b/c inconsiderate members of the community were using it as a dog park and not cleaning up after their pets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may depend on the school. We have been able to take our kids to Murch after school without any problem, but we were asked to leave Eaton.

I was just at Murch a couple of weeks ago to vote. I recall the sign on the fence said the playground was private property from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm for school and aftercare activities. But not sure how they would know if your kid was part of aftercare or not if you are just playing on the playground.

I'd like to think that the aftercare staff would be able to recognize a non-student.

Murch's playground is huge and overrun with non-aftercare kids all afternoon after school. Regardless of what the sign says, anyone with kids can go up there and play once school is out.

My understanding is the school principal has control over how the site is used and by whom, 24/7.

Anonymous wrote:
Also, the days of the wood chip toddler area built with help from the community are long gone. As far as I know, we don't have many community members donating money and labor for upkeep (except perhaps for the DCPS-wide spruce up day in August and the gardening program).

Key just finished raising $250,000 from the community to redo the playground. May be the exception that proves the rule.

2. Why can't Bancroft allow children under the age of 6 ---who are accompanied by and supervised by an adult---come onto the playground to use the toddler playground (there are actually three separate playground areas at Bancroft---so it actually wouldn't be too difficult to cordon off one portion of the playground for neighborhood use). It's really the toddlers we're talking about here---elementary school age kids are usually off at activities or doing homework.

Until one of those 3 yo in aftercare from PS3, who has a right to be there, runs into your kid, and you scream about lack of supervision. Oh, what's that? You'll keep an eve on your kid, and make sure the other kids play nice? So a private citizen will act as an authority figure to kids in DCPS aftercare.

It simply can't be that you can't see the problems with this.

I get that it stinks, and I get that you were used to going to the playground. But at bottom, this is a school prohibiting outsiders from using school facilities at the same time it is responsible for kids using those facilities. That is unquestionably reasonable, and it's absurd that some other state of affairs has been allowed to continue for any length of time.

Anonymous wrote:

It is an example of Bancroft (which is majority OOB)---not being very welcoming to IB parents of smaller kids who might very well consider sending their kids there. If Bancroft's PTA and administration want the surrounding MtP neighborhood to buy their Christmas trees and clean up their playground (and donate money and labor for its upkeep), then maybe they need to demonstrate some understanding regarding the use of it.

So, you were considering sending your child to your IB school but now won't because you can't use the playground until 6 pm? And you donated money and labor for upkeep of the playground, and now won't do that anymore. C'mon. I find it hard to believe that anyone is that shallow or short-sighted, even on DCUM.

I've been at the Bancroft playground several times when adult men are using the soccer field while several younger children are obviously hanging arond hoping to use it. That bugs me. Get off the kids' field!

Anonymous wrote:Quite honestly, I would for once like to see the Mt P neighborhood take something in stride and not get all bent out of shape about it. I don't think this is an easy answer, I think it's a reasonable compromise, and I wish people would leave it alone.

+1

I'm afraid you'll continue to choose not to understand this. But, if your kids were being cared for at that school, you wouldn't want strangers walking in, however well dressed or charming they may appear. The school staff shouldn't have to monitor which strangers are "ok" and which are "dangerous". They should just keep the gates closed.
Please don't let your sense of entitlement cloud how you think about this. Incidentally, you are wrong to say "almost every other city neighborhood" has a toddler park. And sorry you don't have a yard. Guess you liked other things about your neighborhood though, right?

Anonymous wrote:Why can't common sense and a spirit of compromise work in the Bancroft situation---

1. Unllike almost every other city neighborhood, MtP has no DPR park for toddlers and smaller kids---nor do the houses in MtP have sizeable yards.

2. Why can't Bancroft allow children under the age of 6 ---who are accompanied by and supervised by an adult---come onto the playground to use the toddler playground (there are actually three separate playground areas at Bancroft---so it actually wouldn't be too difficult to cordon off one portion of the playground for neighborhood use). It's really the toddlers we're talking about here---elementary school age kids are usually off at activities or doing homework.

It is an example of Bancroft (which is majority OOB)---not being very welcoming to IB parents of smaller kids who might very well consider sending their kids there. If Bancroft's PTA and administration want the surrounding MtP neighborhood to buy their Christmas trees and clean up their playground (and donate money and labor for its upkeep), then maybe they need to demonstrate some understanding regarding the use of it.

Look, I'm a Bancroft parent and I can tell you that it would not work to cordon off the lower toddler playground for the community. As the weather gets warmer, there will be something like 60+ preschoolers and kindergarteners in aftercare racing around on the playgrounds. They aren't old enough for homework and in nice weather they should be outside. The upper playground would not hold them all.

Also, the days of the wood chip toddler area built with help from the community are long gone. As far as I know, we don't have many community members donating money and labor for upkeep (except perhaps for the DCPS-wide spruce up day in August and the gardening program).

Quite honestly, I would for once like to see the Mt P neighborhood take something in stride and not get all bent out of shape about it. I don't think this is an easy answer, I think it's a reasonable compromise, and I wish people would leave it alone.

Anonymous wrote:It is an example of Bancroft (which is majority OOB)

Wrong. 52% IB
http://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Bancroft+Elementary+School

and many other families are from just over the boundary line (Irving St., Columbia Heights).

Again, thanks to those who can see it from the side of the Bancroft PTA. Also, consider that many PTA members are members of the local community; many used the playground before their kids were old enough for school; and many have friends with kids who aren't at Bancroft who use it. So you can be sure that the perspective of the community was taken into account.

Why can't common sense and a spirit of compromise work in the Bancroft situation---

1. Unllike almost every other city neighborhood, MtP has no DPR park for toddlers and smaller kids---nor do the houses in MtP have sizeable yards.

2. Why can't Bancroft allow children under the age of 6 ---who are accompanied by and supervised by an adult---come onto the playground to use the toddler playground (there are actually three separate playground areas at Bancroft---so it actually wouldn't be too difficult to cordon off one portion of the playground for neighborhood use). It's really the toddlers we're talking about here---elementary school age kids are usually off at activities or doing homework.

It is an example of Bancroft (which is majority OOB)---not being very welcoming to IB parents of smaller kids who might very well consider sending their kids there. If Bancroft's PTA and administration want the surrounding MtP neighborhood to buy their Christmas trees and clean up their playground (and donate money and labor for its upkeep), then maybe they need to demonstrate some understanding regarding the use of it.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]15:23 you are kidding right? You can't understand why it's a safety issue for unaffiliated individuals (with or without kids) to be allowed on school grounds during school programming? The world revolves around you I guess.[/quote]

I mean, I can see how the way to prevent any children from getting hurt on a playground is to bar any children from ever playing on it, so in that sense, sure I can see why it's a "safety" issue.

But do I think it makes sense to bar community kids from playing on this nice safe fenced-off playground, which for years has been used as a community playground both during the week, on weekends, and during the school day if it's not otherwise being used? NO. I go there a lot and one of the REASONS it feels safe is that there are lots of people there, kids and adults, school-"affiliated" and not.

I of course agree that "school programming" takes priority over non-school activities, but that only goes so far. If a school soccer team is playing on the soccer field then of course others shouldn't be able to start playing soccer. But when the "school activity" is a bunch of kids playing on a playground, then no, I don't think that more kids and adults on that same playground creates an inherent "safety" issue.

It sounds from the other comments like some neighborhoods have other parks right across the street from the school playground, so community members can just go there instead. That is not the case in Mt. Pleasant. This will mean there is nowhere within reasonable walking distance to play outside for a lot of kids (since it's not like most people have backyards in Mt Pleasant either). I think the PTA or whoever made this decision should have considered that. [/quote]
Okay, well, good luck dictating to Bancroft what you think is acceptable school programming or not. It was mentioned upthread that school leaders and the PTA debated this issue for two years before coming up with the schedule, so it sounds like they did consider the point of view of the neighbors. Frankly, it sounds like perhaps you should take a page from that book and consider the point of view of the parents of the students who, you know, actually attend the school.