Anonymous wrote:They're not only planning on acquiring the Potomac Lighthouse building, they want to build an addition there.

Wow. So they're going to keep digging the hole? Is there some motivation we don't know about? Do they have some master plan to somehow get revenue streams from licensing their name or teaching approach? If they don't have some sort of national ambition, this really looks like shooting themselves in the foot w/o already solidifying the shaky work over in P St (in terms of teacher turnover, classroom management, etc.)

They're not only planning on acquiring the Potomac Lighthouse building, they want to build an addition there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do current parents who are generally happy with their experience feel about this potential change?

Is Stokes proposing am expansion as well? Seems like they'd be better positioned to do so...

Happy third year MV parent here. Don't know enough about this yet to comment. I'm hoping they can pull it off smoothly. It might actually help the school attract more good teachers but I'm guessing here. Will be curious to see how MV admin pitches this to the current families. TBD...

Have they even said anything about this to current families? I have heard anything. I am in my second year at the school and this seems too fast to me, especially given some of the hiring challenges the school has has.

+1

+2. Look at the teacher salaries. They are shitty. That on top of the culture as of late is not going to attract and retains quality teachers.

Very strange that they didn't socialize this among current families before putting it before the DCPCSB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do current parents who are generally happy with their experience feel about this potential change?

Is Stokes proposing am expansion as well? Seems like they'd be better positioned to do so...

Happy third year MV parent here. Don't know enough about this yet to comment. I'm hoping they can pull it off smoothly. It might actually help the school attract more good teachers but I'm guessing here. Will be curious to see how MV admin pitches this to the current families. TBD...

Have they even said anything about this to current families? I have heard anything. I am in my second year at the school and this seems too fast to me, especially given some of the hiring challenges the school has has.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do current parents who are generally happy with their experience feel about this potential change?

Is Stokes proposing am expansion as well? Seems like they'd be better positioned to do so...

Happy third year MV parent here. Don't know enough about this yet to comment. I'm hoping they can pull it off smoothly. It might actually help the school attract more good teachers but I'm guessing here. Will be curious to see how MV admin pitches this to the current families. TBD...

Have they even said anything about this to current families? I have heard anything. I am in my second year at the school and this seems too fast to me, especially given some of the hiring challenges the school has has.

Anonymous wrote:How do current parents who are generally happy with their experience feel about this potential change?

Is Stokes proposing am expansion as well? Seems like they'd be better positioned to do so...

Absolutely agree. Seems like MV is perpetually in a cash crunch, always chasing the next expansion.

Anonymous wrote:How do current parents who are generally happy with their experience feel about this potential change?

Is Stokes proposing am expansion as well? Seems like they'd be better positioned to do so...

Happy third year MV parent here. Don't know enough about this yet to comment. I'm hoping they can pull it off smoothly. It might actually help the school attract more good teachers but I'm guessing here. Will be curious to see how MV admin pitches this to the current families. TBD...

How do current parents who are generally happy with their experience feel about this potential change?

Is Stokes proposing am expansion as well? Seems like they'd be better positioned to do so...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think MV is politically connected? They certainly are not politically connected to the Trump Administration.

agreed popular and politically connected are VERY different things in this town

Via the charter board, they are very connected...and the corporatists at the charter board are going to be looking for ways to screw DC if charter operators aren't given all the licenses they desire. I would be shocked they are allowed to say no to Charters with long waitlists or be financing behind them. (MV much more the former than the latter.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think MV is politically connected? They certainly are not politically connected to the Trump Administration.

agreed popular and politically connected are VERY different things in this town

And Betsy DeVos seems to like her charters large and corporate, not the small, local DCUM HRC kind.

No way to know that - the majority of charters are large. She seems up for all options and alternatives to regular district schools. No reason not to support MV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think MV is politically connected? They certainly are not politically connected to the Trump Administration.

agreed popular and politically connected are VERY different things in this town

And Betsy DeVos seems to like her charters large and corporate, not the small, local DCUM HRC kind.

Anonymous wrote:Why do you think MV is politically connected? They certainly are not politically connected to the Trump Administration.

agreed popular and politically connected are VERY different things in this town

Why do you think MV is politically connected? They certainly are not politically connected to the Trump Administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With Trump in power the charter board is going to be powerless to turn down proposals that have strong political backing.

No. Wrong.

Why would it be? The spotlight is on DC and how it treats it's charters. If they turn down a politically-connected HRCS, DeVos can use it as excuse to intervene in an "anti-choice jurisdiction" as ironic as that would be. People should just let MV do it.