Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

You understand that your resentment doesn't make logical sense, right? You have the exact same odds getting in as any other family. Contrast that with your odds of getting in to a good JKLM via OOB?

Do you always try to drag everyone else down, instead of pulling yourself up?

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is that Charter schools are too cheap to invest in decent facilities and, as a result, the kids will be relegated to PE that consists of jumping jacks on a small square of asphalt.

Anonymous wrote:So what do you suggest? The lottery system gives every child from every ward an equal chance of attending a quality school. I guess you could move out of the neighborhood to a ward with a quality DCPS so you wont feel so bad when you see kids tramping by on their way to the nearby charter.

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

How would you feel if your streets were tied up with folks dropping their kids off at a beautiful shiny new building, while you're walking your kids to the local crap DCPS? And when you ask whether your child might join what looks like a great alternative, you're told that you can enter the lottery, but your best chance of getting in is for PS3, and last year the waitlist had 200+ names on it? That's the issue, not folks not wanting "good public schools in all neighborhoods."

I agree with this as well. But, I am also a little dismayed at the NIMBY mentality here. Are there really people that don't want good public schools in all neighborhoods? That makes me sad.

Anonymous wrote:The real issue is that Charter schools are too cheap to invest in decent facilities and, as a result, the kids will be relegated to PE that consists of jumping jacks on a small square of asphalt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not the fault of MV or any other charter that it has a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood
It's not the fault of MV or any other charter that it can't prioritize its neighbors in admissions.

It is a smart idea, though, if not an actual obligation, that charters keep in mind that they're probably not making their neighbors' lives easier, and to try to be a visible force for good in the neighborhood. There will be grumpy people who will complain no matter what, but meeting neighbors' requests with excuses is probably a bad idea.

Agree, but this is just talk on DCUM. How the school is officially dealing with the situation has not been determined.

Anonymous wrote:It's not the fault of MV or any other charter that it has a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood.

It's not the fault of MV or any other charter that it can't prioritize its neighbors in admissions.

It is a smart idea, though, if not an actual obligation, that charters keep in mind that they're probably not making their neighbors' lives easier, and to try to be a visible force for good in the neighborhood. There will be grumpy people who will complain no matter what, but meeting neighbors' requests with excuses is probably a bad idea.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:Talking about locating charters near public transportation makes all the sense in the world. Talking about locating them near specific groups of children, knowing there's no way to prioritize the education of those children, is idiotic.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.