Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

Bridges has always had PS3 classes. It originally opened as just PS3/PK4. Now it's growing up to 5th grade and the oldest class is the rising 2nd grade. So, yes these are students they're already serving.

I'm aware that they've always had PS3. What I was told was that they were adding additional PS3 classes - in addition to the ones they already had. This was not from anyone at the school though - just a person with a 3 year old on the waitlist for Bridges with low numbers. Adding several classes of three year olds and needing to expand to accommodate them is not meeting the needs of current students. If they had been unable to obtain space, they would not be adding those classes and the children they already serve would attend class in their current space(s).

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. So helpful to just make things up vs. obtaining actual information from the school.

Let me clarify.

I was told by a friend who is on the Bridges wait list, when she called to see if there had been movement, that they were planning to add PS3 classes, so she should EXPECT movement. Do you want me to post her name and phone number, so you can call her to confirm her story?

I literally have no dog in this fight. We are not going to Shining Stars next year regardless of where they are located. We never applied to Bridges in the first place. I just don't think that an expansion of the lowest grade can be reasonably characterized as "serving the students they have" and I don't think that doing good things for one population justifies screwing over another, if that is what happened, which we do not know for sure.

I guess I'm just interested in also giving Shining Stars the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous wrote:Are there any bridges families willing to comment?

Anonymous wrote:I continue to not understand why we are so quick to make excuses for and give the benefit of the doubt to lack of organization and overall incompetence when it comes to educating our children. If SSMA parents were dealing with shady dealings in a home or car purchase or in some other areas of their lives, they would likely never accept the treatment and behaviour. Why must we accept this when it comes to our children's education? Why such patience and acceptance? Are the other options that bad??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

Bridges has always had PS3 classes. It originally opened as just PS3/PK4. Now it's growing up to 5th grade and the oldest class is the rising 2nd grade. So, yes these are students they're already serving.

I'm aware that they've always had PS3. What I was told was that they were adding additional PS3 classes - in addition to the ones they already had. This was not from anyone at the school though - just a person with a 3 year old on the waitlist for Bridges with low numbers. Adding several classes of three year olds and needing to expand to accommodate them is not meeting the needs of current students. If they had been unable to obtain space, they would not be adding those classes and the children they already serve would attend class in their current space(s).

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about. So helpful to just make things up vs. obtaining actual information from the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bridges parent here,

To answer the OP's question, I never heard about any of this until reading this thread. How does it make me feel?
I'm not swayed in either direction. I don't know if this is true or not. What I do know is that the school serves a lot of special needs students, my child included. I think that in the long run the good they do outweighs the bad.

Glad you are happy with Bridges. I think your last statement dismisses the real pickle the "retrace" put SSMA families. It's heartbreaking not knowing if the school your child loves will exist in 6 weeks, or if we are going to lose families b/c a new location is unworkable. But all's fair in love, war, and real estate, in suppose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

Bridges has always had PS3 classes. It originally opened as just PS3/PK4. Now it's growing up to 5th grade and the oldest class is the rising 2nd grade. So, yes these are students they're already serving.

I'm aware that they've always had PS3. What I was told was that they were adding additional PS3 classes - in addition to the ones they already had. This was not from anyone at the school though - just a person with a 3 year old on the waitlist for Bridges with low numbers. Adding several classes of three year olds and needing to expand to accommodate them is not meeting the needs of current students. If they had been unable to obtain space, they would not be adding those classes and the children they already serve would attend class in their current space(s).

Anonymous wrote:Bridges parent here,

To answer the OP's question, I never heard about any of this until reading this thread. How does it make me feel?
I'm not swayed in either direction. I don't know if this is true or not. What I do know is that the school serves a lot of special needs students, my child included. I think that in the long run the good they do outweighs the bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

Speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, Langley is not supported by the neighborhood. If Langley had a great team, then its scores wouldn't be below the (already lowest in the nation) DC average. Harmony's are above the Texas average, which is far above DC's. They have a 100% college acceptance rate. If that's the kind of background you call odd, then DC needs to get a lot more odd.

And speaking as someone who also lives in the neighborhood (and has almost certainly lived there significantly longer than you have), I can tell you that Langley is MUCH more supported (even by those who don't send their kids there, like me) than Harmony whose stated goal has been to "become" the neighborhood school. If you were aware of the neighborhood schooling options you'd also realize that Langley's statistics are for Langley Education Campus which no longer exists. Langley ES has only been in existence for one year, with a brand new team and an excellent Principal and you will certainly see changes when this year's results are published. Sure, it will take a little while, but I have to ask - have you actually toured the school? Met the principal? Spoken to parents? Thought not.

No, most families in the neighborhood are more interested in Seaton than in Langley.

The interest in Seaton in Bloomingdale is VERY recent so your concept of "most families" is myopic. You just proved my point that you haven't been living here long. Even earlier this year when it looked as if Bloomingdale was going to become out of boundary for Langley there were a lot of concerned neighbors who lobbied hard for that not to be the case. They were successful and current plans indicate that Bloomingdale will stay inbound for Langley and no longer be in bound for Seaton. While I know several people who are sending their kids to Seaton this year, this is the very first time that I've heard anyone in the neighborhood mention it, yet Langley has been on the collective radar screen for years and I know many families that have sent or considered sending their kids to Langley since it was created (as an education campus, formerly Emery) about 4 years ago. This is completely off topic, but it pisses me off when people come in and trash neighborhood schools that they know nothing about, especially when they are doing good things. They DO have a great team - and one that is heavily supported by DCPS and a principal who is regarded as a high flyer within DCPS - but it is a brand new team starting in 2013, so their work is not yet reflected in the stats which haven't even been released for the first year.

So, Langley may not be a popular school, but it has a lot more community support than Harmony which has just parachuted in and has created very little goodwill so far.

How long have you been here? Exactly? I didn't say my family was interested in Seaton, I said that most families in the neighborhood (based on the Bloomingdale listserve) are interested in Seaton. When I moved to Bloomingdale, you could still hear gunshots across Florida Ave., and every mid-to-high SES family was enrolled in private schools. I'm pretty sure I don't need to prove my bona fides to you or anyone else.

J.F. Cook was terrible. Then Emery was terrible. Now Langley is terrible. It's easy to cheer-lead for shitty schools you'd never actually send your own children to - after all, it boosts your property value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

Speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, Langley is not supported by the neighborhood. If Langley had a great team, then its scores wouldn't be below the (already lowest in the nation) DC average. Harmony's are above the Texas average, which is far above DC's. They have a 100% college acceptance rate. If that's the kind of background you call odd, then DC needs to get a lot more odd.

And speaking as someone who also lives in the neighborhood (and has almost certainly lived there significantly longer than you have), I can tell you that Langley is MUCH more supported (even by those who don't send their kids there, like me) than Harmony whose stated goal has been to "become" the neighborhood school. If you were aware of the neighborhood schooling options you'd also realize that Langley's statistics are for Langley Education Campus which no longer exists. Langley ES has only been in existence for one year, with a brand new team and an excellent Principal and you will certainly see changes when this year's results are published. Sure, it will take a little while, but I have to ask - have you actually toured the school? Met the principal? Spoken to parents? Thought not.

No, most families in the neighborhood are more interested in Seaton than in Langley.

The interest in Seaton in Bloomingdale is VERY recent so your concept of "most families" is myopic. You just proved my point that you haven't been living here long. Even earlier this year when it looked as if Bloomingdale was going to become out of boundary for Langley there were a lot of concerned neighbors who lobbied hard for that not to be the case. They were successful and current plans indicate that Bloomingdale will stay inbound for Langley and no longer be in bound for Seaton. While I know several people who are sending their kids to Seaton this year, this is the very first time that I've heard anyone in the neighborhood mention it, yet Langley has been on the collective radar screen for years and I know many families that have sent or considered sending their kids to Langley since it was created (as an education campus, formerly Emery) about 4 years ago. This is completely off topic, but it pisses me off when people come in and trash neighborhood schools that they know nothing about, especially when they are doing good things. They DO have a great team - and one that is heavily supported by DCPS and a principal who is regarded as a high flyer within DCPS - but it is a brand new team starting in 2013, so their work is not yet reflected in the stats which haven't even been released for the first year.

So, Langley may not be a popular school, but it has a lot more community support than Harmony which has just parachuted in and has created very little goodwill so far.

How long have you been here? Exactly? I didn't say my family was interested in Seaton, I said that most families in the neighborhood (based on the Bloomingdale listserve) are interested in Seaton. When I moved to Bloomingdale, you could still hear gunshots across Florida Ave., and every mid-to-high SES family was enrolled in private schools. I'm pretty sure I don't need to prove my bona fides to you or anyone else.

J.F. Cook was terrible. Then Emery was terrible. Now Langley is terrible. It's easy to cheer-lead for shitty schools you'd never actually send your own children to - after all, it boosts your property value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

Bridges has always had PS3 classes. It originally opened as just PS3/PK4. Now it's growing up to 5th grade and the oldest class is the rising 2nd grade. So, yes these are students they're already serving.

I'm aware that they've always had PS3. What I was told was that they were adding additional PS3 classes - in addition to the ones they already had. This was not from anyone at the school though - just a person with a 3 year old on the waitlist for Bridges with low numbers. Adding several classes of three year olds and needing to expand to accommodate them is not meeting the needs of current students. If they had been unable to obtain space, they would not be adding those classes and the children they already serve would attend class in their current space(s).

Who cares what you were told? I know children who are told there is a Tooth Fairy, that doesn't make it true. What have you actually verified as fact? Or, do you just believe everything that you are told?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SSMA incoming parent here. From what I understand SSMA administration asked the LANDLORD whether he was negotiating with Bridges, to which he said no, they're not interested. SSMA then proceeded very far along in the leasing process, both parties signed a Letter of Intent, SSMA submitted the address as their location to the charter school board, SSMA got permits for doing certain renovations they needed, etc. There was some back and forth with the final contract, but all parties were supposedly negotiating in good faith towards finalizing th lease. At this point, Bridges would very likely have been aware that SSMA was close to finalizing (they'd have to be living under a rock not to know that) and I believe that the Charter Board also asked them why they were submitting a location that SSMA had already submitted the month before. The SSMA director said she had been on the other end of that situation before where she was interested in a spot but learned that another school was in negotiations for it and she said that the usual practice is for the school coming along second to back away. (The real estate attorney said that the usual (ethical) thing for a landlord in that situation is to say we're very far along in the process of a contract that is being negotiated in good-faith so I can't talk to you unless it is cancelled.)

Once SSMA believed they had agreed upon the final contract they submitted their payment and signed contract. It was then that the landlord told SSMA that he received an unsolicited bid from Bridges that he was considering, which he ultimately decided to take. The SSMA administration believes that the landlord was actually negotiating with Bridges for some time and used the final signed contract as leverage to get Bridges to agree to a better deal.

So Bridges definitely comes away looking like they knew they were stepping into a space that SSMA was planning to use, but they didn't have direct conversations with SSMA and say they weren't negotiating for it.

That is a pretty easy position to take if you're just opening a new school. It is different if you already have PS/PK/K/1st/2nd and they are spread out over two campuses in the immediate area. In that case, you have to do what's best for the 250 or 300 students you're already serving.

I have to agree with the real estate attorney that the landlord is the one with the burden to step away. The individual schools have an obligation to act in their students' best interests.

Maybe the Bridges families can relate what they're going to be putting in that space, then. It sounded to me like they were planning to add classes - PS3 classes - which isn't "students they're already serving" so much. I can't help but wonder if people's responses would be different if you replaced "Shining Stars" with "Lee Montessori" or "Inspired Teaching" or "Mundo Verde". Many of these posts come off as "Well, they deserve it because X or Y." As a former SSMA family, I am under absolutely no delusions about the issues the school faces. Those issues certainly contributed to our looking elsewhere. But the suggestion is that we should give Bridges the benefit of the doubt, while Shining Stars clearly must be disorganized, unprofessional, etc.

Bridges has always had PS3 classes. It originally opened as just PS3/PK4. Now it's growing up to 5th grade and the oldest class is the rising 2nd grade. So, yes these are students they're already serving.

I'm aware that they've always had PS3. What I was told was that they were adding additional PS3 classes - in addition to the ones they already had. This was not from anyone at the school though - just a person with a 3 year old on the waitlist for Bridges with low numbers. Adding several classes of three year olds and needing to expand to accommodate them is not meeting the needs of current students. If they had been unable to obtain space, they would not be adding those classes and the children they already serve would attend class in their current space(s).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS would release the 20+ empty school buildings, this wouldn't be an issue. Hopefully, Harmony will force the closure of Langley and there will be one more. OTOH, what do Catania and Bowser intend to do to help?

As a charter school parent, I agree with this.

While we parents (DCPS/Charter) bicker for scraps and hurt our children in the process - let's figure out what our proposed leadership would intend to do.

I'd like to know what any future Mayor plans to do about the facilities issue in Washington.

It is one thing to want DCPS to release building for use by charter schools. It is quite another to hope that a charter school forces the closure of a public school.

It's also exceptionally far fetched to suggest that Harmony will have sufficient impact on Langley for it to close. Langley is rapidly improving and has a great team. Harmony is a for profit with an odd Texan background that is not supported in the neighborhood.

Speaking as someone who lives in the neighborhood, Langley is not supported by the neighborhood. If Langley had a great team, then its scores wouldn't be below the (already lowest in the nation) DC average. Harmony's are above the Texas average, which is far above DC's. They have a 100% college acceptance rate. If that's the kind of background you call odd, then DC needs to get a lot more odd.

And speaking as someone who also lives in the neighborhood (and has almost certainly lived there significantly longer than you have), I can tell you that Langley is MUCH more supported (even by those who don't send their kids there, like me) than Harmony whose stated goal has been to "become" the neighborhood school. If you were aware of the neighborhood schooling options you'd also realize that Langley's statistics are for Langley Education Campus which no longer exists. Langley ES has only been in existence for one year, with a brand new team and an excellent Principal and you will certainly see changes when this year's results are published. Sure, it will take a little while, but I have to ask - have you actually toured the school? Met the principal? Spoken to parents? Thought not.

No, most families in the neighborhood are more interested in Seaton than in Langley.

The interest in Seaton in Bloomingdale is VERY recent so your concept of "most families" is myopic. You just proved my point that you haven't been living here long. Even earlier this year when it looked as if Bloomingdale was going to become out of boundary for Langley there were a lot of concerned neighbors who lobbied hard for that not to be the case. They were successful and current plans indicate that Bloomingdale will stay inbound for Langley and no longer be in bound for Seaton. While I know several people who are sending their kids to Seaton this year, this is the very first time that I've heard anyone in the neighborhood mention it, yet Langley has been on the collective radar screen for years and I know many families that have sent or considered sending their kids to Langley since it was created (as an education campus, formerly Emery) about 4 years ago. This is completely off topic, but it pisses me off when people come in and trash neighborhood schools that they know nothing about, especially when they are doing good things. They DO have a great team - and one that is heavily supported by DCPS and a principal who is regarded as a high flyer within DCPS - but it is a brand new team starting in 2013, so their work is not yet reflected in the stats which haven't even been released for the first year.

So, Langley may not be a popular school, but it has a lot more community support than Harmony which has just parachuted in and has created very little goodwill so far.