I am a Mt. P parent who is also frustrated with the Bancroft change in policy. Many of you may not understand the history of this playground. It was very recently renovated for multi-purpose use. One of those purposes was to serve the community - that's why they created a toddler playground. The playground has three very distinct play areas for different age groups. It has become a very popular neighborhood destination for parents of very young children. For the last two years many parents and caregivers of toddlers have used this between the hours of 4-6 pm (post-nap before dinner). For Bancroft to suddenly yank this option from neighborhood parents is extremely disappointing. Every day my 2- and 4- year old now ask why they can't go to the playground.

I agree that the most appropriate compromise would have been to let young children use the fenced-in toddler playground.

I agree there are problems with unsupervised kids, but the problem is with older kids - not toddlers. This problem could have been addressed by prohibiting all non-school children at the to be accompanied by an adult.

My children don't attend Bancroft but we do support them in other ways.

Anonymous wrote:We've heard about the situations at Brent, Bancroft and Murch. Anyone else care to share how their DCPS shares their playground with the community?

Mann is closed during the school day. After school it is open to the neighborhood. Local teams (youth and adult) can use the playing fields, but there are signs that youth and family groups always take priority over adults. There are local soccer and lacrosse teams that use the fields, many (if not most) students don't attend Mann. Still, they largely live in the area and the school is a neighborhood resource.

We've heard about the situations at Brent, Bancroft and Murch. Anyone else care to share how their DCPS shares their playground with the community?

It makes sense for a playground to be closed to the public during the school day; aftercare is daycare and not part of the school day.

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get---
There are three playground equipment areas at Bancroft. The toddler area is fenced (even within the larger playground) and right inside the gate and separate from the other areas. It seems to me that the dismay re the policy is mostly coming from the parents of toddlers---who would really like some late afternoon time for their kids on the playground---because, as has been explained, there is no other available play space in the neighborhood.

So why not let the toddlers (with parental supervision) use that fenced-off area? That would seem a reasonable compromise, and one that wouldn't turn off the toddler parents---who are the parent group the PTA would most like to reach out to anyway.

I say this as a MtP parent of older kids who would not benefit from this type of compromise policy at all. And indeed, I support the idea that older kids should be excluded from the playground during after care hours for safety reasons.

It sounds reasonable, but as I posted earlier in this thread, Bancroft has something like 60+ preschool and K kids in the aftercare. They are too young for the big kids playground and there are too many to confine them all to the upper toddler playground. Do you think it's fair to ask the overworked aftercare staff to look to make sure your toddler doesn't get knocked over by a bunch of high-energy 4 and 5 year olds? I would think for your kid's safety you would rather they *not* be there during aftercare.

Here's what I don't get---
There are three playground equipment areas at Bancroft. The toddler area is fenced (even within the larger playground) and right inside the gate and separate from the other areas. It seems to me that the dismay re the policy is mostly coming from the parents of toddlers---who would really like some late afternoon time for their kids on the playground---because, as has been explained, there is no other available play space in the neighborhood.

So why not let the toddlers (with parental supervision) use that fenced-off area? That would seem a reasonable compromise, and one that wouldn't turn off the toddler parents---who are the parent group the PTA would most like to reach out to anyway.

I say this as a MtP parent of older kids who would not benefit from this type of compromise policy at all. And indeed, I support the idea that older kids should be excluded from the playground during after care hours for safety reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Surely you don't think it is Bancroft's responsibility to provide a playspace for all neighborhood children at all hours?

What an unnecessarily nasty sentiment. Playgrounds are a space where the community can come together, and while I understand the school's reasoning in making these rules, I certainly hope that your message doesn't reflect the overall tone of Bancroft parents.

I'm sorry if you felt it was nasty; someone on this thread is non-stop whining. Unlike you, that person does not understand the school's reasoning; he or she does feel that the school is being "ridiculous." I am not a Bancroft parent; the ones who weighed in here said that they were in support of of the PTA decision.

Well, for the record, why wouldn't they (support the PTA)? They've "got theirs" already, why would they want anyone else in?

Now THAT seems mean-spirited and nasty. It seemed clear from the previous postings that the PTA worked long and hard to come up with a compromise.

Hey, I'm new to this rodeo, largely because living in Shaw I don't feel very connected to the history or details of the situation.

My point was that there's not anything particularly surprising about Bancroft parents supporting the Bancroft PTA. Who exactly is the Bancroft PTA if not Bancroft parents, after all? So, their first concern is largely for their own children, and it's the children from outside whom they perceive to be a problem. How is it not in their interest to support that little wall?

You can call it mean-spirited, maybe I should have phrased it more diplomatically. It's not nasty though, it's just logic.

Sorry, Shaw, I assumed incorrectly that you were the same poster who called me mean-spirited and nasty. I agree completely that Bancroft parents should put the needs of their own children and school ahead of those of the community. It sounds like they've come to a reasonable compromise that at least allows some neighborhood access to the facilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Surely you don't think it is Bancroft's responsibility to provide a playspace for all neighborhood children at all hours?

What an unnecessarily nasty sentiment. Playgrounds are a space where the community can come together, and while I understand the school's reasoning in making these rules, I certainly hope that your message doesn't reflect the overall tone of Bancroft parents.

I'm sorry if you felt it was nasty; someone on this thread is non-stop whining. Unlike you, that person does not understand the school's reasoning; he or she does feel that the school is being "ridiculous." I am not a Bancroft parent; the ones who weighed in here said that they were in support of of the PTA decision.

Well, for the record, why wouldn't they (support the PTA)? They've "got theirs" already, why would they want anyone else in?

Now THAT seems mean-spirited and nasty. It seemed clear from the previous postings that the PTA worked long and hard to come up with a compromise.

Hey, I'm new to this rodeo, largely because living in Shaw I don't feel very connected to the history or details of the situation.

My point was that there's not anything particularly surprising about Bancroft parents supporting the Bancroft PTA. Who exactly is the Bancroft PTA if not Bancroft parents, after all? So, their first concern is largely for their own children, and it's the children from outside whom they perceive to be a problem. How is it not in their interest to support that little wall?

You can call it mean-spirited, maybe I should have phrased it more diplomatically. It's not nasty though, it's just logic.

Just to clarify, the PTA and LSAT had input on the policy, but the final policy was issued by school administration (i.e. it's a school policy, not a PTA policy).

Also, the PTA did discuss at length the fact that the playground has been a wonderful way to interact with the community and help prospective parents get to know the school. No doubt this is one reason why more and more neighborhood families are choosing Bancroft. We want you, believe me! Please try to understand the rationale for this policy and don't let it turn you away from the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Surely you don't think it is Bancroft's responsibility to provide a playspace for all neighborhood children at all hours?

What an unnecessarily nasty sentiment. Playgrounds are a space where the community can come together, and while I understand the school's reasoning in making these rules, I certainly hope that your message doesn't reflect the overall tone of Bancroft parents.

I'm sorry if you felt it was nasty; someone on this thread is non-stop whining. Unlike you, that person does not understand the school's reasoning; he or she does feel that the school is being "ridiculous." I am not a Bancroft parent; the ones who weighed in here said that they were in support of of the PTA decision.

Well, for the record, why wouldn't they (support the PTA)? They've "got theirs" already, why would they want anyone else in?

Now THAT seems mean-spirited and nasty. It seemed clear from the previous postings that the PTA worked long and hard to come up with a compromise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Surely you don't think it is Bancroft's responsibility to provide a playspace for all neighborhood children at all hours?

What an unnecessarily nasty sentiment. Playgrounds are a space where the community can come together, and while I understand the school's reasoning in making these rules, I certainly hope that your message doesn't reflect the overall tone of Bancroft parents.

I'm sorry if you felt it was nasty; someone on this thread is non-stop whining. Unlike you, that person does not understand the school's reasoning; he or she does feel that the school is being "ridiculous." I am not a Bancroft parent; the ones who weighed in here said that they were in support of of the PTA decision.

Well, for the record, why wouldn't they (support the PTA)? They've "got theirs" already, why would they want anyone else in?

Oh, how I wish some of this cold water would be thrown on the Mt Pleasant listserv and Forum! Alas, the whining will continue.

Yes, it would be nice f there were better playground options in Mt P - I wish they'd direct their energy toward achieving that.

If it's nasty and mean-spirited of me to think about the needs of children other than my own and to point out that the world does not revolve around you, so be it.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't FEEL it was nasty, it WAS nasty and mean-spirited.

I disagree.

I didn't FEEL it was nasty, it WAS nasty and mean-spirited.