Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would send my kids there, and I moved to Bloomingdale in 1999. I've been on the Bloomingdale listserv since that time and the Bloomingdale kids listserv since is started (2008, I think). Seaton has NEVER been mentioned on either list serv until THIS year (by one person, primarily - and I think Seaton is a great school, what we're discussing here is whether Langley has more community support than Harmony, which has virtually none and has only been mentioned on the kids list serv once by a long term resident who was very disturbed by their plan to "become" the neighborhood school and who also said great things about Langley). (Go look at the archives). "Still hear gunshots across Florida ave"? That could be any time in the past 15 years or before, including last weekend when there were two shootings and two dead within a few blocks of each other.

My bet, you're like one of our new neighbors who claims that they were in the "first wave of gentrification" because they've now been here almost a year!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming Bridges family here who knows nothing about the goings-on. Can we please stop throwing each other under the bus and move on? The school situation is tough enough, but throwing around accusations and calling each other unethical is completely unnecessary.

+1

We as charter school families should try and stick together.

Why? Are charter school families different from the rest of us?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming Bridges family here who knows nothing about the goings-on. Can we please stop throwing each other under the bus and move on? The school situation is tough enough, but throwing around accusations and calling each other unethical is completely unnecessary.

+1

We as charter school families should try and stick together.

Anonymous wrote:Incoming Bridges family here who knows nothing about the goings-on. Can we please stop throwing each other under the bus and move on? The school situation is tough enough, but throwing around accusations and calling each other unethical is completely unnecessary.

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.

Correct. The Landlord was wrong. Bridges was wrong.

Open communication about every stage of this process has been shared with Shining Stars families since Day ONE. So SSMA families have a timeline to match against any story told by the landlord or Bridges. They were sneaky, underhanded, and downright wrong. I can't speak to its legality.
Claims about pre-deals with Sela are false and an excuse to make the leadership look untrustworthy. Through these hurdles, SSMA families have formed a stronger bond and as we navigate this Rat Race of building acquisition in the District, SSMA has been honest, forthcoming, and persevered to find solutions for any speed bump presented along its path. This is a school, a family, an organization, that will succeed, and surpass all expectations.

-Leslie Vaughn

Anonymous wrote:She's also more likely to be biased towards Shining Stars and believe they are totally in the right in this situation...

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.

Correct. The Landlord was wrong. Bridges was wrong.

Open communication about every stage of this process has been shared with Shining Stars families since Day ONE. So SSMA families have a timeline to match against any story told by the landlord or Bridges. They were sneaky, underhanded, and downright wrong. I can't speak to its legality.
Claims about pre-deals with Sela are false and an excuse to make the leadership look untrustworthy. Through these hurdles, SSMA families have formed a stronger bond and as we navigate this Rat Race of building acquisition in the District, SSMA has been honest, forthcoming, and persevered to find solutions for any speed bump presented along its path. This is a school, a family, an organization, that will succeed, and surpass all expectations.

-Leslie Vaughn

SSMA had a signed LOI with Sela and used this LOI to negotiate a better deal with the landlord of the Taylor St. space - this is also bad behavior. According to the former ED, St. Sophia's was never an option because of the location. Gallaudet and Howard were ruled out early because of the space restrictions. SSMA then signed an LOI with Sela and used the terms of this deal to negotiate a better deal on the Taylor space - because Taylor is in their preferred location and requires significant rehabbing as it was close to being condemned. Legal? Yes, but ethically-challenged. Unfortunately because of SSMA's delay (and perhaps because of their shakey finances and leadership), Bridges was able to submit a better offer. All legal, and perhaps also ethically challenged. Karma is a bitch.

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.

Correct. The Landlord was wrong. Bridges was wrong.

Open communication about every stage of this process has been shared with Shining Stars families since Day ONE. So SSMA families have a timeline to match against any story told by the landlord or Bridges. They were sneaky, underhanded, and downright wrong. I can't speak to its legality.
Claims about pre-deals with Sela are false and an excuse to make the leadership look untrustworthy. Through these hurdles, SSMA families have formed a stronger bond and as we navigate this Rat Race of building acquisition in the District, SSMA has been honest, forthcoming, and persevered to find solutions for any speed bump presented along its path. This is a school, a family, an organization, that will succeed, and surpass all expectations.

-Leslie Vaughn

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Your sentiment is nice, but your friend doesn't sound like an authority. Her hearsay seems unlikely to do anything but further muddy the general gossip.

Anonymous wrote:ahahaha J.F. Cook. It's H.D. Cooke. But you know the neighborhood….