Anonymous wrote:The solution we should be lobbying for then, is for DCPS to close the vast majority of its failing schools and hand the keys over to the charters. Miner and Garrison are dumps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that charter schools should be allowed to set up shop wherever zoning permits them, and should have the same rights to neighborhood resources as any other child or group of children.

But I also believe that having a school in a neighborhood will disrupt neighbors' routines. Some examples would be increased traffic, taking up valuable parking, and yes, making it harder for neighborhood children to use the local playground. For a regular DCPS school, folks who are inconvenienced at least have the comfort of knowing that their children could attend the school. Charter schools don't offer that sort of comfort--you get in by luck if at all.

In light of this, I think that charter schools need to prioritize good relations with their neighbors, and if they're smart they'll reach out proactively. The Mitchell Park situation seems like a good opportunity for MV to practice what it says it teaches its students: "preparing them to be successful and compassionate global stewards of their communities."

Charter schools can locate in any area as the zoning laws were developed with neighborhood public schools in mind. Traffic was not a consideration when these zoning laws were developed. Schools were developed with ample outdoor play space and most students were walking to school. (There are a couple of minor zoning requirements that were passed after the neighbors fought Appletree on Cap Hill trying to locate in a rowhouse essentially -- the new rules require a certain minimum lot size but that's it.) So charters can be in areas that are zoned single family residential or commercial etc, pretty much without restriction. Why are they where they are? Because they don't have the money for better facilities.

But what does this mean for the neighbors? Often it means heavy traffic for dropoff and pickup on a street not designed for a public school serving students from across the city, many arriving in private cars because buses are not provided and they don't live nearby. It means trash. It can mean property damage. It can mean noise. And yes, it can definitely mean schepping your kids to a school across town because you didn't get into the one that is nearby because there is no priority for neighborhood children (due to the law).

I live near a charter and there is definitely inconvenience: traffic, litter, and property damage due to being located by the school. The benefits accrue to the District as a whole and to the families attending. The negatives are of course concentrated on the immediate neighbors. Neighbors do have the same change of getting in as everyone else -- in other words, no guarantee.

The solution we should be lobbying for then, is for DCPS to close the vast majority of its failing schools and hand the keys over to the charters. Miner and Garrison are dumps. Move IT and MV into those facilities and make something worthwhile happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yup, the exact same odds. And headaches that lucky families don't have.

What I've said throughout this thread is that charters should not be shocked to meet resentment from their neighbors, and should work to make themselves a visible positive presence in the community where they're located. Not by boasting that the're helping improve the quality of education District-wide, but by working to actually mitigate their presence--say, by helping clean up the park where their students play, and working with the neighborhood to find solutions when problems arise (rather than by explaining that the neighborhood should approach them, or it's because they've worked so hard to set up the school they have no energy for anything else, or the city won't give them enough money for a playground of their own...)

Sorry, still can't unpack this statement. As a property owner, I want to see highly-regarded schools in my neighborhood. I want to see them whether or not I have children, whether or not my children attend them, and whether or not they are charters/magnets/neighborhood schools.

The headaches I was referring to were those that come with any school's presence in the neighborhood. Traffic is a constant; there can also be construction noise, illegal/unsafe parking, kids from the school overrunning the playground or the library story hour...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that charter schools should be allowed to set up shop wherever zoning permits them, and should have the same rights to neighborhood resources as any other child or group of children.

But I also believe that having a school in a neighborhood will disrupt neighbors' routines. Some examples would be increased traffic, taking up valuable parking, and yes, making it harder for neighborhood children to use the local playground. For a regular DCPS school, folks who are inconvenienced at least have the comfort of knowing that their children could attend the school. Charter schools don't offer that sort of comfort--you get in by luck if at all.

In light of this, I think that charter schools need to prioritize good relations with their neighbors, and if they're smart they'll reach out proactively. The Mitchell Park situation seems like a good opportunity for MV to practice what it says it teaches its students: "preparing them to be successful and compassionate global stewards of their communities."

Charter schools can locate in any area as the zoning laws were developed with neighborhood public schools in mind. Traffic was not a consideration when these zoning laws were developed. Schools were developed with ample outdoor play space and most students were walking to school. (There are a couple of minor zoning requirements that were passed after the neighbors fought Appletree on Cap Hill trying to locate in a rowhouse essentially -- the new rules require a certain minimum lot size but that's it.) So charters can be in areas that are zoned single family residential or commercial etc, pretty much without restriction. Why are they where they are? Because they don't have the money for better facilities.

But what does this mean for the neighbors? Often it means heavy traffic for dropoff and pickup on a street not designed for a public school serving students from across the city, many arriving in private cars because buses are not provided and they don't live nearby. It means trash. It can mean property damage. It can mean noise. And yes, it can definitely mean schepping your kids to a school across town because you didn't get into the one that is nearby because there is no priority for neighborhood children (due to the law).

I live near a charter and there is definitely inconvenience: traffic, litter, and property damage due to being located by the school. The benefits accrue to the District as a whole and to the families attending. The negatives are of course concentrated on the immediate neighbors. Neighbors do have the same change of getting in as everyone else -- in other words, no guarantee.

Anonymous wrote:PP move then

Anonymous wrote:I think that charter schools should be allowed to set up shop wherever zoning permits them, and should have the same rights to neighborhood resources as any other child or group of children.

But I also believe that having a school in a neighborhood will disrupt neighbors' routines. Some examples would be increased traffic, taking up valuable parking, and yes, making it harder for neighborhood children to use the local playground. For a regular DCPS school, folks who are inconvenienced at least have the comfort of knowing that their children could attend the school. Charter schools don't offer that sort of comfort--you get in by luck if at all.

In light of this, I think that charter schools need to prioritize good relations with their neighbors, and if they're smart they'll reach out proactively. The Mitchell Park situation seems like a good opportunity for MV to practice what it says it teaches its students: "preparing them to be successful and compassionate global stewards of their communities."