Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have been at full enrollment or nearly full. I'm not sure if that will continue.

But they'd need a really significant decrease to go from 3 buildings to 2.

Their debt situation is really bad and I bet that 4th St site is worth more than they paid for it by a lot given the Union Market development (that literally did not exist when the bought that building). I could totally see them selling that building. Their middle school is not full.

What is the debt situation? I se it a positive $9.8 million in net assets on the 2023 990.

That's measured against the value of the real estate. They are (more than) fine if they sell the 4th St building. The liquidity for debt payments is the issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have been at full enrollment or nearly full. I'm not sure if that will continue.

But they'd need a really significant decrease to go from 3 buildings to 2.

Their debt situation is really bad and I bet that 4th St site is worth more than they paid for it by a lot given the Union Market development (that literally did not exist when the bought that building). I could totally see them selling that building. Their middle school is not full.

What is the debt situation? I se it a positive $9.8 million in net assets on the 2023 990.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have been at full enrollment or nearly full. I'm not sure if that will continue.

But they'd need a really significant decrease to go from 3 buildings to 2.

Their debt situation is really bad and I bet that 4th St site is worth more than they paid for it by a lot given the Union Market development (that literally did not exist when the bought that building). I could totally see them selling that building. Their middle school is not full.

So, in the enrollment audit data from last year, the middle school had 224 kids. 4th St had 391, and Young elementary had 407. The Young building had, in the 2020 charter agreement, a capacity of 1296. So it does seem like that would be doable unless something has changed since then.

Anonymous wrote:They have been at full enrollment or nearly full. I'm not sure if that will continue.

But they'd need a really significant decrease to go from 3 buildings to 2.

Their debt situation is really bad and I bet that 4th St site is worth more than they paid for it by a lot given the Union Market development (that literally did not exist when the bought that building). I could totally see them selling that building. Their middle school is not full.

They have been at full enrollment or nearly full. I'm not sure if that will continue.

But they'd need a really significant decrease to go from 3 buildings to 2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it's not struggling as much as the other schools discussed on this thread, but do people think Two Rivers will be closing the 4th street campus within the next 5 years? We live in the neighborhood and have seen a steady stream of families exiting TR4 moving to our school and others. People seem pretty disillusioned by 1st and 2nd. And that 4th street campus is so cramped and dated at this point -- I would have thought they'd have renovated or moved by now, but seems like problems with retention and fundraising might be delaying that.

They have that nice campus at Young, it seems like there is a strong argument for just consolidating there and using the united campus to address existing issues and regroup. In retrospect it was probably a mistake to expand, but now that they have, it seems obvious that a consolidation would happen at Young.

Also if you are at the TR4 campus, would you follow the school to Young? Are you happy and do you intend to stay through elementary or into MS?

I think as long as they have a mostly full enrollment, they'll keep it open. Think through how it would work. There's not enough room at Young to move everyone there. They can't just kick out their current kids from 4th (I mean, maybe technically they can, but it's a nuclear option). Their retention into middle school is poor and will be worse with a smaller elementary class moving up. So this could actually make their situation worse rather than better.

PP here. Makes sense. Are they really at full enrollment? This only surprised me because of the sheer number of families we see starting at our school this year from TR4. I've met at least 10 families, and also met multiple families at school visits last year who were on the waitlist who I would presume went somewhere else.

Yes, because they draw from other areas where schools are weaker. Being on a major road is an asset in that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it's not struggling as much as the other schools discussed on this thread, but do people think Two Rivers will be closing the 4th street campus within the next 5 years? We live in the neighborhood and have seen a steady stream of families exiting TR4 moving to our school and others. People seem pretty disillusioned by 1st and 2nd. And that 4th street campus is so cramped and dated at this point -- I would have thought they'd have renovated or moved by now, but seems like problems with retention and fundraising might be delaying that.

They have that nice campus at Young, it seems like there is a strong argument for just consolidating there and using the united campus to address existing issues and regroup. In retrospect it was probably a mistake to expand, but now that they have, it seems obvious that a consolidation would happen at Young.

Also if you are at the TR4 campus, would you follow the school to Young? Are you happy and do you intend to stay through elementary or into MS?

I think as long as they have a mostly full enrollment, they'll keep it open. Think through how it would work. There's not enough room at Young to move everyone there. They can't just kick out their current kids from 4th (I mean, maybe technically they can, but it's a nuclear option). Their retention into middle school is poor and will be worse with a smaller elementary class moving up. So this could actually make their situation worse rather than better.

PP here. Makes sense. Are they really at full enrollment? This only surprised me because of the sheer number of families we see starting at our school this year from TR4. I've met at least 10 families, and also met multiple families at school visits last year who were on the waitlist who I would presume went somewhere else.

Anonymous wrote:I know it's not struggling as much as the other schools discussed on this thread, but do people think Two Rivers will be closing the 4th street campus within the next 5 years? We live in the neighborhood and have seen a steady stream of families exiting TR4 moving to our school and others. People seem pretty disillusioned by 1st and 2nd. And that 4th street campus is so cramped and dated at this point -- I would have thought they'd have renovated or moved by now, but seems like problems with retention and fundraising might be delaying that.

They have that nice campus at Young, it seems like there is a strong argument for just consolidating there and using the united campus to address existing issues and regroup. In retrospect it was probably a mistake to expand, but now that they have, it seems obvious that a consolidation would happen at Young.

Also if you are at the TR4 campus, would you follow the school to Young? Are you happy and do you intend to stay through elementary or into MS?

I think as long as they have a mostly full enrollment, they'll keep it open. Think through how it would work. There's not enough room at Young to move everyone there. They can't just kick out their current kids from 4th (I mean, maybe technically they can, but it's a nuclear option). Their retention into middle school is poor and will be worse with a smaller elementary class moving up. So this could actually make their situation worse rather than better.

I know it's not struggling as much as the other schools discussed on this thread, but do people think Two Rivers will be closing the 4th street campus within the next 5 years? We live in the neighborhood and have seen a steady stream of families exiting TR4 moving to our school and others. People seem pretty disillusioned by 1st and 2nd. And that 4th street campus is so cramped and dated at this point -- I would have thought they'd have renovated or moved by now, but seems like problems with retention and fundraising might be delaying that.

They have that nice campus at Young, it seems like there is a strong argument for just consolidating there and using the united campus to address existing issues and regroup. In retrospect it was probably a mistake to expand, but now that they have, it seems obvious that a consolidation would happen at Young.

Also if you are at the TR4 campus, would you follow the school to Young? Are you happy and do you intend to stay through elementary or into MS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selfishly, an application middle school on/near Capitol Hill.

I’m curious what it should focus on. Languages? Pre-IB? A real test in IB school with a real tough IB program is missing in DC, but isn’t exactly a pressing need (DCI is great! IB for all is not the best)

If you could convince DCPS to actually focus on academic excellence at the MS level, they should just channel that energy into making existing schools like SH, EH, and Jefferson as good as they can be. What people really want is a well-balanced academic environment for MS kids that will prepare them for HS. A lot of parents find BASIS too STEM and testing focused. People like Latin and DCI but they aren't options for most people so the appeal is kind of moot. People want tracking for math and English, real consequences for behavioral issues, and offerings in languages, science, and social studies that will actually move kids forward in those areas before HS starts.

Just do it at the existing schools. If you start an application MS on the Hill, you'd just siphon off all the families most invested in academics for MS/HS and then the gains the existing schools have made will be lost.

If DCPS is suddenly going to act like they care about academic excellence, lets not gatekeeper that at an app middle school.

Anonymous wrote:DCPS needs to shutdown CHML (Montessori can stay for ECE) but use that beautiful space for 1-8th in an actual academic way. It is completed wasted right now on abysmal learning and beyond subpar behavior management.

I know this won't happen but actually agree. They aren't offering real Montessori past K or 1st, but the school is in a prime location with a fantastic campus. I wish DCPS would just keep the Montessori in ECE but convert the rest of the school to a regular DCPS campus with *some* Montessori influence (maybe do mixed age classrooms for specials, incorporate more independent learning than you see at other DCPS schools, stay totally screen free). It just doesn't make sense as is, and they wind up hemorrhaging families after K and then you have new families coming in during upper grades looking for Montessori, but it doesn't really exist when you have so much movement in and out of the school, yet it's not being replaced with anything.

Alternative, maybe get rid of grades 2-5th but expand the middle school and see if you can sell it to kids coming out of Lee and LAMB? I don't know. But right now it's vastly underutilized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this assumes growth will continue despite declining birth rates and federal meddling in the city.

I don’t think growth will continue; in addition to declining birth rates, a lot of DC growth recently has been driven by international migration in, and that’s also probably not continuing.

That said, I think a lot of the coming collapse will be in the charter sector, so it’s possible DCPS locations will see at least a blip of growth when those kids move school.

Unless the federal government tries to artificially prop up charters. Which it's trying to.

How? How would it work for the federal government to prop up charters? Most of the charters in trouble have academic issues under PCSB academic measures. I don't see how the federal government could stop PCSB sanctions for poorly performing schools (assuming the PCSB will even have sanctions for poor performance). On finances, there hasn't been an influx of federal support for DC charters -- at least not yet. IMO, the PCSB will have much more say than the federal government on whether struggling charters close or not.

They're planning to cut SOAR funding for public schools in half and keep charters at current levels.

That's not propping up charters. The charter portion remains the same. They are trying to move the SOAR funding cut from DCPS to privates/vouchers. Also, there just isn't enough in SOAR to prop up charters. Charter get a couple of hundred dollars a student from SOAR through a formula allocation. The rest of the charter portion goes out via competitive grants for facilities and also grants to "support organizations" like School Leader Lab and New Leaders.

There may be other ways the feds try to prop up charters. For SOAR to prop up charters, the funding levels will need to significantly increase and regulations will need to change so the bulk of funds go directly to charters on a per pupil basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selfishly, an application middle school on/near Capitol Hill.

I’m curious what it should focus on. Languages? Pre-IB? A real test in IB school with a real tough IB program is missing in DC, but isn’t exactly a pressing need (DCI is great! IB for all is not the best)

IB for all means that some kids who are less academically oriented go into the IB career program and not the IB diploma program.

Some schools like Bunker Hill only have 200 students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this assumes growth will continue despite declining birth rates and federal meddling in the city.

I don’t think growth will continue; in addition to declining birth rates, a lot of DC growth recently has been driven by international migration in, and that’s also probably not continuing.

That said, I think a lot of the coming collapse will be in the charter sector, so it’s possible DCPS locations will see at least a blip of growth when those kids move school.

Unless the federal government tries to artificially prop up charters. Which it's trying to.

How? How would it work for the federal government to prop up charters? Most of the charters in trouble have academic issues under PCSB academic measures. I don't see how the federal government could stop PCSB sanctions for poorly performing schools (assuming the PCSB will even have sanctions for poor performance). On finances, there hasn't been an influx of federal support for DC charters -- at least not yet. IMO, the PCSB will have much more say than the federal government on whether struggling charters close or not.

They're planning to cut SOAR funding for public schools in half and keep charters at current levels.