What do we think about Latin second campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Of course not, silly, they jump to the front of the queue.

Over time, the at-risk and sibling categories would overlap more and more. Or rather, the required number of at-risk students would be achieved more and more by admitting siblings. Therefore, it should be hardest the first year, and then get slightly easier to get in over the years.

Right, for at-risk. Harder for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

Can you link to this? I don’t think you are correct on this. I believe it has more to do with the declining numbers of at-risk students and what was seen as disproportionate discipline. All of this stuff is public, though, so please cite your source.

Here is the transcript
https://www.livebinders.com/media/get/MTkyNjcyMzk=
The board mentions concern about low enrollment, low test scores and high suspension rates for at-risk students.

So, one board member was concerned about the gap in PARCC scores but admits Latin still does far better with at-risk students than much of the other schools in the city. Head of School then quantifies that saying that

8 VICE CHAIR BIREDA: I think just to
9 continue the conversation around serving our most
10 needy kids, I just was quickly looking at your
11 PARCC scores last year, and while of course, you
12 far exceed where most of the city is, there is a
13 quite large gap for your at-risk performance
14 versus -- I mean, your highest-performing group,
15 which is white students.
16 MR. ANDERSON: Right.
17 VICE CHAIR BIREDA: So it gives me
18 pause when I think about the idea that you go to
19 a place where you'll be serving more of those
20 students. Can you talk to me about how you --
21 what your plan is to increase performance of at-
22 risk students and to close that gap?

MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. So if you
went back a couple years and looked at our at-
risk students, you would notice that our
proficiency rate in ELA was 39 percent at a time
when the proficiency rate for at-risk student in
the city was 13 percent.

[Anonymous]

And then there is former head of school Diana Smith’s response to that question which I think is thoughtful and hugely relevant.

Test scores in 10th grade for at-risk students important. But graduation rates, holistic development and solid preparation for what comes after graduation is even more important for at-risk students. Latin has a stellar graduation rate, college acceptance rate and millions of dollars in scholarship money awarded to its students—all of them.

5 MS. SMITH: Yeah. I just wanted to
6 add something.
7 Mr. Cruz, in your opening comments,
8 which I thought were articulated and well said,
9 you mentioned the ends and goals of an education
10 being achievement and also well rounded, happy,
11 productive people.
12 I think sometimes those two are not
13 united. We look at them as separate, and it's
14 important to understand about our model that deep
15 in the classical tradition is a sense of the
16 autonomous self, and we learned long ago in
17 education that if you narrow the task and up the
18 rewards that you can get human beings to do
19 almost anything, but the really important thing
20 is what is the human being choosing to be able
21 to?
22 And that takes more time. That takes
Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
[phone] Washington DC www.nealrgross.com

49
1 more time to develop. I'm not disparaging the
2 task or the notion of achievement, but they have
3 to happen in an atmosphere in which there is
4 self-development and inner motivation, as well as
5 certain kinds of extrinsic motivation.
6 MS. SMITH: And what we have found is
7 that even with at-risk students, a lot of our
8 student who are with us, they've been able to
9 perform. As we look at sort of outcomes, as we
10 look at what they're choosing to do when they
11 finish their high school careers.
12 Some of those numbers that might not
13 have looked as strong as grades when they were in
14 fifth or sixth or seventh grade on PARCC tests
15 actually don't mean as much, when you think about
16 their choices are being made for their futures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And then there is former head of school Diana Smith’s response to that question which I think is thoughtful and hugely relevant.

Test scores in 10th grade for at-risk students important. But graduation rates, holistic development and solid preparation for what comes after graduation is even more important for at-risk students. Latin has a stellar graduation rate, college acceptance rate and millions of dollars in scholarship money awarded to its students—all of them.

5 MS. SMITH: Yeah. I just wanted to
6 add something.
7 Mr. Cruz, in your opening comments,
8 which I thought were articulated and well said,
9 you mentioned the ends and goals of an education
10 being achievement and also well rounded, happy,
11 productive people.
12 I think sometimes those two are not
13 united. We look at them as separate, and it's
14 important to understand about our model that deep
15 in the classical tradition is a sense of the
16 autonomous self, and we learned long ago in
17 education that if you narrow the task and up the
18 rewards that you can get human beings to do
19 almost anything, but the really important thing
20 is what is the human being choosing to be able
21 to?
22 And that takes more time. That takes
Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
[phone] Washington DC www.nealrgross.com

49
1 more time to develop. I'm not disparaging the
2 task or the notion of achievement, but they have
3 to happen in an atmosphere in which there is
4 self-development and inner motivation, as well as
5 certain kinds of extrinsic motivation.
6 MS. SMITH: And what we have found is
7 that even with at-risk students, a lot of our
8 student who are with us, they've been able to
9 perform. As we look at sort of outcomes, as we
10 look at what they're choosing to do when they
11 finish their high school careers.
12 Some of those numbers that might not
13 have looked as strong as grades when they were in
14 fifth or sixth or seventh grade on PARCC tests
15 actually don't mean as much, when you think about
16 their choices are being made for their futures.

This is a very nice comment, but DCUM would be quick to label it a pitiful excuse coming from any Title 1 school’s admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then there is former head of school Diana Smith’s response to that question which I think is thoughtful and hugely relevant.

Test scores in 10th grade for at-risk students important. But graduation rates, holistic development and solid preparation for what comes after graduation is even more important for at-risk students. Latin has a stellar graduation rate, college acceptance rate and millions of dollars in scholarship money awarded to its students—all of them.

5 MS. SMITH: Yeah. I just wanted to
6 add something.
7 Mr. Cruz, in your opening comments,
8 which I thought were articulated and well said,
9 you mentioned the ends and goals of an education
10 being achievement and also well rounded, happy,
11 productive people.
12 I think sometimes those two are not
13 united. We look at them as separate, and it's
14 important to understand about our model that deep
15 in the classical tradition is a sense of the
16 autonomous self, and we learned long ago in
17 education that if you narrow the task and up the
18 rewards that you can get human beings to do
19 almost anything, but the really important thing
20 is what is the human being choosing to be able
21 to?
22 And that takes more time. That takes
Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
[phone] Washington DC www.nealrgross.com

49
1 more time to develop. I'm not disparaging the
2 task or the notion of achievement, but they have
3 to happen in an atmosphere in which there is
4 self-development and inner motivation, as well as
5 certain kinds of extrinsic motivation.
6 MS. SMITH: And what we have found is
7 that even with at-risk students, a lot of our
8 student who are with us, they've been able to
9 perform. As we look at sort of outcomes, as we
10 look at what they're choosing to do when they
11 finish their high school careers.
12 Some of those numbers that might not
13 have looked as strong as grades when they were in
14 fifth or sixth or seventh grade on PARCC tests
15 actually don't mean as much, when you think about
16 their choices are being made for their futures.

This is a very nice comment, but DCUM would be quick to label it a pitiful excuse coming from any Title 1 school’s admin.

Maybe if a Title 1 admin could back it up with college/military/trade school acceptances and legit transcripts, it wouldn’t be considered an excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then there is former head of school Diana Smith’s response to that question which I think is thoughtful and hugely relevant.

Test scores in 10th grade for at-risk students important. But graduation rates, holistic development and solid preparation for what comes after graduation is even more important for at-risk students. Latin has a stellar graduation rate, college acceptance rate and millions of dollars in scholarship money awarded to its students—all of them.

5 MS. SMITH: Yeah. I just wanted to
6 add something.
7 Mr. Cruz, in your opening comments,
8 which I thought were articulated and well said,
9 you mentioned the ends and goals of an education
10 being achievement and also well rounded, happy,
11 productive people.
12 I think sometimes those two are not
13 united. We look at them as separate, and it's
14 important to understand about our model that deep
15 in the classical tradition is a sense of the
16 autonomous self, and we learned long ago in
17 education that if you narrow the task and up the
18 rewards that you can get human beings to do
19 almost anything, but the really important thing
20 is what is the human being choosing to be able
21 to?
22 And that takes more time. That takes
Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
[phone] Washington DC www.nealrgross.com

49
1 more time to develop. I'm not disparaging the
2 task or the notion of achievement, but they have
3 to happen in an atmosphere in which there is
4 self-development and inner motivation, as well as
5 certain kinds of extrinsic motivation.
6 MS. SMITH: And what we have found is
7 that even with at-risk students, a lot of our
8 student who are with us, they've been able to
9 perform. As we look at sort of outcomes, as we
10 look at what they're choosing to do when they
11 finish their high school careers.
12 Some of those numbers that might not
13 have looked as strong as grades when they were in
14 fifth or sixth or seventh grade on PARCC tests
15 actually don't mean as much, when you think about
16 their choices are being made for their futures.

This is a very nice comment, but DCUM would be quick to label it a pitiful excuse coming from any Title 1 school’s admin.

Maybe if a Title 1 admin could back it up with college/military/trade school acceptances and legit transcripts, it wouldn’t be considered an excuse.

You won’t find PARCC-centric pep rallies of at-risk students at Latin, but you’ll find sincerely dedicated and passionate adults giving all they’ve got to bring out the best they can in each and every student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

This assertion is now proven factually wrong—one member of the PCSB was concerned about the gap in test scores between at-risk students at Latin and the highest performers. It was not a concern about low scores ( because they were higher than DC average ), but rather the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

LOL. The goal for Latin was not to be a haven for middle class families, it was to provide a classical education to the children of DC. The school has gotten progressively more wealthy and middle class, and the admin wants to get the at-risk percentage back up to where it used to be. Because the entry point is only fifth grade (and a few seats at 9th), it's going to take several years before the overall at-risk percentages go up. In fact, we were apprised that the at-risk percentages might be stagnant for a while as the current cohort of middle school students has the lowest at-risk percentage yet.

And really, are there "many" DCPS that have same or better academics than Latin? I think you should start another thread with this information because we are desperate for good middle school options in this city. People will be delighted to learn that DCPS has "many"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

LOL. The goal for Latin was not to be a haven for middle class families, it was to provide a classical education to the children of DC. The school has gotten progressively more wealthy and middle class, and the admin wants to get the at-risk percentage back up to where it used to be. Because the entry point is only fifth grade (and a few seats at 9th), it's going to take several years before the overall at-risk percentages go up. In fact, we were apprised that the at-risk percentages might be stagnant for a while as the current cohort of middle school students has the lowest at-risk percentage yet.

And really, are there "many" DCPS that have same or better academics than Latin? I think you should start another thread with this information because we are desperate for good middle school options in this city. People will be delighted to learn that DCPS has "many"!

Instead of using coded language, why don't you just say out loud what you (and many at DCPS) really mean: You hate middle class families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

LOL. The goal for Latin was not to be a haven for middle class families, it was to provide a classical education to the children of DC. The school has gotten progressively more wealthy and middle class, and the admin wants to get the at-risk percentage back up to where it used to be. Because the entry point is only fifth grade (and a few seats at 9th), it's going to take several years before the overall at-risk percentages go up. In fact, we were apprised that the at-risk percentages might be stagnant for a while as the current cohort of middle school students has the lowest at-risk percentage yet.

And really, are there "many" DCPS that have same or better academics than Latin? I think you should start another thread with this information because we are desperate for good middle school options in this city. People will be delighted to learn that DCPS has "many"!

Instead of using coded language, why don't you just say out loud what you (and many at DCPS) really mean: You hate middle class families.

sour grapes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

LOL. The goal for Latin was not to be a haven for middle class families, it was to provide a classical education to the children of DC. The school has gotten progressively more wealthy and middle class, and the admin wants to get the at-risk percentage back up to where it used to be. Because the entry point is only fifth grade (and a few seats at 9th), it's going to take several years before the overall at-risk percentages go up. In fact, we were apprised that the at-risk percentages might be stagnant for a while as the current cohort of middle school students has the lowest at-risk percentage yet.

And really, are there "many" DCPS that have same or better academics than Latin? I think you should start another thread with this information because we are desperate for good middle school options in this city. People will be delighted to learn that DCPS has "many"!

Instead of using coded language, why don't you just say out loud what you (and many at DCPS) really mean: You hate middle class families.

sour grapes

Or they could allow entries in other grades. Oh, but our model, our precious precious model, our culture which is so special that it would be ruined by adding more of the kids we say we want to serve!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

LOL. The goal for Latin was not to be a haven for middle class families, it was to provide a classical education to the children of DC. The school has gotten progressively more wealthy and middle class, and the admin wants to get the at-risk percentage back up to where it used to be. Because the entry point is only fifth grade (and a few seats at 9th), it's going to take several years before the overall at-risk percentages go up. In fact, we were apprised that the at-risk percentages might be stagnant for a while as the current cohort of middle school students has the lowest at-risk percentage yet.

And really, are there "many" DCPS that have same or better academics than Latin? I think you should start another thread with this information because we are desperate for good middle school options in this city. People will be delighted to learn that DCPS has "many"!

Instead of using coded language, why don't you just say out loud what you (and many at DCPS) really mean: You hate middle class families.

sour grapes

Or they could allow entries in other grades. Oh, but our model, our precious precious model, our culture which is so special that it would be ruined by adding more of the kids we say we want to serve!

Your cynical responses just proved my point. It's obvious you're pi$$ed that some families might do slightly better in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

LOL. The goal for Latin was not to be a haven for middle class families, it was to provide a classical education to the children of DC. The school has gotten progressively more wealthy and middle class, and the admin wants to get the at-risk percentage back up to where it used to be. Because the entry point is only fifth grade (and a few seats at 9th), it's going to take several years before the overall at-risk percentages go up. In fact, we were apprised that the at-risk percentages might be stagnant for a while as the current cohort of middle school students has the lowest at-risk percentage yet.

And really, are there "many" DCPS that have same or better academics than Latin? I think you should start another thread with this information because we are desperate for good middle school options in this city. People will be delighted to learn that DCPS has "many"!

Instead of using coded language, why don't you just say out loud what you (and many at DCPS) really mean: You hate middle class families.

sour grapes

Or they could allow entries in other grades. Oh, but our model, our precious precious model, our culture which is so special that it would be ruined by adding more of the kids we say we want to serve!

Your cynical responses just proved my point. It's obvious you're pi$$ed that some families might do slightly better in school.

Or you're just mad that other people don't buy their rationale for delay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Right, but unless Latin calculates its at-risk percentage carefully ahead of time using sibling data, they’re going to offer x sibling spots and y at risk spots every year, making the at-risk percentage even higher year over year.

I wish them good luck, but it’s going to make the school an unattractive option for middle class families. People flee to Latin not for the academics (which are not any better than many DCPS) but for the cohort of high performing kids and the guaranteed feed through high school. Turn it into another Eastern or Dunbar and people simply wont go.

LOL. The goal for Latin was not to be a haven for middle class families, it was to provide a classical education to the children of DC. The school has gotten progressively more wealthy and middle class, and the admin wants to get the at-risk percentage back up to where it used to be. Because the entry point is only fifth grade (and a few seats at 9th), it's going to take several years before the overall at-risk percentages go up. In fact, we were apprised that the at-risk percentages might be stagnant for a while as the current cohort of middle school students has the lowest at-risk percentage yet.

And really, are there "many" DCPS that have same or better academics than Latin? I think you should start another thread with this information because we are desperate for good middle school options in this city. People will be delighted to learn that DCPS has "many"!

Instead of using coded language, why don't you just say out loud what you (and many at DCPS) really mean: You hate middle class families.

sour grapes

Or they could allow entries in other grades. Oh, but our model, our precious precious model, our culture which is so special that it would be ruined by adding more of the kids we say we want to serve!

huh? what are you talking about? The reason is that retention is so high, not that kids aren't allowed to enter in other grades. There used to be a chunk of seats that would open up at 9th as some parents peeled off for private/Walls/burbs, but that's not happening as frequently any more.