Deciding whether to try for latin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was pro-DCPS all through elementary school and up until April of the month we did the middle school charter lottery, got a spot at BASIS, and had a candid conversation with a DCPS middle school teacher who told me straight-up to take the BASIS spot because her DCPS did not meet the needs of advanced students. she wanted to, but the structure of the curriculum, her inabiity to fail students, her principal all kept her from adding enrichment and appropriate instruction for advanced students.

She was really unequivocal and I made my decision immediately after that conversation. She also said getting a seat at BASIS is like getting a prep school education for free, which I think it true about Latin as well. I'm very, very glad we took the spot.

I'm sure I trash talked charters when my kids were young. But the middle school ecosystem in DC is very different than elementary. I recommend doing some research and allowing yourself some grace to change your mind.

It is absolutely true that dcps cannot meet the needs of an advanced child. I don’t think Latin can either, but it is better than the best dcps.

Yep. The parents of all those Ivy League admits must be kicking themselves for sending their kids to Latin. Latin obviously didn’t meet their needs.

I don’t have enough information about what kind of degree they were seeking, whether the parents supplemented at all, and what they did. All I know is looking at the curriculum, it could be stronger. I’m super happy there are so many Ivy League admissions- that’s amazing!!

The curriculum is good enough to get into MIT for Mathematics, but not strong enough for you. Nice to know you have higher standards than MIT.

One anecdotal college admission does not make a good curriculum, esp in math.

Instead of touting the MIT admission on all threads related to Latin when people actually talk about the curriculum, why don’t you actually tell us concrete examples of how the curriculum at Latin is actually meeting the needs of high performing kids.

I think Latin has more national merit schools per student than almost any school in the city, public, charter or private. The high performers are getting into great colleges. Not just MIT. Someone else this year is going to Yale. Another to Princeton. Michigan. NYU. And remember: the school is tiny. Each class is less than 100 people.

Since no one has given any specifics how Latin is able to meet the needs of high performers……..

I think the issue is you're very obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there are a lot of reasons why all middle schools including latin and basis should start in 6th grade. its probably just a that ship has sailed sort of thing. but there are actually even some latin and basis families who would like this too.

I'm a BASIS parent, and I like that it starts in 5th grade. It gives kids a year to learn the organizational/study skills they will need in 6th grade and beyond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

It's so unfair when schools have fixed physical locations. What about the people who don't live nearby? It's also unfair when schools have "rules" and "policies" and "academic standards." What about people who hate rules, or who don't want to study, or who think policies are boring? What about them? Y'all need to check your privilege.

+1 - Yes, I get the frustrations of the DC public ed landscape, but much of this is just about life choices and tradeoffs, which are often “unfair” for reasons more cosmic and societal than anything having to do with schools or school systems in particular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

And yet people make it work. You sound insufferable.

And plenty of people don't make it work. In my years on this forum I've see many posts with people surprised they have no chance at Latin for 6th grade and many posts of people struggling over commute logistics for ITDS or DCI feeders.

Your claim was that charters "give every kid an equal chance at an education." I pointed out that certain practices lead to schools that are only accessible to kids with parents who have certain abilities and means. That's not a moral judgement, it's just reality.

I'm not anti charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was pro-DCPS all through elementary school and up until April of the month we did the middle school charter lottery, got a spot at BASIS, and had a candid conversation with a DCPS middle school teacher who told me straight-up to take the BASIS spot because her DCPS did not meet the needs of advanced students. she wanted to, but the structure of the curriculum, her inabiity to fail students, her principal all kept her from adding enrichment and appropriate instruction for advanced students.

She was really unequivocal and I made my decision immediately after that conversation. She also said getting a seat at BASIS is like getting a prep school education for free, which I think it true about Latin as well. I'm very, very glad we took the spot.

I'm sure I trash talked charters when my kids were young. But the middle school ecosystem in DC is very different than elementary. I recommend doing some research and allowing yourself some grace to change your mind.

Truly appreciate this candor. The trash talking charters and "down with charters" mentality has created an environment in DC where politicians feel comfortable openly under-resourcing charters. It's not a little bit of money - it's estimated at $1,800 per student and that's money that a charter school doesn't have to improve teacher salaries, increase benefits, offer more athletics and clubs or fix sub-par facilities. Ask your charter school principal what they could do with that much more per kid.

Not to mention, the charter school teachers are paid less than their DCPS counterparts.

Not true across the board. Some charters match DCPS pay scale.

Not Latin.

Honestly, Latin must be an exceptional place if the salaries are lower, yet teachers choose to teach there and stay at higher rates than other places. Outside of Latin, there are charters that have higher starting salaries than DCPS and others that have much higher salaries for long-tenured teachers. There is a range. I've seen one recent comparison that says charter salaries, on average are within 1% of DCPS. Most have their salary scales on their website so it's easy to look up and see that the repeated assertion that charters pay teachers much less just isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

It's so unfair when schools have fixed physical locations. What about the people who don't live nearby? It's also unfair when schools have "rules" and "policies" and "academic standards." What about people who hate rules, or who don't want to study, or who think policies are boring? What about them? Y'all need to check your privilege.

Doesn't explain why charters have been so resistant to location suggestions from PCSB during expansion discussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

It's so unfair when schools have fixed physical locations. What about the people who don't live nearby? It's also unfair when schools have "rules" and "policies" and "academic standards." What about people who hate rules, or who don't want to study, or who think policies are boring? What about them? Y'all need to check your privilege.

Doesn't explain why charters have been so resistant to location suggestions from PCSB during expansion discussions.

Any decision will piss someone off. Look at MCPS boundary changes. One person’s “common sense” solution is another’s unfairness. There are no “good” solutions in a demographically complex resource constrained landscape with laudable goals often pulling in opposite directions. Those of us without lottery lock and/or the financial resources to escape such system-level constraints, just have to deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

It's so unfair when schools have fixed physical locations. What about the people who don't live nearby? It's also unfair when schools have "rules" and "policies" and "academic standards." What about people who hate rules, or who don't want to study, or who think policies are boring? What about them? Y'all need to check your privilege.

Doesn't explain why charters have been so resistant to location suggestions from PCSB during expansion discussions.

Another oft repeated bit on nonsense rears its ugly head. This rocket scientist wants to know why schools that have high standards don't locate in the worst neighborhoods in DC. Such a mystery! Do you not understand this? Do you think people are going to apologize for locating where they can attract cohorts of high performers? The kids that you pretend to care about can attend these schools because they are pure lottery. The school you hate most located where it did precisely because it sat at the confluence of mass transit, allowing kids form all over the city to attend. But you don't want to acknowledge facts. You prefer to sit in the cheap seats and throw rocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

And yet people make it work. You sound insufferable.

And plenty of people don't make it work. In my years on this forum I've see many posts with people surprised they have no chance at Latin for 6th grade and many posts of people struggling over commute logistics for ITDS or DCI feeders.

Your claim was that charters "give every kid an equal chance at an education." I pointed out that certain practices lead to schools that are only accessible to kids with parents who have certain abilities and means. That's not a moral judgement, it's just reality.

I'm not anti charter.

It's like you're on a scavenger hunt to find the most obscure victim. What about people who have no arms or legs or eyes and they live in a box in Washington Highlands. What about THEM? Are they just supposed to roll themselves halfway across town to school? I'd say a bigger problem is that DCPS DGAF if poor kids get an education or if they even show up for school. They'll hand 'em a diploma no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was pro-DCPS all through elementary school and up until April of the month we did the middle school charter lottery, got a spot at BASIS, and had a candid conversation with a DCPS middle school teacher who told me straight-up to take the BASIS spot because her DCPS did not meet the needs of advanced students. she wanted to, but the structure of the curriculum, her inabiity to fail students, her principal all kept her from adding enrichment and appropriate instruction for advanced students.

She was really unequivocal and I made my decision immediately after that conversation. She also said getting a seat at BASIS is like getting a prep school education for free, which I think it true about Latin as well. I'm very, very glad we took the spot.

I'm sure I trash talked charters when my kids were young. But the middle school ecosystem in DC is very different than elementary. I recommend doing some research and allowing yourself some grace to change your mind.

It is absolutely true that dcps cannot meet the needs of an advanced child. I don’t think Latin can either, but it is better than the best dcps.

Yep. The parents of all those Ivy League admits must be kicking themselves for sending their kids to Latin. Latin obviously didn’t meet their needs.

I don’t have enough information about what kind of degree they were seeking, whether the parents supplemented at all, and what they did. All I know is looking at the curriculum, it could be stronger. I’m super happy there are so many Ivy League admissions- that’s amazing!!

The curriculum is good enough to get into MIT for Mathematics, but not strong enough for you. Nice to know you have higher standards than MIT.

One anecdotal college admission does not make a good curriculum, esp in math.

Instead of touting the MIT admission on all threads related to Latin when people actually talk about the curriculum, why don’t you actually tell us concrete examples of how the curriculum at Latin is actually meeting the needs of high performing kids.

I think Latin has more national merit schools per student than almost any school in the city, public, charter or private. The high performers are getting into great colleges. Not just MIT. Someone else this year is going to Yale. Another to Princeton. Michigan. NYU. And remember: the school is tiny. Each class is less than 100 people.

Since no one has given any specifics how Latin is able to meet the needs of high performers……..

I think the issue is you're very obtuse.

Sorry but no. If you can’t even give examples of how the school is able to meet the needs of high performing students, then Latin is just for the average kid like many on here have said.

It’s not like it’s a secret or anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

And yet people make it work. You sound insufferable.

And plenty of people don't make it work. In my years on this forum I've see many posts with people surprised they have no chance at Latin for 6th grade and many posts of people struggling over commute logistics for ITDS or DCI feeders.

Your claim was that charters "give every kid an equal chance at an education." I pointed out that certain practices lead to schools that are only accessible to kids with parents who have certain abilities and means. That's not a moral judgement, it's just reality.

I'm not anti charter.

It's like you're on a scavenger hunt to find the most obscure victim. What about people who have no arms or legs or eyes and they live in a box in Washington Highlands. What about THEM? Are they just supposed to roll themselves halfway across town to school? I'd say a bigger problem is that DCPS DGAF if poor kids get an education or if they even show up for school. They'll hand 'em a diploma no matter what.

This. The issue is not charters. The issue is that DCPS is not meeting the needs of the kids and social promotion doesn’t help.

Charters would not be so successful if DCPS could actually educate well all kids - low and high performing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

It's so unfair when schools have fixed physical locations. What about the people who don't live nearby? It's also unfair when schools have "rules" and "policies" and "academic standards." What about people who hate rules, or who don't want to study, or who think policies are boring? What about them? Y'all need to check your privilege.

Doesn't explain why charters have been so resistant to location suggestions from PCSB during expansion discussions.

Any decision will piss someone off. Look at MCPS boundary changes. One person’s “common sense” solution is another’s unfairness. There are no “good” solutions in a demographically complex resource constrained landscape with laudable goals often pulling in opposite directions. Those of us without lottery lock and/or the financial resources to escape such system-level constraints, just have to deal.

I'm not talking about what parents want. I'm talking about what the authorizing body requires, based on its own assessment of need and demand in this complex landscape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was pro-DCPS all through elementary school and up until April of the month we did the middle school charter lottery, got a spot at BASIS, and had a candid conversation with a DCPS middle school teacher who told me straight-up to take the BASIS spot because her DCPS did not meet the needs of advanced students. she wanted to, but the structure of the curriculum, her inabiity to fail students, her principal all kept her from adding enrichment and appropriate instruction for advanced students.

She was really unequivocal and I made my decision immediately after that conversation. She also said getting a seat at BASIS is like getting a prep school education for free, which I think it true about Latin as well. I'm very, very glad we took the spot.

I'm sure I trash talked charters when my kids were young. But the middle school ecosystem in DC is very different than elementary. I recommend doing some research and allowing yourself some grace to change your mind.

It is absolutely true that dcps cannot meet the needs of an advanced child. I don’t think Latin can either, but it is better than the best dcps.

Yep. The parents of all those Ivy League admits must be kicking themselves for sending their kids to Latin. Latin obviously didn’t meet their needs.

I don’t have enough information about what kind of degree they were seeking, whether the parents supplemented at all, and what they did. All I know is looking at the curriculum, it could be stronger. I’m super happy there are so many Ivy League admissions- that’s amazing!!

The curriculum is good enough to get into MIT for Mathematics, but not strong enough for you. Nice to know you have higher standards than MIT.

One anecdotal college admission does not make a good curriculum, esp in math.

Instead of touting the MIT admission on all threads related to Latin when people actually talk about the curriculum, why don’t you actually tell us concrete examples of how the curriculum at Latin is actually meeting the needs of high performing kids.

I think Latin has more national merit schools per student than almost any school in the city, public, charter or private. The high performers are getting into great colleges. Not just MIT. Someone else this year is going to Yale. Another to Princeton. Michigan. NYU. And remember: the school is tiny. Each class is less than 100 people.

Since no one has given any specifics how Latin is able to meet the needs of high performers……..

I think the issue is you're very obtuse.

Sorry but no. If you can’t even give examples of how the school is able to meet the needs of high performing students, then Latin is just for the average kid like many on here have said.

It’s not like it’s a secret or anything.

Ok, crazy person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

It's so unfair when schools have fixed physical locations. What about the people who don't live nearby? It's also unfair when schools have "rules" and "policies" and "academic standards." What about people who hate rules, or who don't want to study, or who think policies are boring? What about them? Y'all need to check your privilege.

Doesn't explain why charters have been so resistant to location suggestions from PCSB during expansion discussions.

Another oft repeated bit on nonsense rears its ugly head. This rocket scientist wants to know why schools that have high standards don't locate in the worst neighborhoods in DC. Such a mystery! Do you not understand this? Do you think people are going to apologize for locating where they can attract cohorts of high performers? The kids that you pretend to care about can attend these schools because they are pure lottery. The school you hate most located where it did precisely because it sat at the confluence of mass transit, allowing kids form all over the city to attend. But you don't want to acknowledge facts. You prefer to sit in the cheap seats and throw rocks.

Rocket scientist, huh? I guess am kind of excited about tonight's splash down.

I don't hate any school. I'm not even anti charter. But I'm also not pretending charters provide equal access to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is DCPS has lots of faults. But it also has to educate every kid. And ultimately when you create a system where privileged people can opt out, you create a vacuum where the charters have no reason to improve because they have enough families who will opt in and can kick out the kids not performing, and you have DCPS which has little incentive to improve because wealthier parents either concentrate in one area or opt out.

So no one is really improving or being forced to excel, charter or public, because the system does not incentive it.

It sucks. It's also not unique and a real problem with the US education landscape as a whole.

DCPS has to educate every neighborhood kid that enrolls and it runs its own choice program - selective high schools, out of boundary etc. No one ever publishes the rates of the out of boundary kids at DCPS who get sent back to their home school for behavior, attendance, etc. These forced transfers also push students back to DCPS schools. It would be great if information was more transparent so that there could be real analysis of where students are disappearing from some schools and ending up at others, especially mid-year. The public information that is available is on re-enrollment rates. A look at Ward 7 and 8 DCPS high schools has re-enrollment rates somewhere in the low 70's on average. Nearly 30% of students of those schools are either ending up nowhere, at other DCPS choice schools or at charters. So our system needs to support all of the choices because our families are using all of the choices. It's not just the privileged who are opting out. There may be notable failures (or failures to thrive) in the charter sector but that's true in DCPS as well. The notable failures aren't the only story though. There are charters that are doing well and/or improving and the same is true for DCPS.

"Forced transfers" is education consultant speak for CONSEQUENCES. There's a vocal minority in DC that thinks consequences are bad/unfair/discriminatory. I think most parents think them necessary.

Do you like it as much when the expelled kids end up at your kid's school?

That's a false choice. I like consequences...full stop. Kids who fail should not be advanced just because some SJW whines about 18 years olds in 3rd grade classes.

What's your argument? There should be no consequences?

There should definitely be consequences, and services designed to improve the situation. But you need to see that passing them from one school to another isn't a real solution from a district-level perspective. It doesn't help anything. It might feel like a solution to you because a kid might leave your school, but you haven't considered that kids will also come into your school from this. Just saying to kick them out is not thinking through the policy problem.

People who argue that every school should fit every kid are part of how we ended up in this situation. Not every school is ideal for advanced learners. Not every school is ideal for kids with behavioral problems. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on the Arts. Not every school is ideal for kids who want to focus on STEM.

Passing kids from a school that is ill equipped to handle needs to one that can is not a problem, it is part of the solution. We do it all the time. Application schools do it. BASIS does it it too. Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is people arguing that high standards for behavior, comportment and achievement somehow discriminate.

Part of the disconnect on DCUM is how many posters live either in Ed Consultant-Pedagogy Naval Gazing Land and/or come to these discussions with an elementary school mindset. The world looks very different when school and learning gets real.

Before you go there, there is a chasm between "warehousing bad kids" all in one place and centralizing support systems for kids who need them so we aren't wasting resources. If a kid cannot meet societal norms then they need to go somewhere better equipped to help them overcome those deficits.

Yes to the last part but the school they're being transferred school isn't equipped to handle them, they just don't have a choice.

I firmly agree that there should be more intervention and supports but the system is not set up for that and instead of arguing to address it people flock to charters to entirely opt out. Then the charters, rather than feeling pressure to improve, rest on the knowledge that some parents will always feel more comfortable with the school having an eject button for other, and at risk, kids.

Some charters do very well, Latin is certainly one, but most do not. The argument for charters is not that they give most kids options, it's that they give the privileged EOTP and a very few number of at risk EOTP an automatic safety net to avoid problem behaviors.

Oft repeated but still incorrect. They are pure lottery. They give every kid an equal chance at an education. People like you are so invested in your hero complexes and protecting the pours and minorities that you forget that charters offer an exit for those same people you're so busy performatively worrying about.

They are pure lottery, but certain practices (entry year, location, promotion requirements) can make them functionally inaccessible to certain demographics.

Another oft repeated, offensive and meaningless statement. What does this mean? Are you suggesting that if an individual charter school isn't a magic bullet to solve all education problems then it ought not exist? Do you have any idea how condescending it is to suggest the limitations of "certain demographics" based on your own biases? Your world view seems to be that poor (read: black) people just sit in squalor waiting for a white savior like you to open a school next door to them. I mean, FFS, you said the quiet part out that promotion requirements are a limitation to "certain demographics"!!!!

I'm saying a 5th grade entry year with limited to no backfilling means parents have to be thinking about middle school well before it's obvious.

I'm saying a non-central campus with poor transit access means parents have to have another means of transportation and the time and/or money to make a school commute work.

I'm saying promotion requirements that are significantly more rigid than DCPS lead to attrition that wouldn't happen at another school.

Above could apply to anyone not in the know about the complexities of school choice in DC, anyone who can't or doesn't drive, anyone with a demanding job and limited childcare support, anyone whose kid struggles with standardized testing, etc.

It's so unfair when schools have fixed physical locations. What about the people who don't live nearby? It's also unfair when schools have "rules" and "policies" and "academic standards." What about people who hate rules, or who don't want to study, or who think policies are boring? What about them? Y'all need to check your privilege.

Doesn't explain why charters have been so resistant to location suggestions from PCSB during expansion discussions.

Another oft repeated bit on nonsense rears its ugly head. This rocket scientist wants to know why schools that have high standards don't locate in the worst neighborhoods in DC. Such a mystery! Do you not understand this? Do you think people are going to apologize for locating where they can attract cohorts of high performers? The kids that you pretend to care about can attend these schools because they are pure lottery. The school you hate most located where it did precisely because it sat at the confluence of mass transit, allowing kids form all over the city to attend. But you don't want to acknowledge facts. You prefer to sit in the cheap seats and throw rocks.

Rocket scientist, huh? I guess am kind of excited about tonight's splash down.

I don't hate any school. I'm not even anti charter. But I'm also not pretending charters provide equal access to all.

Does DCPS? Does DCPS provide equal access to it's highest quality or highest regarded schools to all?