The Sojourner Truth School - possible new public middle and high school option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP was just spamming us and has no good answers to the questions.

And yet he wants us to sign his petition and come to a hearing to support the proposal.

A post on DCUM does not represent real community outreach and engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:??? the comments on this are why we can’t have nice things. I assume the lottery system will be used which means that admission will be SES-blind. Do charters skew wealthier? Probably. But I can tell you that our Montessori elementary is much more diverse than the Montessori school we previously attended in the burbs. Nothing is going to be perfect. You can’t force lower SES families to choose Montessori. Last I checked middle and UMC kids deserve a good education too but the more strong middle school options we have outside of Deal, the better it is for everyone.

The funny thing is that I bet the people complaining about (perceived) lack of diversity are the same people complaining about the lack of middle school options in the city.

Charters do not skew wealthier. And they have more students of color and students with disabilities than DCPS (as of last year).

Creating a charter with a feeder system is in direct contradiction to the DC School Reform Act and requires legislative approval by the Council. To date, they have only approved it for children with disabilities and students in military families.

More diverse than your suburban Montessori is the wrong point of comparison. DC school age population is only 10% white and 40% at-risk. More students live in Wards 7 and 8 than any other Ward.

And if Sojourner Truth school is going to live up to its proposed namesake’s legacy, they best figure out how to attract, support and educate underserved kids first and foremost.

Personally the name of this school, knowing the school driving this and its demographics, is borderline offensive.

Didn't they approve it for DCI?

Agree that the name is a joke.

[Anonymous]

DCI was slightly different because it was a one-off which was only approved because David Catania shoved it through.

The others are preferences that any charter can petition the PCSB to offer. Of course we don’t know which kind SJPCS is seeking.

So far only Bridges has added a SN preference. The military family preference was approved as part of the forthcoming JBAB charter.

The legislation re military families also had provisions related to DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCI was slightly different because it was a one-off which was only approved because David Catania shoved it through.

The others are preferences that any charter can petition the PCSB to offer. Of course we don’t know which kind SJPCS is seeking.

So far only Bridges has added a SN preference. The military family preference was approved as part of the forthcoming JBAB charter.

The legislation re military families also had provisions related to DCPS.

When are we going to get an at-risk preference going? Even if it were optional, it would provide an opportunity for the supposedly HRCSs to live up to their professed wokeness and bring their supposedly wonderful teaching and curriculum to the kids they claim to want to serve.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Some of you people really suck. Why shoot someone down trying to create a new alternative middle and high school? I just don’t get it. Are you finding acceptable the current options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Some of you people really suck. Why shoot someone down trying to create a new alternative middle and high school? I just don’t get it. Are you finding acceptable the current options?

Asking questions of someone who has asked us to boost a proposal online and in person is not tearing anything down. It getting a charter should not be a rubber stamp process. No one has attached anyone personally.

But once a charter school is opened, it is hard to shut them down. The time for kicking the tires and asking legitimate questions is. Ow.

If they can’t stand the heat ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI was slightly different because it was a one-off which was only approved because David Catania shoved it through.

The others are preferences that any charter can petition the PCSB to offer. Of course we don’t know which kind SJPCS is seeking.

So far only Bridges has added a SN preference. The military family preference was approved as part of the forthcoming JBAB charter.

The legislation re military families also had provisions related to DCPS.

When are we going to get an at-risk preference going? Even if it were optional, it would provide an opportunity for the supposedly HRCSs to live up to their professed wokeness and bring their supposedly wonderful teaching and curriculum to the kids they claim to want to serve.

+1. The concern is that it won’t make much difference unless you gave a new at-risk preference top priority, and let those students have first crack, ahead of siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Some of you people really suck. Why shoot someone down trying to create a new alternative middle and high school? I just don’t get it. Are you finding acceptable the current options?

No. because the current options (even the supposedly HRCS) are not doing an adequate job serving low-income kids. They don't serve enough of them and those that they do serve, there's still a big achievement gap. So I would like to know what the plan is for "Truth" to be any different. Hate the name BTW-- pretentious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCI was slightly different because it was a one-off which was only approved because David Catania shoved it through.

The others are preferences that any charter can petition the PCSB to offer. Of course we don’t know which kind SJPCS is seeking.

So far only Bridges has added a SN preference. The military family preference was approved as part of the forthcoming JBAB charter.

The legislation re military families also had provisions related to DCPS.

When are we going to get an at-risk preference going? Even if it were optional, it would provide an opportunity for the supposedly HRCSs to live up to their professed wokeness and bring their supposedly wonderful teaching and curriculum to the kids they claim to want to serve.

+1. The concern is that it won’t make much difference unless you gave a new at-risk preference top priority, and let those students have first crack, ahead of siblings.

I read that study too, and I think making a small difference would be worthwhile. Mainly I would enjoy seeing which schools embrace it and which try to weasel out.

[Anonymous]

I’m a parent at Lee Montessori and have been to planning meetings for Truth. My kids would probably go to the new school if it opened. We’re white and not poor.

The feeder pattern for Truth would give preference for up to 60% of the seats at the new school to kids from the feeder schools, all of which are public charter or DCPS. There would be no preferences for kids with general “Montessori experience” - from a private school, say, or a school outside of DC. The lottery for the rest of the slots would be open to all kids equally.

It’s worth noting that Lee Montessori, the driving force behind the Truth School, is opening a new campus in Anacostia this fall with the aim of making Montessori available to more at-risk kids. These folks are working very hard to bring Montessori to more kids in DC. The new Lee campus will also help make the feeder pattern to Truth more diverse than it already is.

I can tell you that Justin Lessek, the OP, is a straight-shooter with years of experience as a public school teacher. Starting in 2011 he was a teacher, instructional coach, and assistant principal at Columbia Heights Education Campus. If you’ve got questions I’m sure he’d be glad to answer them

And I do think Posters are bringing up important questions. We shouldn’t be too quick to fund new schools. But if you believe in the Montessori approach and would like more DC kids - poor and otherwise - to be able to go to Montessori schools, then it’s worth finding out about the Sojourner Truth school. I think it probably deserves your support.

.

[Anonymous]

It’s okay to ask hard questions. Why wouldn’t we ask hard questions to a school that wants funds to educate our youth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a parent at Lee Montessori and have been to planning meetings for Truth. My kids would probably go to the new school if it opened. We’re white and not poor.

The feeder pattern for Truth would give preference for up to 60% of the seats at the new school to kids from the feeder schools, all of which are public charter or DCPS. There would be no preferences for kids with general “Montessori experience” - from a private school, say, or a school outside of DC. The lottery for the rest of the slots would be open to all kids equally.

It’s worth noting that Lee Montessori, the driving force behind the Truth School, is opening a new campus in Anacostia this fall with the aim of making Montessori available to more at-risk kids. These folks are working very hard to bring Montessori to more kids in DC. The new Lee campus will also help make the feeder pattern to Truth more diverse than it already is.

I can tell you that Justin Lessek, the OP, is a straight-shooter with years of experience as a public school teacher. Starting in 2011 he was a teacher, instructional coach, and assistant principal at Columbia Heights Education Campus. If you’ve got questions I’m sure he’d be glad to answer them

And I do think Posters are bringing up important questions. We shouldn’t be too quick to fund new schools. But if you believe in the Montessori approach and would like more DC kids - poor and otherwise - to be able to go to Montessori schools, then it’s worth finding out about the Sojourner Truth school. I think it probably deserves your support.

.

The new campus is good, but it is worth noting that Stokes East End came in only 10% low income this year. How will the new Lee campus be any different?

If Justin is so great let him come back and answer our questions.

[Anonymous]

If you cannot be even borderline respectful and polite, I don’t see why anyone should answer your questions, particularly since you likely won’t go to a planning meeting and be snippy and self-righteous in person.

This board, I tell you.

[Anonymous]

Not a fan of Montessori, especially for students with disabilities in high grades (had SN kid in Montessori through 5th).

Important to know how far this school will stray from Montessori principals to provide FAPE to children who need it, particularly if that means special educators or technology in the classroom and how students with disabilities that present with behavioral challenges or emotional disorders will be supported.

SN is one thing in little kids. Quite another as they get older.

[Anonymous]

I think the proposal needs to slow down until all feeders are more diverse — racially and economically.

Enough of these middle class havens. If Montessori is all that, or truly needed in this landscape, parents of all descriptions would be flocking to it. They don’t.