Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the list above, WL doesn’t need to expand to “underserved” parts of the city because they are being served so well already. Which is it?

The schools above don't have enough MS seats to meet demand.

I think the point is that students from really challenging circumstances can learn and achieve proficiency -- but it isn't easy. I think WL and all of the other so-called HRC's really need to be reaching out and learning what they are doing to get better outcomes.

What if they are "teaching to the test"? "Drill n kill"? Is that what WL should learn?

Stop being ridiculous. Here's the thing -- WL works for many kids. The other schools work for many kids. The focus shouldn't be on pitting school against school and trying to prove what's best. The focus should be on making sure the measuring tool fairly shows that both WL and other schools are working for kids.

The reason there are charters is to give families quality options. For some families WL is the best option, for others it might be another school. Rather than tearing down some schools, how about we all come together and get the charter board to fix the flaws in the PMF so that schools that serve more at-risk kids have a chance to show up as well as those that don't?

Im not being ridiculous. Wl and kipp work for many kids..they are very different. If one studies and mimics the other they may well stop working well for the kids they serve. And we lose the diversity in offerings that is the hallmark charters. DC Prep (if you visit their website) appears to start in preK3/4. How does WL pull early childhood education out of a hat?

No you are being ridiculous by assuming that DC Prep is doing drill and kill. My point is that the programs are different and they are working for kids. Why tear down one program because it produces good results for a different set of kids? Defending WL or KIPP or DC Prep doesn't have to be done at the expense of another school. The issue is the flawed PMF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the list above, WL doesn’t need to expand to “underserved” parts of the city because they are being served so well already. Which is it?

The schools above don't have enough MS seats to meet demand.

I think the point is that students from really challenging circumstances can learn and achieve proficiency -- but it isn't easy. I think WL and all of the other so-called HRC's really need to be reaching out and learning what they are doing to get better outcomes.

What if they are "teaching to the test"? "Drill n kill"? Is that what WL should learn?

Stop being ridiculous. Here's the thing -- WL works for many kids. The other schools work for many kids. The focus shouldn't be on pitting school against school and trying to prove what's best. The focus should be on making sure the measuring tool fairly shows that both WL and other schools are working for kids.

The reason there are charters is to give families quality options. For some families WL is the best option, for others it might be another school. Rather than tearing down some schools, how about we all come together and get the charter board to fix the flaws in the PMF so that schools that serve more at-risk kids have a chance to show up as well as those that don't?

Im not being ridiculous. Wl and kipp work for many kids..they are very different. If one studies and mimics the other they may well stop working well for the kids they serve. And we lose the diversity in offerings that is the hallmark charters. DC Prep (if you visit their website) appears to start in preK3/4. How does WL pull early childhood education out of a hat?

No you are being ridiculous by assuming that DCPrep is getting success through drill and kill. It's ridiculous to defend one school by tearing down another. The problem isn't WL or DC Prep or KIPP or BASIS. They are all good schools and like any schools will always have improvements to make and particular students who need more. The problem is the flawed PMF but with all the in-fighting of charter boosters, people won't come together to address the flawed tool that affects all schools.

I believe that WL is a great school and shouldn't try to be like other schools. They need to design their own approaches to better serving at-risk kids in ways that don't compromise or water down other results. If they can learn from others great but they shouldn't be required to be more like KIPP or DC Prep or any other charter. But I don't see a reason to tear down DC Prep in defense of WL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2017-18 WL had an 87% 4-year graduation rate (a decrease from 16-17 when it was 90%).

100% of white students, 81% of black students and 69% of at-risk students graduated in 4 years.

The 5-year graduation rate was 93% in 2018.

https://dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/151-1118/metric/graduation_rate_4yr?lang=en

So clearly not 100% accepted to college. At least not recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2017-18 WL had an 87% 4-year graduation rate (a decrease from 16-17 when it was 90%).

100% of white students, 81% of black students and 69% of at-risk students graduated in 4 years.

The 5-year graduation rate was 93% in 2018.

https://dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/151-1118/metric/graduation_rate_4yr?lang=en

So clearly not 100% accepted to college. At least not recently.

93% sounds pretty darned good! Whats the DC avergqe for black and at risk kids? Why dont we start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2017-18 WL had an 87% 4-year graduation rate (a decrease from 16-17 when it was 90%).

100% of white students, 81% of black students and 69% of at-risk students graduated in 4 years.

The 5-year graduation rate was 93% in 2018.

https://dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/151-1118/metric/graduation_rate_4yr?lang=en

So clearly not 100% accepted to college. At least not recently.

93% sounds pretty darned good! Whats the DC avergqe for black and at risk kids? Why dont we start there.

The comment was in response to the PP who said college admissions 100% and that real data should count when reviewing the performance of a school. Check your data before posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the list above, WL doesn’t need to expand to “underserved” parts of the city because they are being served so well already. Which is it?

The schools above don't have enough MS seats to meet demand.

I think the point is that students from really challenging circumstances can learn and achieve proficiency -- but it isn't easy. I think WL and all of the other so-called HRC's really need to be reaching out and learning what they are doing to get better outcomes.

What if they are "teaching to the test"? "Drill n kill"? Is that what WL should learn?

Stop being ridiculous. Here's the thing -- WL works for many kids. The other schools work for many kids. The focus shouldn't be on pitting school against school and trying to prove what's best. The focus should be on making sure the measuring tool fairly shows that both WL and other schools are working for kids.

The reason there are charters is to give families quality options. For some families WL is the best option, for others it might be another school. Rather than tearing down some schools, how about we all come together and get the charter board to fix the flaws in the PMF so that schools that serve more at-risk kids have a chance to show up as well as those that don't?

Im not being ridiculous. Wl and kipp work for many kids..they are very different. If one studies and mimics the other they may well stop working well for the kids they serve. And we lose the diversity in offerings that is the hallmark charters. DC Prep (if you visit their website) appears to start in preK3/4. How does WL pull early childhood education out of a hat?

No you are being ridiculous by assuming that DCPrep is getting success through drill and kill. It's ridiculous to defend one school by tearing down another. The problem isn't WL or DC Prep or KIPP or BASIS. They are all good schools and like any schools will always have improvements to make and particular students who need more. The problem is the flawed PMF but with all the in-fighting of charter boosters, people won't come together to address the flawed tool that affects all schools.

I believe that WL is a great school and shouldn't try to be like other schools. They need to design their own approaches to better serving at-risk kids in ways that don't compromise or water down other results. If they can learn from others great but they shouldn't be required to be more like KIPP or DC Prep or any other charter. But I don't see a reason to tear down DC Prep in defense of WL.

I didnt say it was. I said "what if"? My point is the exact same as yours - that these schools are good because they are different and take different approaches. Comparing them is very difficult and one has to be responsible there, alongside cries that they study and learn from one another. A lot of assumptions need to be reviewed and facts on the ground assessed for that to be of benefit. You are the only person throwing around the term ridiculous btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2017-18 WL had an 87% 4-year graduation rate (a decrease from 16-17 when it was 90%).

100% of white students, 81% of black students and 69% of at-risk students graduated in 4 years.

The 5-year graduation rate was 93% in 2018.

https://dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/151-1118/metric/graduation_rate_4yr?lang=en

So clearly not 100% accepted to college. At least not recently.

93% sounds pretty darned good! Whats the DC avergqe for black and at risk kids? Why dont we start there.

The comment was in response to the PP who said college admissions 100% and that real data should count when reviewing the performance of a school. Check your data before posting.

That was me and I said 100% or near to. 93% sounds amazing for DC. Thank you for highlighting a really positive fact!

[Anonymous]

If you average that's around 97% , so I was in the ballpark! But even in separate columns, those results are outstanding for an open admission DC school. Wow. If they could do that in ward 7, with the scholarships they obtain??? But no Plato or diploma for ward 7 kids because...PARCC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also noted by the concerned PCSB members:

Dramatically fewer numbers of at-risk and minority students compared to the early years of the school.

Which WL voiced as the main driver for wanting to expand. Not sure why the Board member was so "concerned"????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you average that's around 97% , so I was in the ballpark! But even in separate columns, those results are outstanding for an open admission DC school. Wow. If they could do that in ward 7, with the scholarships they obtain??? But no Plato or diploma for ward 7 kids because...PARCC

Enough with the scholarships. They are not a metric that is used when evaluating any public high school in teh country. And if you compare WL to BASIS, Banneker or Walls ... the amount of merit scholarships per graduate isn't that impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also noted by the concerned PCSB members:

Dramatically fewer numbers of at-risk and minority students compared to the early years of the school.

Which WL voiced as the main driver for wanting to expand. Not sure why the Board member was so "concerned"????

WL wants more at-risk and minority kids. But the ones they have aren't performing well, at least compared to other WL students, and students in several other charter high schools.

The board members who voted no wanted to see Latin improve with the underserved students already enrolled, before taking on more.

Walk before you run, and all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you average that's around 97% , so I was in the ballpark! But even in separate columns, those results are outstanding for an open admission DC school. Wow. If they could do that in ward 7, with the scholarships they obtain??? But no Plato or diploma for ward 7 kids because...PARCC

Enough with the scholarships. They are not a metric that is used when evaluating any public high school in teh country. And if you compare WL to BASIS, Banneker or Walls ... the amount of merit scholarships per graduate isn't that impressive.

Tell that to the kids who got rhem. Enough with your scholarships! More metrics is what we need in DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also noted by the concerned PCSB members:

Dramatically fewer numbers of at-risk and minority students compared to the early years of the school.

Which WL voiced as the main driver for wanting to expand. Not sure why the Board member was so "concerned"????

WL wants more at-risk and minority kids. But the ones they have aren't performing well, at least compared to other WL students, and students in several other charter high schools.

The board members who voted no wanted to see Latin improve with the underserved students already enrolled, before taking on more.

Walk before you run, and all that.

Yeah, I think WL is very well intentioned but should abandon this. Maybe open an elementary. I have no doubt they thought if they had a higher population they could tailor the program and serve them well. But no one will give them a chance. I'm guessing with such a small populations statistics are kind of hooey and it's very difficult to put large scale programmatics into effect . Oh well. Ta ta Ward7! Get your great books at DCPL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you average that's around 97% , so I was in the ballpark! But even in separate columns, those results are outstanding for an open admission DC school. Wow. If they could do that in ward 7, with the scholarships they obtain??? But no Plato or diploma for ward 7 kids because...PARCC

Enough with the scholarships. They are not a metric that is used when evaluating any public high school in teh country. And if you compare WL to BASIS, Banneker or Walls ... the amount of merit scholarships per graduate isn't that impressive.

Tell that to the kids who got rhem. Enough with your scholarships! More metrics is what we need in DC!

That data point is misleading. Let's say the top 15-20 students rack up several hundred thousand each and the graduating class is small. The school brags that the graduating class "earned a total of $X Million in scholarships" but neglect to mention that the lion's share went to a small fraction of the class.

How do I know? Because my kid graduated this year and received a total of $650,000 in merit scholarships. Ended up accepting none of them (grrr), but it certainly helped make his graduating class' cumulative total look great. Some of his classmates received even more than he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you average that's around 97% , so I was in the ballpark! But even in separate columns, those results are outstanding for an open admission DC school. Wow. If they could do that in ward 7, with the scholarships they obtain??? But no Plato or diploma for ward 7 kids because...PARCC

Enough with the scholarships. They are not a metric that is used when evaluating any public high school in teh country. And if you compare WL to BASIS, Banneker or Walls ... the amount of meriand


t scholarships per graduate isn't that impressive.

Tell that to the kids who got rhem. Enough with your scholarships! More metrics is what we need in DC!

That data point is misleading. Let's say the top 15-20 students rack up several hundred thousand each and the graduating class is small. The school brags that the graduating class "earned a total of $X Million in scholarships" but neglect to mention that the lion's share went to a small fraction of the class.

How do I know? Because my kid graduated this year and received a total of $650,000 in merit scholarships. Ended up accepting none of them (grrr), but it certainly helped make his graduating class' cumulative total look great. Some of his classmates received even more than he did.

Theyve done great with GW Trachtenberg and are or were really active with that POSSE program that courts low income /diversity. I know as they were super interested in our kid, but went another route. Agree GRrr btw, but hope your kid ended up in a great match.