Latin replication pulled from PCSB agenda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has ever been to a WL open house would know that most of their slots go to siblings, so the notion of open admissions is not accurate. The population is now just replicating itself bc the slots go to siblings. I was pretty turned off by WL not being very transparent about this and their mantra that everyone should just apply. And, frankly, although I am an UMC Af-Am, I was equally turned off by their clear interest in looking and feeling as much like a private school as possible. Maybe that is part of the problem and I think they should consider their own atmosphere and presentation. All of this, couple with how abysmal they seem to serve non-at risk, Af-Am students -which was easy for me to see looking at the data on my own - was a complete turn off. All this said, I appreciate that they seem to recognize where they are falling short and want to address it.

That is EXACTLY why they wanted to expand. And it is open admission, but with a sibling weight. The first graduating classes were predominately minority. As the school picked up interest from whites, that hasnt maintained. You are criticizing them for exactly what they seek to redress with this application. Wow.

Whatever "feel" you picked up on, is exactly the point of charters. To have different feels. But you should bring it up with the AA principal.

The problem with the new Latin in Ward 7 is that it could very well end up looking like the current Latin in 5-6 years. There is a huge demand for middle school options in Ward 6, and these families have been willing to travel all over the city for schools, including to the current Latin location. Ward 7 is an easy commute for these families, who are not all of color nor at risk.

Then open a 3rd? Not being facetious but not sure why an in-demand, successful charter school is a problem. I understand their goal is to serve more at-risk kids, but the fact of the matter is all kids deserve a great education and all kids deserve choices. I do think WL needs to figure out how to address the achievement gap better (no one can 'solve it'). Their best bet is probably to open an elementary starting in PK. Just don't think early childhood ed is their thing though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has ever been to a WL open house would know that most of their slots go to siblings, so the notion of open admissions is not accurate. The population is now just replicating itself bc the slots go to siblings. I was pretty turned off by WL not being very transparent about this and their mantra that everyone should just apply. And, frankly, although I am an UMC Af-Am, I was equally turned off by their clear interest in looking and feeling as much like a private school as possible. Maybe that is part of the problem and I think they should consider their own atmosphere and presentation. All of this, couple with how abysmal they seem to serve non-at risk, Af-Am students -which was easy for me to see looking at the data on my own - was a complete turn off. All this said, I appreciate that they seem to recognize where they are falling short and want to address it.

That is EXACTLY why they wanted to expand. And it is open admission, but with a sibling weight. The first graduating classes were predominately minority. As the school picked up interest from whites, that hasnt maintained. You are criticizing them for exactly what they seek to redress with this application. Wow.

Whatever "feel" you picked up on, is exactly the point of charters. To have different feels. But you should bring it up with the AA principal.

The problem with the new Latin in Ward 7 is that it could very well end up looking like the current Latin in 5-6 years. There is a huge demand for middle school options in Ward 6, and these families have been willing to travel all over the city for schools, including to the current Latin location. Ward 7 is an easy commute for these families, who are not all of color nor at risk.

They also suggested in their application that Ward 5 was in the mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has ever been to a WL open house would know that most of their slots go to siblings, so the notion of open admissions is not accurate. The population is now just replicating itself bc the slots go to siblings. I was pretty turned off by WL not being very transparent about this and their mantra that everyone should just apply. And, frankly, although I am an UMC Af-Am, I was equally turned off by their clear interest in looking and feeling as much like a private school as possible. Maybe that is part of the problem and I think they should consider their own atmosphere and presentation. All of this, couple with how abysmal they seem to serve non-at risk, Af-Am students -which was easy for me to see looking at the data on my own - was a complete turn off. All this said, I appreciate that they seem to recognize where they are falling short and want to address it.

That is EXACTLY why they wanted to expand. And it is open admission, but with a sibling weight. The first graduating classes were predominately minority. As the school picked up interest from whites, that hasnt maintained. You are criticizing them for exactly what they seek to redress with this application. Wow.

Whatever "feel" you picked up on, is exactly the point of charters. To have different feels. But you should bring it up with the AA principal.

The problem with the new Latin in Ward 7 is that it could very well end up looking like the current Latin in 5-6 years. There is a huge demand for middle school options in Ward 6, and these families have been willing to travel all over the city for schools, including to the current Latin location. Ward 7 is an easy commute for these families, who are not all of color nor at risk.

Then open a 3rd? Not being facetious but not sure why an in-demand, successful charter school is a problem. I understand their goal is to serve more at-risk kids, but the fact of the matter is all kids deserve a great education and all kids deserve choices. I do think WL needs to figure out how to address the achievement gap better (no one can 'solve it'). Their best bet is probably to open an elementary starting in PK. Just don't think early childhood ed is their thing though.

Because the at-risk kids who attend Latin are not doing well. And neither are many of the middle-income students of color. If "successful charter" is to mean anything other than "lots of white kids charter", the bar for expansion must be a little higher. All kids deserve choices and a great education, but school buildings are scarce and Latin should not get one unless it's going to be a solid option. Right now, seems like it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has ever been to a WL open house would know that most of their slots go to siblings, so the notion of open admissions is not accurate. The population is now just replicating itself bc the slots go to siblings. I was pretty turned off by WL not being very transparent about this and their mantra that everyone should just apply. And, frankly, although I am an UMC Af-Am, I was equally turned off by their clear interest in looking and feeling as much like a private school as possible. Maybe that is part of the problem and I think they should consider their own atmosphere and presentation. All of this, couple with how abysmal they seem to serve non-at risk, Af-Am students -which was easy for me to see looking at the data on my own - was a complete turn off. All this said, I appreciate that they seem to recognize where they are falling short and want to address it.

That is EXACTLY why they wanted to expand. And it is open admission, but with a sibling weight. The first graduating classes were predominately minority. As the school picked up interest from whites, that hasnt maintained. You are criticizing them for exactly what they seek to redress with this application. Wow.

Whatever "feel" you picked up on, is exactly the point of charters. To have different feels. But you should bring it up with the AA principal.

The problem with the new Latin in Ward 7 is that it could very well end up looking like the current Latin in 5-6 years. There is a huge demand for middle school options in Ward 6, and these families have been willing to travel all over the city for schools, including to the current Latin location. Ward 7 is an easy commute for these families, who are not all of color nor at risk.

Then open a 3rd? Not being facetious but not sure why an in-demand, successful charter school is a problem. I understand their goal is to serve more at-risk kids, but the fact of the matter is all kids deserve a great education and all kids deserve choices. I do think WL needs to figure out how to address the achievement gap better (no one can 'solve it'). Their best bet is probably to open an elementary starting in PK. Just don't think early childhood ed is their thing though.

Because the at-risk kids who attend Latin are not doing well. And neither are many of the middle-income students of color. If "successful charter" is to mean anything other than "lots of white kids charter", the bar for expansion must be a little higher. All kids deserve choices and a great education, but school buildings are scarce and Latin should not get one unless it's going to be a solid option. Right now, seems like it isn't.

Are they doing worse than they would in dcps? And for how many years running? And which schools did they feed from and how were they doing there? Was there a precipitous drop in their performance after they arrived at Latin? Are any doing well? And what os the metric for "well"? Ty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has ever been to a WL open house would know that most of their slots go to siblings, so the notion of open admissions is not accurate. The population is now just replicating itself bc the slots go to siblings. I was pretty turned off by WL not being very transparent about this and their mantra that everyone should just apply. And, frankly, although I am an UMC Af-Am, I was equally turned off by their clear interest in looking and feeling as much like a private school as possible. Maybe that is part of the problem and I think they should consider their own atmosphere and presentation. All of this, couple with how abysmal they seem to serve non-at risk, Af-Am students -which was easy for me to see looking at the data on my own - was a complete turn off. All this said, I appreciate that they seem to recognize where they are falling short and want to address it.

That is EXACTLY why they wanted to expand. And it is open admission, but with a sibling weight. The first graduating classes were predominately minority. As the school picked up interest from whites, that hasnt maintained. You are criticizing them for exactly what they seek to redress with this application. Wow.

Whatever "feel" you picked up on, is exactly the point of charters. To have different feels. But you should bring it up with the AA principal.

The problem with the new Latin in Ward 7 is that it could very well end up looking like the current Latin in 5-6 years. There is a huge demand for middle school options in Ward 6, and these families have been willing to travel all over the city for schools, including to the current Latin location. Ward 7 is an easy commute for these families, who are not all of color nor at risk.

Then open a 3rd? Not being facetious but not sure why an in-demand, successful charter school is a problem. I understand their goal is to serve more at-risk kids, but the fact of the matter is all kids deserve a great education and all kids deserve choices. I do think WL needs to figure out how to address the achievement gap better (no one can 'solve it'). Their best bet is probably to open an elementary starting in PK. Just don't think early childhood ed is their thing though.

Because the at-risk kids who attend Latin are not doing well. And neither are many of the middle-income students of color. If "successful charter" is to mean anything other than "lots of white kids charter", the bar for expansion must be a little higher. All kids deserve choices and a great education, but school buildings are scarce and Latin should not get one unless it's going to be a solid option. Right now, seems like it isn't.

Are they doing worse than they would in dcps? And for how many years running? And which schools did they feed from and how were they doing there? Was there a precipitous drop in their performance after they arrived at Latin? Are any doing well? And what os the metric for "well"? Ty.

Latin's achievement gap is worse than many DCPS schools.

The proficiency numbers have been posted in this thread more than once. No one is expecting 100%, but 43% for all black students and 17% for at-risk kids is certainly less than "well" for a Tier 1 school.

THeir discipline practices have been cited. They suspend these kids at a high rate -- far higher than other peer schools.

Finally, Latin has said for years the reason it starts MS in 5th is to 'bring kids to the same level.' Whatever they are doing during that year...doesn't seem to be enough.

I think they need more 1:1 support and instruction for kids of all background who are struggling, more data and tracking to see where there are gaps.

A friend has a white student, not at-at risk, at Latin with an IEP. She says she's become concerned (rising 8th grader) that expectations are pretty low for her kid and he gets too much latitude for less than good work when he's capable of more.

The kid gets As and Bs on classwork... and has gotten 2s on PARCC when those supports (except for extra time) are removed. One person's experience isn't data and maybe her kid is an outlier, but it's also something to consider. She's considering a different high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has ever been to a WL open house would know that most of their slots go to siblings, so the notion of open admissions is not accurate. The population is now just replicating itself bc the slots go to siblings. I was pretty turned off by WL not being very transparent about this and their mantra that everyone should just apply. And, frankly, although I am an UMC Af-Am, I was equally turned off by their clear interest in looking and feeling as much like a private school as possible. Maybe that is part of the problem and I think they should consider their own atmosphere and presentation. All of this, couple with how abysmal they seem to serve non-at risk, Af-Am students -which was easy for me to see looking at the data on my own - was a complete turn off. All this said, I appreciate that they seem to recognize where they are falling short and want to address it.

That is EXACTLY why they wanted to expand. And it is open admission, but with a sibling weight. The first graduating classes were predominately minority. As the school picked up interest from whites, that hasnt maintained. You are criticizing them for exactly what they seek to redress with this application. Wow.

Whatever "feel" you picked up on, is exactly the point of charters. To have different feels. But you should bring it up with the AA principal.

The problem with the new Latin in Ward 7 is that it could very well end up looking like the current Latin in 5-6 years. There is a huge demand for middle school options in Ward 6, and these families have been willing to travel all over the city for schools, including to the current Latin location. Ward 7 is an easy commute for these families, who are not all of color nor at risk.

Then open a 3rd? Not being facetious but not sure why an in-demand, successful charter school is a problem. I understand their goal is to serve more at-risk kids, but the fact of the matter is all kids deserve a great education and all kids deserve choices. I do think WL needs to figure out how to address the achievement gap better (no one can 'solve it'). Their best bet is probably to open an elementary starting in PK. Just don't think early childhood ed is their thing though.

Because the at-risk kids who attend Latin are not doing well. And neither are many of the middle-income students of color. If "successful charter" is to mean anything other than "lots of white kids charter", the bar for expansion must be a little higher. All kids deserve choices and a great education, but school buildings are scarce and Latin should not get one unless it's going to be a solid option. Right now, seems like it isn't.

Are they doing worse than they would in dcps? And for how many years running? And which schools did they feed from and how were they doing there? Was there a precipitous drop in their performance after they arrived at Latin? Are any doing well? And what os the metric for "well"? Ty.

I don't have the raw data, but you can probably download it somewhere. If the PMF were calculated using only at-risk kids, Latin would be Tier 3. And given the advantages that Latin and other charters have (no mid-year admits, no admits after 9th grade FFS) and the small percentage of the kids who are at-risk, that's really alarming. Middle schools EOTR are struggling with a very high-needs student body. Latin has just a small proportion of at-risk kids. So Latin should be doing better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has ever been to a WL open house would know that most of their slots go to siblings, so the notion of open admissions is not accurate. The population is now just replicating itself bc the slots go to siblings. I was pretty turned off by WL not being very transparent about this and their mantra that everyone should just apply. And, frankly, although I am an UMC Af-Am, I was equally turned off by their clear interest in looking and feeling as much like a private school as possible. Maybe that is part of the problem and I think they should consider their own atmosphere and presentation. All of this, couple with how abysmal they seem to serve non-at risk, Af-Am students -which was easy for me to see looking at the data on my own - was a complete turn off. All this said, I appreciate that they seem to recognize where they are falling short and want to address it.

That is EXACTLY why they wanted to expand. And it is open admission, but with a sibling weight. The first graduating classes were predominately minority. As the school picked up interest from whites, that hasnt maintained. You are criticizing them for exactly what they seek to redress with this application. Wow.

Whatever "feel" you picked up on, is exactly the point of charters. To have different feels. But you should bring it up with the AA principal.

The problem with the new Latin in Ward 7 is that it could very well end up looking like the current Latin in 5-6 years. There is a huge demand for middle school options in Ward 6, and these families have been willing to travel all over the city for schools, including to the current Latin location. Ward 7 is an easy commute for these families, who are not all of color nor at risk.

They also suggested in their application that Ward 5 was in the mix.

Ward 6 families will easily travel to Ward 5, too. Know your DC geography, folks!

[Anonymous]

I think that was the PPs point. New Latin may well look like old Latin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that was the PPs point. New Latin may well look like old Latin.

True. Is it really a problem if New Latin looks like Old Latin? Latin is working for some (many) kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that was the PPs point. New Latin may well look like old Latin.

True. Is it really a problem if New Latin looks like Old Latin? Latin is working for some (many) kids.

It is for the PCSB. See condition #7.

The school will be eligible for charter renewal in school year 2020-21. If the school’s charter is renewed, it will need to negotiate a new charter agreement with DC PCSB. Provided the charter is renewed, should the DC PCSB Board determine, at the time of the renewal decision, that the school has failed to make satisfactory progress in addressing disproportionality in the use of exclusionary discipline, the number of at-risk students served, and/or the performance of historically underperforming subgroups, the new charter
agreement shall contain a mission-specific goal or goals to hold the school accountable in the remaining areas of concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that was the PPs point. New Latin may well look like old Latin.

True. Is it really a problem if New Latin looks like Old Latin? Latin is working for some (many) kids.

It is for the PCSB. See condition #7.

The school will be eligible for charter renewal in school year 2020-21. If the school’s charter is renewed, it will need to negotiate a new charter agreement with DC PCSB. Provided the charter is renewed, should the DC PCSB Board determine, at the time of the renewal decision, that the school has failed to make satisfactory progress in addressing disproportionality in the use of exclusionary discipline, the number of at-risk students served, and/or the performance of historically underperforming subgroups, the new charter
agreement shall contain a mission-specific goal or goals to hold the school accountable in the remaining areas of concern.

Wow, charter board is starting to sound just like public schools under NCLB. That was such a success.

[Anonymous]

What everyone seems to be saying is that Alston’s success is superficial, it only reflects the natural outcomes of the students it accepts, which generally include children of high achievers achieving, children of the less-degrees struggling. When they change the equation, they get to expand.

Right?

[Anonymous]

Alston = Latin + spelling error + autocorrect

[Anonymous]

Also less-degrees = less-degreed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What everyone seems to be saying is that Alston’s success is superficial, it only reflects the natural outcomes of the students it accepts, which generally include children of high achievers achieving, children of the less-degrees struggling. When they change the equation, they get to expand.

Right?

Right. But Latin 6-7 years ago was very different demographically. I don’t recall how it did on DC CAS etc. Does anyone know?