BASIS Equitable Access Preference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

12 is three kids per class, which is not nothing. Anyone who has had one troublemaker kid in their class knows how much it can affect learning for the other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

12 is three kids per class, which is not nothing. Anyone who has had one troublemaker kid in their class knows how much it can affect learning for the other kids.

Are you assuming that one out of three will be troublemakers or three out of three?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

12 is three kids per class, which is not nothing. Anyone who has had one troublemaker kid in their class knows how much it can affect learning for the other kids.

Are you assuming that one out of three will be troublemakers or three out of three?

My bet is 3/3, since they’ll be so far behind. It’s hard for a kid experiencing that kind of trauma to do well in the most supportive environments in a non-accelerated school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

12 is three kids per class, which is not nothing. Anyone who has had one troublemaker kid in their class knows how much it can affect learning for the other kids.

Are you assuming that one out of three will be troublemakers or three out of three?

My bet is 3/3, since they’ll be so far behind. It’s hard for a kid experiencing that kind of trauma to do well in the most supportive environments in a non-accelerated school.

So you don't think their "strategic action plan that boldly includes special education enrollment and programs as a cornerstone" is gonna get the job done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BASIS has announced they're doing an equitable access preference. The email makes it sound like they will be admitting equitable access students in ALL GRADES (5-12): "We plan to reserve a certain number of spots for at-risk students entering grades 5-12."

I personally don't love this. Underperforming disruptive students are already a problem at BASIS. BASIS is successful because those students are weeded out. This seems like yet another school that will be ruined in the name of "equity."

It is a public school funded with taxpayer dollars yes?

Your “not loving it” is immaterial.

That's a lazy take. Or are you also in favor of JKLM, Brent and every other DCPS school having to set aside EA seats? I mean, those are publicly funded too, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. When non-weed out schools add equitable access, you need to worry about what that is going to do about the education the school will be able to provide to non at risk students. But this is the point of attending a weed-out school. You don’t have to worry about any of this because basis will stay true to its weed out mission regardless. So relax and let the rest of us worry about “equity” across dcps!

So basically 5th grade at BASIS will be even more of a hot mess than it currently is. Then, kids who didn't have a good experience and didn't pass will be dumped into DCPS middle schools for 6th. Fun times!

They don't take comps until 5th. But best of luck to you and yours in your pearl clutching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, holy sh*t. This is bizarre. "A fighting chance"? "No chance in the world"? "Play make believe"? "Truly and deeeeeeeply desires"? "REALLY number one choice"?

Right. What they mean is a fair number of their applicants are fleeing the poor blacks.

I mean, we are and we aren't. On the one hand, we signed up for Basis because it's a school in which our kids can learn at academically advanced levels, and the race and income levels of their classmates are irrelevant. On the other hand, as anyone who hasn't had their head in the sand for the past 200 years knows, race and income are hugely correlated with academic achievement, so there's no way in which race and income are not relevant to this discussion. But when Basis has an at-risk rate of only 9 percent, there's certainly room for more disadvantaged but ambitious kids. That letter is bad, but at least it doesn't sugar-coat the fact that helping kids who need more support means more work for the school. I read it as saying that they will support motivated but underprepared kids, but not totally unmotivated kids.

Bingo! The point is that they aren't going to water down the BASIS standards. Sadly, the DC SJW crew like to posture and talk about things like EA but they don't seem to care a great deal about what happens to those kids when they fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People. When non-weed out schools add equitable access, you need to worry about what that is going to do about the education the school will be able to provide to non at risk students. But this is the point of attending a weed-out school. You don’t have to worry about any of this because basis will stay true to its weed out mission regardless. So relax and let the rest of us worry about “equity” across dcps!

BASIS's whole schtick is that BASIS is too hard for ANY children to join after 5th grade, because they're "so advanced." They're now planning to add kids to the *high school* who will be incredibly underprepared by definition, coming from foster care, homelessness etc. This is a recipe for disaster. They also don't weed out with comps after 8th grade, so those underprepared kids will be permanently in the high school.

The sole reason BASIS is doing this is because they're trying to push through the elementary school for funding reasons, which parents were already concerned would harm the middle and high school. And now we're seeing it happen, in real time.

No, they aren't. The only schtick here is people like you who have a firm position and no amount of facts or changed circumstances will be considered.

Why do you care so much about one school in DC when all schools are failing these EA kids? Couldn't be that you don't actually give a sh*t about these poor underserved kids, could it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

If it is only 9 seats should they not do it all? Seems like if those 9 kids get a chance they otherwise wouldn't get then it makes a difference to those kids. In a thread filled with dumb takes yours may be the dumbest. Your objection is that they didn't tell you right now how many seats? And also you don't think the number of seats they didn't tell you they would offer is enough seats? The only thing performative here is people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

I was confused by the bit where 1/3 of the Basis lottery applications are at-risk but only 9% who receive a seat offer are in that category. Assuming “receive a seat offer” means just getting their number pulled in the lottery (vs taking it), why such a big discrepancy? Does sibling preference play that much of a role?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BASIS has announced they're doing an equitable access preference. The email makes it sound like they will be admitting equitable access students in ALL GRADES (5-12): "We plan to reserve a certain number of spots for at-risk students entering grades 5-12."

I personally don't love this. Underperforming disruptive students are already a problem at BASIS. BASIS is successful because those students are weeded out. This seems like yet another school that will be ruined in the name of "equity."

It is a public school funded with taxpayer dollars yes?

Your “not loving it” is immaterial.

That's a lazy take. Or are you also in favor of JKLM, Brent and every other DCPS school having to set aside EA seats? I mean, those are publicly funded too, right?

DP but yes. Or just get rid of the lottery altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

If it is only 9 seats should they not do it all? Seems like if those 9 kids get a chance they otherwise wouldn't get then it makes a difference to those kids. In a thread filled with dumb takes yours may be the dumbest. Your objection is that they didn't tell you right now how many seats? And also you don't think the number of seats they didn't tell you they would offer is enough seats? The only thing performative here is people like you.

Reading is fundamental -- perhaps you should have gone to a BASIS school or perhaps you are just overly emotional. In any case, I don't object - even if it is performative. I just don't see that 12 kids (or less or even a bit more) are going to ruin the BASIS education as is being said by others throughout this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

I was confused by the bit where 1/3 of the Basis lottery applications are at-risk but only 9% who receive a seat offer are in that category. Assuming “receive a seat offer” means just getting their number pulled in the lottery (vs taking it), why such a big discrepancy? Does sibling preference play that much of a role?

Yes, it plays a large role. The class becomes gradually less and less at-risk as kids are disproportionately weeded out, and sibling preference is conferred by kids in grades 7 and up for the most part, so it's only the survivors who get to pull in their sibling.

You can see sibling seats here: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/aaron2446/viz/MSDCSeatsandWaitlistOfferData_draft/MSDCPublicDisplay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reads like "Don't worry, we'll make sure it's only a few more poors, and we'll make sure they're super desperate to be here!"

Imagine how different this letter would be if they actually wanted to do this. Of course, if they wanted to, they would have done it already.

That's my takeaway as well. They are clear that "this new preference will impact our opening grade level seat size by less than 8% of total seat offers -- meaning a marginal impact to new families submitting applications." They never say the exact number of equitable access seats they will offer -- it could be in the single digits and this is more performative than anything else. Based on the 8% quoted in the email, it's probably around 12.

If it is only 9 seats should they not do it all? Seems like if those 9 kids get a chance they otherwise wouldn't get then it makes a difference to those kids. In a thread filled with dumb takes yours may be the dumbest. Your objection is that they didn't tell you right now how many seats? And also you don't think the number of seats they didn't tell you they would offer is enough seats? The only thing performative here is people like you.

Reading is fundamental -- perhaps you should have gone to a BASIS school or perhaps you are just overly emotional. In any case, I don't object - even if it is performative. I just don't see that 12 kids (or less or even a bit more) are going to ruin the BASIS education as is being said by others throughout this thread.

If that's all it takes to ruin it, it wasn't very good.