Washington Latin

[Anonymous]

Opening of a new Washington Latin school in 2009...http://www.washingtonlatin.org/

How different is this from the public charter school ?

[Anonymous]

For one thing, it's private and so more costly.

The private version is being started by the former headmaster/founder of the public charter school, together with the former dean of that school. The former principal and dean left a year ago after a lot of acrimony, unhappy teachers leaving, and more. The former principal has a great vision, but I think the general concensus was that he couldn't manage or lead. If you look at the site carefully, the former dean will be the head of the new private school. At the bottom of the private school's website you will see mention of the Fund for Classical Education, which if you google is led by the former headmaster/founder and supports in some way the new private school.

If this seems confusing, it's probably because it is. Sorry I couldn't explain it more clearly.

The public charter version has a new leadership team and is doing well.

[Anonymous]

FYI, I went to a presentation by the headmaster of the charter Washington Latin who left and is starting this new school. He is VERY conservative, and really seems to be one of these "my way of the highway" types. I'm a fan of traditional education, but I thought he was a bit much.

[Anonymous]

I fully agree with the "conservative" characterization, although with one qualification. He's certainly developing a traditional curriculum (which is why the schools he's been associated with appeal to various people). He also has a philosphy, which I'm not sure I agree with but don't oppose out of hand, that in order to make everybody succeed the school needs to develop a school "culture" that's what I'd call, for lack of a better word, "old fashioned", or maybe reminiscent of the way upper class kids were schooled in the Victorian age. Anyway, he wants a pretty formal school culture.

The difference from a "conservative" outlook, as I see it, is that he seems genuinely determined to bring this education to disadvantaged DC kids. His family is bi-racial, BTW. He wants to set up something like the famous Boston Latin school here in DC. Also he opposed entrance tests for the public charter he set up, on the grounds that middle-class kids do better for reasons having little to do with intelligence.

Now if it weren't for the heavy-handed management style that drove away teachers, and the endless quoting of the good and the great, even when it seemed totally superfluous, I think he'd have a great thing going. Also, even in the DC public charter he was known to talk about his religious views, which outraged some parents. I guess, if my kids needed to consider a new school (which they don't), I'd look very closely at whether he's learned anything from the disaster -- let's not mince words -- of his experience at the charter school.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for posting this information on Washington Latin. I began a thread a couple days ago asking if there were any schools in the area that had a classical "Latin based" curriculum and didn't get many responses.

Also, would someone elaborate on the pricipal's religious views? Is the private school going to be religious based?

I'm pretty liberal, but like the idea of a more structured, formal learning environment for little ones (they can be liberal when they are older).

[Anonymous]

I saw your post but honestly I don't know much about the new private, as it's not in operation yet and we're not in the market for a new school so we haven't investigated. I can, however, tell you what I know about the public charter school's experience.

The principal of the new private school, Tom Soule, was actually the dean -- the number 2 -- last year at the public charter. I don't know what his religious views are and I don't think he mentioned them much. He seems a fairly quite guy.

The former principal of the public charter school is T.R. Ahlstrom, and he heads up "The Fund for Classical Education" which provides some sort of support to the new private. I don't know what type of support -- financial, developing curriculum, more? I honestly couldn't say. Also I have absolutely no idea how Soule and Ahlstrom balance their working relationship, and if you attended a meeting you may know more about this than me by now.

Anyway, Ahlstrom is the one who was vocal about religion when he headed up the charter last year. He's a former protestant minister. To be honest I think some of the furor was overblown, with some parents just out to get him and using whatever material they could latch on to. Also the school was located in a church and it was impossible to cover up the religious imagery, with the result that some parents saw a more pervasive religiosity and blamed the principal. That said, once or twice I heard Ahstrom proudly announce that he wasn't going to supposed to talk about religion in a public school but he was going to anyway. He went on to say something fairly innocuous about the importance of faith or something, but it might have offended any atheists in the audience. I assume this wouldn't be a problem in a private school, which may be one of the reasons (besides the fact that he completely alienated the DC public charter board) that he's now helping launch a private version of the school.

[Anonymous]

Progressive parents, I really don't think that you will like Washington Latin. I met T.R. Ahlstrom at a fundraiser and from my perspective, his outlook is 19th century. Yes, he's committed to educating poor and minority kids, but he makes clear that he thinks of them as coming from a non-culture that has nothing to offer either them or their more privileged white peers in the school. He fervently believes that reading Aeschylus will "save" poor kids from whatever is wrong in their lives. In fact if they were learning Arabic, Spanish, or Mandarin, they would enter the work force with a valuable skill. But he shuns any educational philosophy that has a practical purpose. His premise-- that learning the classics produces a student of character-- seems to come from Anglophilia. Problem is, the children that he wants to educate live in very different circumstances than wealth British kids.

And yes, he's kind of a religious nut.

Bottom line, if you think that WL will provide the gifts that diversity brings, you might be disappointed. The Fund fundies have more of a missionary approach to people of color that I found shocking and offensive. Yes, Latin-based education sounds snazzy, but there's no evidence that reading Homer instead of TOni Morrison makes better students, or that learning classical languages is a better use of a child's time than learning spoken ones.

Ahlstrom and his legions of crusty old upper crusties frankly scared me, and I had come in wanting to believe in this project.

Run away.

[Anonymous]

PP, thanks for the warning. Have also heard not great things about this guy.

[Anonymous]

Could I just clarify that PP is referring to the private incarnation of the school, not the public charter which Ahlstrom no longer runs.

I agree with PP that the private version should probably be avoided. I share some of her concerns, but not all, and I have a different emphasis. My concerns have more to do with the stability of the place, and whether the school leadership can hold it together, win the loyalty of families, teachers, and anybody else who is necessary to the school's survival. If old dogs can learn new tricks then maybe Ahlstrom has learned something from past experience, although I have my doubts there. And yes, Ahlstrom is prickly and fairly rigid. It's not obvious to me, as I said in an earlier email, what his role in the new private school will be.

So do your research before committing (as I presume you're doing by posting here).

I do think the public charter that he set up was much more "practical" than was represented above.

For one thing the public charter offers Mandarin and French, and I got the impression that Spanish is now being considered by the new leadership team. Also in the public charter the math and science have been very good. So it's not as though no "valuable" (PP's word) skills are being taught.

Also, in the public charter version, I haven't heard of anybody reading Aeschylus. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so.

Over the past year in the Latin public charter my kid has read such "classics" as Animal Farm, Inherit the Wind (pro-Darwin, by the way), To Kill a Mockingbird, Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde, and a Shakespeare play. My kid had no trouble relating to these "classics".

[Anonymous]

Oh, and Fahrenheit 451, too, which DC absolutely loved.

Anyway, the point is that a "classical" education does not mean all Aeschylus, all the time.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, all, for your perspectives.

I have been attracted to the "clasical curriculum" because it focuses heavily on memorization and rote learning in the early years. I like this approach for building a foundation of knowledge. Likewise. I'm very skeptical of some of the faddish teaching techniques that focuses too much on "what the child thinks" about a topic or "exploring their creativity", or making learning "fun". Frankly, until a child, or an adult for that matter, has a solid understanding of a topic, I really don't care what they think. In addition, a child can explore their creativity at home at the kitchen table or in the garage building something with their dad...I don't really need to pay a school to foster this. And thirdly, when a child gets a sense of accomplishment from rote learning and/or memorization, they'll have plenty of positive feelings, if not actually "fun".

I also think its more important for student to read and understand the classics than Toni Morrison.

But I'm also a moderate by temperate and I wouldn't like a school that was too extreme.

[Anonymous]

13:02 here. The Latin PCS kids did also read various Maya Angelou poems. Which in my view was a good thing. It's a question of balance, in my view.

[Anonymous]

Just be careful. Latin is under much better new management, but the school is still not so good, and there are major challenges ahead. Math is good, science is terrible. It depends on the teacher for the other subjects. Still lots of young, inexperienced teachers. Aside from the study of Latin, the school is really not classical in any way. Lots of memorization and little writing/analysis. Many 8th graders chose not to stay for high school.

[Anonymous]

OK, I feel compelled to point out that PP's earlier post was full of off-the-mark statements about the school, and this latest post should be taken with a grain of salt too. In the earlier post she said that the school didn't offer modern languages because they were too "practical," but in fact the school requires 4 years of either Mandarin or French for graduation (and did even under Ahlstrom). She also created the impression that the kids study Aeschylus and Homer to the exclusion of anything they could actually relate to, but with a quick glance at the website you can debunk this yourself.

This leaves two options: (a) she doesn't have a kid at the school and knows nothing about it; or (b) she had a kid at the school last year but left during the blow-up with Ahlstrom, and she's still so bitter that she's going around bad-mouthing the school even one year later.

About the science class. DC loves the class and also loves the teacher. DC also loved last year's science teacher. Myself, I think maybe they should make more use of the lab (the upper school finally has a lab with bunsen burners and all, at the British School). I think hands-on practice is important. If your kid wants intense science they may be better off somewhere else.

There is LOTS of writing and analysis. DC just finished yet another essay last night. Geez, I don't know where this is coming from.

High school is still an issue. Right now the school only goes up to ninth grade. So there are tons of unknowns about exmissions success, whether the school will offer adequate college counseling and placement, et cetera. As we speak the school is deciding between IB and AP programs, with an announcement due soon. So yes, there is uncertainty, and I'm sure that some families prefer the known entity of Wilson, Walls, or somewhere else.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a booster. But it irks me to see these unfair criticisms of the school, and it calls for a response.

[Anonymous]

PP, I noted you mentioned Wilson, Walls or 'somewhere else'
is it so HARD to say the name Banneker? It IS DC's most successful magnet high school
I don't get why many parents pretend Banneker is non-existent or not worth mentioning by name