Wash Post feature on Washington Latin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, just like Wilson which attracts kids from all over. Great spot--on Red Line and on Wisconsin Ave. Bus line. If you have a better spot, why don't you propose it and build it? these things called charter actually take effort you know.

It has been SO difficult for charters to get good spaces. Despite a law that required DCPS to give charters first priority for empty space, DCPS stonewalled during the Fenty years and for part of the Gray administration. Part of it was institutional hostility to charters from the school bureaucracy and a lot of it was that favored developers called in chits with the mayors' offices to get choice DCPS properties put up for sale. On top of that, charters have no capital budget for purchases and renovations. So they have to raise the money themselves and finance the rest, which is tough. It took Latin a while to find its permanent home. Moreover, when Latin rented on 16th St, they were in two buildings that were some distance apart, so I don't think that Latin has any appetite for a second, split campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Latin parent. I love Martha Cutts, but don't agree that the school needs a preference weighting for low-income kids; actually, if there was going to be "weighting" of any kind, then I think the lottery should weight instead based upon income categories so that any given class is no more than 30% low income, since according to research that's the tipping point where middle class parents will start to bail on a school.

After living (and paying taxes) in this city for over 20 years, I don't think that everything has to be geared completely towards DC's low income population. The success of Latin (and Basis) has been the creation of non-WOTP schools which can attract and retain middle class DC taxpayers. There are plenty of motivated parents (both white and AA) who cannot afford to live IB for Deal/Wilson and cannot afford $37K per year for private. Just ten years ago, those parents would have bailed for the 'burbs because of schools. Instead, those families, including my own, have stayed in DC, which is a positive for a city that used to be economically segregated to a far greater degree than it is now.

Well put!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, just like Wilson which attracts kids from all over. Great spot--on Red Line and on Wisconsin Ave. Bus line. If you have a better spot, why don't you propose it and build it? these things called charter actually take effort you know.

It has been SO difficult for charters to get good spaces. Despite a law that required DCPS to give charters first priority for empty space, DCPS stonewalled during the Fenty years and for part of the Gray administration. Part of it was institutional hostility to charters from the school bureaucracy and a lot of it was that favored developers called in chits with the mayors' offices to get choice DCPS properties put up for sale. On top of that, charters have no capital budget for purchases and renovations. So they have to raise the money themselves and finance the rest, which is tough. It took Latin a while to find its permanent home. Moreover, when Latin rented on 16th St, they were in two buildings that were some distance apart, so I don't think that Latin has any appetite for a second, split campus.

She's the one saying she wants to make changes!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, just like Wilson which attracts kids from all over. Great spot--on Red Line and on Wisconsin Ave. Bus line. If you have a better spot, why don't you propose it and build it? these things called charter actually take effort you know.

It has been SO difficult for charters to get good spaces. Despite a law that required DCPS to give charters first priority for empty space, DCPS stonewalled during the Fenty years and for part of the Gray administration. Part of it was institutional hostility to charters from the school bureaucracy and a lot of it was that favored developers called in chits with the mayors' offices to get choice DCPS properties put up for sale. On top of that, charters have no capital budget for purchases and renovations. So they have to raise the money themselves and finance the rest, which is tough. It took Latin a while to find its permanent home. Moreover, when Latin rented on 16th St, they were in two buildings that were some distance apart, so I don't think that Latin has any appetite for a second, split campus.

Yes..yet people beat Latin up for the good they've done/accomplished against the odds?????????????????

[Anonymous]

Concur! For all the haters, what do you hold up as a better example of a successful, diverse charter school?

[Anonymous]

I have read this whole thread and nothing comes close to 'hating.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and nothing comes close to 'hating.'

Not a Latin family. No dog here. Totally agree with this statement. It isn't "hate" for people to ask questions or come to different conclusions.

[Anonymous]

NP here. Maybe not "hate," but some comments are dripping with ignorant, smug armchair-quarterbacking. I don't have a child at Latin, but I agree with those who wonder what the naysayers would see as a better example of successful academics and successful diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and nothing comes close to 'hating.'

Not a Latin family. No dog here. Totally agree with this statement. It isn't "hate" for people to ask questions or come to different conclusions.

Especially when the current HOS is saying that she wishes they could serve more disadvantaged kids by way of a lottery preference. In this case it isn't a criticism coming from anonymous DCUM posters but an opinion by the school leadership.

Most of what has followed has been people agreeing - or disagreeing with her opinion - that Latin could/should serve a somewhat different population than it does now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Maybe not "hate," but some comments are dripping with ignorant, smug armchair-quarterbacking. I don't have a child at Latin, but I agree with those who wonder what the naysayers would see as a better example of successful academics and successful diversity.

Don't ask me - ask the head of the school who suggested that the diversity she was seeking was lacking and provided a recommendation on how to improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have read this whole thread and nothing comes close to 'hating.'

Yes, this whole 'hating' thing has gotten way out of hand. It's fair to say that radical Islamic terrorists hate. Critics on DCUM generally don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Maybe not "hate," but some comments are dripping with ignorant, smug armchair-quarterbacking. I don't have a child at Latin, but I agree with those who wonder what the naysayers would see as a better example of successful academics and successful diversity.

Don't ask me - ask the head of the school who suggested that the diversity she was seeking was lacking and provided a recommendation on how to improve.

What's funny is the presumption is it wouldn't negatively impact some non at -risk DC kid. Currently, all kids have equal chances but if you weight at risk, you are then decreasing the chances of rich, middle class and simply poor DC kids. Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Maybe not "hate," but some comments are dripping with ignorant, smug armchair-quarterbacking. I don't have a child at Latin, but I agree with those who wonder what the naysayers would see as a better example of successful academics and successful diversity.

Don't ask me - ask the head of the school who suggested that the diversity she was seeking was lacking and provided a recommendation on how to improve.

What's funny is the presumption is it wouldn't negatively impact some non at -risk DC kid. Currently, all kids have equal chances but if you weight at risk, you are then decreasing the chances of rich, middle class and simply poor DC kids. Huh.

This has been said before but bears repeating: tt also likely wouldn't end up helping the at-risk group as intended, since middle-class parents will leave rather than attend a school where their children aren't challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Maybe not "hate," but some comments are dripping with ignorant, smug armchair-quarterbacking. I don't have a child at Latin, but I agree with those who wonder what the naysayers would see as a better example of successful academics and successful diversity.

Don't ask me - ask the head of the school who suggested that the diversity she was seeking was lacking and provided a recommendation on how to improve.

What's funny is the presumption is it wouldn't negatively impact some non at -risk DC kid. Currently, all kids have equal chances but if you weight at risk, you are then decreasing the chances of rich, middle class and simply poor DC kids. Huh.

The educators don't really care about the non at-risk students because the data show they will be 'fine' regardless.

[Anonymous]

Ditto to middle class kids - for some reason they aren't seen as worthy of a free and good public education. I've never understood the ' they can just go to private or move' thing.