Why aren’t KIPP schools popularity on this board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

No, no one is saying it could never work for UMC kids. But it's targeted at them or their needs. It's targeted at underprivileged kids. UMC parents generally don't "need" the special KIPP sauce. Whether it could be a good environment for some of them is secondary. Those kids will succeed in a variety of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because they are set up to compensate for not having the structure and resources that UMC parents have. UMC parents don't need school till 5 p.m., rigidity on how you move, walk and required family participation.

Basically, this. I'd add that most MC/UMC parents don't -want- their kids in such highly regimented environments, and they often aren't necessary because the kids already have sufficient structure, stability, and parental involvement in education. What KIPP does well is provide structure and high expectations for kids who might not otherwise have that, either at school or at home.

Disagree. The parents I know who send their kids to KIPP (or might) absolutely have high expectations for their kids. That's why they send them to KIPP. It's absolutely false that only UMC parents have structure and expectations in DC.

I don't mean necessarily from parents, but if you think your neighborhood school is dysfunctional, one of the forms that might take is that the teachers and admin have lower expectations for what the kids can do. Or the other students in the school have parents with low expectations. KIPP is a corrective to that.

Actually my neighborhood school is not dysfunctional at all (from my perspective). It is one of those schools with 50+ IB kids on the PK3 waiting list. My neighbors decamped for KIPP because they thought the schools' expectations were TOO LOW for their kids, in part due to race. They thought KIPP (and more traditional DCPS schools) would be a better fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

You have many assumptions going. Talk about twisting. KIPP would never be a good environment for my child; I believe it can be a great environment for a different child. Meanwhile, I have known a lot about KIPP for a long time, and I know people who have worked there since early on. What I'm calling out is that what you think you are commiting uninformed stereotyping in thinking that you are calling out uninformed stereotyping. But whatever. Keep the chip on your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They think they know all they need to based a 60 Minutes piece a few years back or an article they read.

KIPP has a track record and a national reputation, which can cut both ways.

I also think most DC charter parents still consider themselves left of center politically and feel better about choosing a homegrown DC charter school over one that’s part of a national network.

This. People have at least a superficial sense of what a school like KIPP is like, and many MC/UMC parents aren't interested based on that reputation. There's probably some racism at work, and a lot of classism, but it's also a fact that many MC/UMC parents these days prefer a more progressive/less traditional/structured/strict system. People push back against perceived "teaching to the test" and loads of homework. And I agree that there is some bias against a national chain v. a local charter. These parents may be wrong to reject the school, but it's not hard to see why they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

No, no one is saying it could never work for UMC kids. But it's targeted at them or their needs. It's targeted at underprivileged kids. UMC parents generally don't "need" the special KIPP sauce. Whether it could be a good environment for some of them is secondary. Those kids will succeed in a variety of schools.

And I am here to tell you that my UMC kid failed miserably at a school that didn't have the right kind of structure. In a choice between Montessori and KIPP, there's no question for him ... KIPP. Again, this stuff is NOT universal. I am positive there are many kids at KIPP who would also do wonderfully at CMI or ITS or Lee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

You have many assumptions going. Talk about twisting. KIPP would never be a good environment for my child; I believe it can be a great environment for a different child. Meanwhile, I have known a lot about KIPP for a long time, and I know people who have worked there since early on. What I'm calling out is that what you think you are commiting uninformed stereotyping in thinking that you are calling out uninformed stereotyping. But whatever. Keep the chip on your shoulder.

\

correcting: "What I'm calling out is that you are commiting uninformed stereotyping in thinking that you are calling out uninformed stereotyping."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

You have many assumptions going. Talk about twisting. KIPP would never be a good environment for my child; I believe it can be a great environment for a different child. Meanwhile, I have known a lot about KIPP for a long time, and I know people who have worked there since early on. What I'm calling out is that what you think you are commiting uninformed stereotyping in thinking that you are calling out uninformed stereotyping. But whatever. Keep the chip on your shoulder.

Um ... ok. So what's your position on OP's question? Why does this board and UMC parents in general never consider KIPP as viable options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They think they know all they need to based a 60 Minutes piece a few years back or an article they read.

KIPP has a track record and a national reputation, which can cut both ways.

I also think most DC charter parents still consider themselves left of center politically and feel better about choosing a homegrown DC charter school over one that’s part of a national network.

This. People have at least a superficial sense of what a school like KIPP is like, and many MC/UMC parents aren't interested based on that reputation. There's probably some racism at work, and a lot of classism, but it's also a fact that many MC/UMC parents these days prefer a more progressive/less traditional/structured/strict system. People push back against perceived "teaching to the test" and loads of homework. And I agree that there is some bias against a national chain v. a local charter. These parents may be wrong to reject the school, but it's not hard to see why they do.

I honestly think the "teaching to the test" thing is very hypocritical. People literally rank schools on here by PARCC scores, and then ding KIPP for "teaching to the test" when they produce excellent PARCC scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They think they know all they need to based a 60 Minutes piece a few years back or an article they read.

KIPP has a track record and a national reputation, which can cut both ways.

I also think most DC charter parents still consider themselves left of center politically and feel better about choosing a homegrown DC charter school over one that’s part of a national network.

This. People have at least a superficial sense of what a school like KIPP is like, and many MC/UMC parents aren't interested based on that reputation. There's probably some racism at work, and a lot of classism, but it's also a fact that many MC/UMC parents these days prefer a more progressive/less traditional/structured/strict system. People push back against perceived "teaching to the test" and loads of homework. And I agree that there is some bias against a national chain v. a local charter. These parents may be wrong to reject the school, but it's not hard to see why they do.

I honestly think the "teaching to the test" thing is very hypocritical. People literally rank schools on here by PARCC scores, and then ding KIPP for "teaching to the test" when they produce excellent PARCC scores.

Absolutely true across DCPS as well. But I do think the focus on testing in general makes UMC parents uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

No, no one is saying it could never work for UMC kids. But it's targeted at them or their needs. It's targeted at underprivileged kids. UMC parents generally don't "need" the special KIPP sauce. Whether it could be a good environment for some of them is secondary. Those kids will succeed in a variety of schools.

And I am here to tell you that my UMC kid failed miserably at a school that didn't have the right kind of structure. In a choice between Montessori and KIPP, there's no question for him ... KIPP. Again, this stuff is NOT universal. I am positive there are many kids at KIPP who would also do wonderfully at CMI or ITS or Lee.

Is this your 5 year old again? Failing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

But I suspect he didn't need his school to teach him how to listen to someone or how to fill out a job application. He's getting that at home. That's the stuff KIPP is providing alongside academics.

Uh, absolutely the school had to teach him how to listen to his teacher. And he is only 5, so it's going to be a while for job applications. Sure, things could look different for middle and high school, maybe even upper elementary, but my experience so far has taught me not to make assumptions about any school based on stigma or unexamined notions about what a "good" school is like.

Your kid is 5 and you think you have the experience to opine on educational strategies? You've had exactly 5 months of school. Maybe wait a few years.

Like I said, my mind is open. OP's question is why KIPP schools aren't popular on this board, which generally means people looking for PK-K spots. My personal experience has demonstrated that the reason I didn't consider KIPP is that I didn't understand my child's learning style, how schools work, and how "structure" would play out for him. Going forward, I'm not going to make assumptions based on stigma. Are you arguing there is no stigma related to KIPP?

[Anonymous]

Why go to kipp if there is an acceptable school a short walk away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

No, no one is saying it could never work for UMC kids. But it's targeted at them or their needs. It's targeted at underprivileged kids. UMC parents generally don't "need" the special KIPP sauce. Whether it could be a good environment for some of them is secondary. Those kids will succeed in a variety of schools.

And I am here to tell you that my UMC kid failed miserably at a school that didn't have the right kind of structure. In a choice between Montessori and KIPP, there's no question for him ... KIPP. Again, this stuff is NOT universal. I am positive there are many kids at KIPP who would also do wonderfully at CMI or ITS or Lee.

Is this your 5 year old again? Failing?

Yes, failing, in the way 3-4-5 year olds can fail. Obviously I don't mean grades. But kids that young can fail in school, absolutely. Sorry you don't like that verb. How about just substitute "struggle" if that makes you feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

You have many assumptions going. Talk about twisting. KIPP would never be a good environment for my child; I believe it can be a great environment for a different child. Meanwhile, I have known a lot about KIPP for a long time, and I know people who have worked there since early on. What I'm calling out is that what you think you are commiting uninformed stereotyping in thinking that you are calling out uninformed stereotyping. But whatever. Keep the chip on your shoulder.

Um ... ok. So what's your position on OP's question? Why does this board and UMC parents in general never consider KIPP as viable options?

(a) Some on this board and some UMC parents do consider KIPP. I don't understand why you keep saying "never'.
(b) The multiple reasons that many UMC parents do not consider KIPP have been provided in several places in this thread (too long of a school day, too structured, targeted at underserved students, etc. etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are poor families who have the internal structure of UMC families, but they are in the minority in DC. KIPP is targeting those kids whose parents don't ask about homework, aren't conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher, who don't know the "soft skills" that UMC kids learn. They are in the business of filling gaps.

This is unbelievably racist. You think that the white UMC kids of DC have the soft skills that make them "conditioned to sit and pay attention to a teacher"? No, they have parents who will argue that it's not developmentally appropriate for them to sit still and that they need a yoga ball or fidget or ability to move during lessons or... any number of things. It is the white parents I know who don't ask about homework and argue for less of it. Sheesh.

Those parents at whom you scoff have the academic research on their side. In any event, what bothers you so much about a fidget toy? What's wrong with not wanting an overload of homework?

I was once one of those parents, and my son actually needs structure. There's no "academic research" showing that lack of structure is good for kids. Lack of structure was awful for him, actually.

One again, kids, and families, are different, which it is why it is silly that some posters keep making the point that "UMCs think they are so smart but really they are clueless about their lame-ass kids, who all could use KIPP"

Anyway, see 13:15. That article makes much better points than I can articulate.

You're twisting the topic. The topic is UMC parents (like you) who think that a KIPP could NEVER be a good learning environment for their child. OP (and I) are suggesting that in fact it could be a good environment for many kids, regardless of income levels. The refusal to even consider or learn about it for your kid because you think it is just for "those" kids is what we're calling out.

You have many assumptions going. Talk about twisting. KIPP would never be a good environment for my child; I believe it can be a great environment for a different child. Meanwhile, I have known a lot about KIPP for a long time, and I know people who have worked there since early on. What I'm calling out is that what you think you are commiting uninformed stereotyping in thinking that you are calling out uninformed stereotyping. But whatever. Keep the chip on your shoulder.

Um ... ok. So what's your position on OP's question? Why does this board and UMC parents in general never consider KIPP as viable options?

(a) Some on this board and some UMC parents do consider KIPP. I don't understand why you keep saying "never'.
(b) The multiple reasons that many UMC parents do not consider KIPP have been provided in several places in this thread (too long of a school day, too structured, targeted at underserved students, etc. etc.)

Ok well, I see very few examples of (a) but I know you're right.
(b) you're just rehashing something I disagree with and consider more driven by stigma than actually considering your child and the school.