Why Hebrew immersion at Sela?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

These are such basic talking points that have been repeated on this board for more than decade. Congrats on parroting what someone smarter than you said a long time ago.

So your point is that my comment is both smart and obvious, but not wrong?

Okay, agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of schools all over the world reach Latin, which has ZERO Native speakers. Hebrew has the same cultural and literary impact as Latin, Greek, and many other ancient languages, as well as a (small) country of native speakers.

As for politics… as if every country in the world doesn’t have complex politics and history. Elementary school kids aren’t learning about the conflict, there is plenty to teach them without it. The Hebrew language offers so much and only people who know nothing about it need to jump immediately to politics.

Thousands of schools around the world also teach a second language to get kids at proficiency young. In the vast majority of those schools in countries where English is not the primary language the language taught is English. Not Latin, Greek or Hebrew. No one is arguing against the classics and their value. But in terms of learning a language that is not the primary choice.

Actually, you are arguing against the classics and their value. Own it.

If that’s all you choose to take away from my post fine. I’m not going to argue with someone telling me how important the classics are in thread about a school with the vast majority of kids below grade level in reading and math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

That doesn't make sense. If a child is FARMS, they should be designated at-risk. What would qualify a student for FARMS but not "at risk"? I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thousands of schools all over the world reach Latin, which has ZERO Native speakers. Hebrew has the same cultural and literary impact as Latin, Greek, and many other ancient languages, as well as a (small) country of native speakers.

As for politics… as if every country in the world doesn’t have complex politics and history. Elementary school kids aren’t learning about the conflict, there is plenty to teach them without it. The Hebrew language offers so much and only people who know nothing about it need to jump immediately to politics.

And somehow PP has no issue with the two Mandarin immersion programs re: politics. Telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

That doesn't make sense. If a child is FARMS, they should be designated at-risk. What would qualify a student for FARMS but not "at risk"? I don't get it.

"You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income." The income cut-offs are different for FARMS eligibility than for SNAP. It really does make sense, and the criteria for FARMS are right here: https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

That doesn't make sense. If a child is FARMS, they should be designated at-risk. What would qualify a student for FARMS but not "at risk"? I don't get it.

If there were true, millions of children would be designated as at risk- when they are not. FARMS is often temporary, that’s why it has to be renewed and is tied to parental income. At risk has to do with housing instability, parent instability (foster parents/incarcerated parents), participation in gangs/other criminal record for juveniles. It means something specific. When my parents separated and my dad refused to pay support while my mother was in graduate school, I had free lunch in elementary school. Once they garnished my dad’s wages and my mother graduated, I did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

These are such basic talking points that have been repeated on this board for more than decade. Congrats on parroting what someone smarter than you said a long time ago.

Parents with high performing kids want rigor in academics that will meet their kids needs. DCPS doesn’t track with G & T, has awfully low standards, and socially promote.

So if SES tracks with academic performance, then hell yes, I want less at risk kids at the school and a higher performing peer group so more challenging curriculum can be taught instead of dumbing things down. And I have no problem saying to PP above or anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

These are such basic talking points that have been repeated on this board for more than decade. Congrats on parroting what someone smarter than you said a long time ago.

Parents with high performing kids want rigor in academics that will meet their kids needs. DCPS doesn’t track with G & T, has awfully low standards, and socially promote.

So if SES tracks with academic performance, then hell yes, I want less at risk kids at the school and a higher performing peer group so more challenging curriculum can be taught instead of dumbing things down. And I have no problem saying to PP above or anyone else.

Good for you. Many parents silently agree with you but when asked about it, will say they are committed to SES-diversity in schools and the only reason they are at their immersion charter is because of interest in the language, even if that language is Hebrew and they aren't even Jewish and there are few practical applications for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

That doesn't make sense. If a child is FARMS, they should be designated at-risk. What would qualify a student for FARMS but not "at risk"? I don't get it.

"You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income." The income cut-offs are different for FARMS eligibility than for SNAP. It really does make sense, and the criteria for FARMS are right here: https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

This reminds me of an extremely sketchy thing I once heard from a parent with a child at Stokes East End. He was saying that the school wanted them to check a box for free lunch and he had said "we don't need free lunch" because they definitely don't (HHI must be at least 400k, probably higher). But the school said it was important to check the box so they could retain their Title 1 status.

He said this to me and I told him that if true, that would be fraud, because the school needs to be able to document that all FARMS kids qualify under one of the categories. He said he must have misunderstood and I agreed, because I don't understand how you could just "check a box" for FARMS -- if you don't qualify under one of the at risk categories, you generally have to submit an application with tax statements and/or pay stubs (except at a handful of schools that do free lunch for all, but none of those are charters). So it can't have been what he said it was.

But it still raised an alarm for me because this guy was clueless about FARMS and Title 1 status, but the school obviously cannot be, and it concerns me that they said anything even resembling this to a parent. It's not a normal way to talk about FARMS/Title 1. It's bothered me ever since we had the conversation (which was years ago).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

That doesn't make sense. If a child is FARMS, they should be designated at-risk. What would qualify a student for FARMS but not "at risk"? I don't get it.

"You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income." The income cut-offs are different for FARMS eligibility than for SNAP. It really does make sense, and the criteria for FARMS are right here: https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

This reminds me of an extremely sketchy thing I once heard from a parent with a child at Stokes East End. He was saying that the school wanted them to check a box for free lunch and he had said "we don't need free lunch" because they definitely don't (HHI must be at least 400k, probably higher). But the school said it was important to check the box so they could retain their Title 1 status.

He said this to me and I told him that if true, that would be fraud, because the school needs to be able to document that all FARMS kids qualify under one of the categories. He said he must have misunderstood and I agreed, because I don't understand how you could just "check a box" for FARMS -- if you don't qualify under one of the at risk categories, you generally have to submit an application with tax statements and/or pay stubs (except at a handful of schools that do free lunch for all, but none of those are charters). So it can't have been what he said it was.

But it still raised an alarm for me because this guy was clueless about FARMS and Title 1 status, but the school obviously cannot be, and it concerns me that they said anything even resembling this to a parent. It's not a normal way to talk about FARMS/Title 1. It's bothered me ever since we had the conversation (which was years ago).

First Stokes EE, is a title 1 school: https://www.dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/144-0159. FARMS and at-risk are not the same thing. People who check FARMS later will get a request for proof of income - unless they used a paystub for their residency paperwork and the paystub is an indicia that they qualify for FARMS. Schools repeatedly tell parents to fill out the FARMS paperwork because it is a federal requirement for schools to have parents either indicate they qualify or DON'T qualify for FARMS for accounting purposes. For this reason, it is part of the enrollment paperwork. As a general rule, the younger students are in an elementary school in DC that is outside Ward 3, they are more likely to be coming from MC/UMC parents. So if you have younger children, the parents you are encountering tend to be wealthier (and likely whiter/more Asian) than the student population of DC as a whole. This skews your perception of who is at a school and the resources of the school. As kids get older, they will peel off for privates and Ward 3 IBs. The students who remain tend come from parents with fewer financial resources. This might change if the immersion programs are able to field enough immersion seats for MS/HS, but that isn't the case now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is always good but it does seem like an odd option for DC, especially given that the vast majority of the students at the school are not Jewish.

I look forward to your proposal to stand up a Greek or Arabic immersion charter school in DC. Hopefully, it will be as good a school as Sela.

This exactly. Charter schools are started by motivated groups of parents and educators with a goal and a plan. If the school is meeting enrollment goals, then there is enough demand for the school to continue recieving funding to educate students. If you want a different kind of school, start lobbying for it.

+1. At the time that Sela was approved, there were already multiple Spanish language immersion public schools (both charter and DCPS). There was also French and Mandarin. While there was demand for language immersion it was nothing like it has been for the last few years. I assume the PCSB saw the option of a different language as being good as a unique option that parents and organizers wanted.

There also was a group that applied to start the first Arabic language immersion charter.

https://thedcline.org/2019/05/20/charter-applicants-hope-to-win-approval-tonight-to-add-arabic-to-dcs-language-immersion-offerings/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

That doesn't make sense. If a child is FARMS, they should be designated at-risk. What would qualify a student for FARMS but not "at risk"? I don't get it.

"You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income." The income cut-offs are different for FARMS eligibility than for SNAP. It really does make sense, and the criteria for FARMS are right here: https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

This reminds me of an extremely sketchy thing I once heard from a parent with a child at Stokes East End. He was saying that the school wanted them to check a box for free lunch and he had said "we don't need free lunch" because they definitely don't (HHI must be at least 400k, probably higher). But the school said it was important to check the box so they could retain their Title 1 status.

He said this to me and I told him that if true, that would be fraud, because the school needs to be able to document that all FARMS kids qualify under one of the categories. He said he must have misunderstood and I agreed, because I don't understand how you could just "check a box" for FARMS -- if you don't qualify under one of the at risk categories, you generally have to submit an application with tax statements and/or pay stubs (except at a handful of schools that do free lunch for all, but none of those are charters). So it can't have been what he said it was.

But it still raised an alarm for me because this guy was clueless about FARMS and Title 1 status, but the school obviously cannot be, and it concerns me that they said anything even resembling this to a parent. It's not a normal way to talk about FARMS/Title 1. It's bothered me ever since we had the conversation (which was years ago).

First Stokes EE, is a title 1 school: https://www.dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/144-0159. FARMS and at-risk are not the same thing. People who check FARMS later will get a request for proof of income - unless they used a paystub for their residency paperwork and the paystub is an indicia that they qualify for FARMS. Schools repeatedly tell parents to fill out the FARMS paperwork because it is a federal requirement for schools to have parents either indicate they qualify or DON'T qualify for FARMS for accounting purposes. For this reason, it is part of the enrollment paperwork. As a general rule, the younger students are in an elementary school in DC that is outside Ward 3, they are more likely to be coming from MC/UMC parents. So if you have younger children, the parents you are encountering tend to be wealthier (and likely whiter/more Asian) than the student population of DC as a whole. This skews your perception of who is at a school and the resources of the school. As kids get older, they will peel off for privates and Ward 3 IBs. The students who remain tend come from parents with fewer financial resources. This might change if the immersion programs are able to field enough immersion seats for MS/HS, but that isn't the case now.

Right, I understand all that, and am aware Stokes EE is title 1. My point is that it is weird and concerning that anyone at the school told a parent to check FARMS "so that we can stay a Title 1 school." Sure, they can't assume that parent was wealthy. But that phrasing is weird. Obviously if this parent was later asked to income qualify, they wouldn't be able to. But it was interesting that this parent didn't understand what being Title 1 meant (despite having a child at a Title 1 school) and was receiving information from the school that was misleading about that status. I am sure it was just a misunderstanding, but I find it troubling.

This family left the school after 1st anyway and yes, the school gets significantly less socioeconomically diverse after ECE as other MC/UMC, especially those from NW for whom that commute is difficult, peel off for private or for NW schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cynical view - I think this is a factor, though even the supporters of immerson programs try to deny it to others, as well as to themselves - if you have a program like this you (1) privilege those who can speak the language on one side in terms of difficulty of participation in the program, if not technically in terms of the DC lottery terms and (2) allow those who get comfortable with the program to create an in-culture; and (3) this is most important and most strenuously denied by the promoters - it allows the program to REJECT those who can't stick with the language program or NOT ALLOW ENTRY after "time frame X" by students outside the program. That means a language-focuse school gradually sheds students who can't hack it, and that tends to allow the program to be more exclusive and academic.

Most importantly, the students that schools (and parents) don't want are the homeless or near-homeless children of the uneducated and shiftless who are commonly behavior and academic problem children. Having a schooling requirement - the language - that requires more than just showing up at several stages: lottery, attendance, testing, year-to-year progress - functions to not allow these true loser students to continue to be in your kids' schools.

LOOK nobody knows how to deal with these kids and they make it hard for families to want to go to the "comprehensive" schools of last resort for their kids' schooling when they know disruptive losers will be their kids' fellow students.

But trying to keep your kids segregated from those kids is definitely part of the attraction of these language schools, the oddest of which probably remains this revived language of 1 country/10 million people that has no obvious use besides moving to Tel Aviv or passing your bar mitzvah.

SO, some people will deny what I'm talking about, but generally there's more truth in the BS I spewed above than they want to admit.

I don't personally have a problem with Sela or a Hebrew immersion in DC, and would send my kid there, but I think this poster is speaking some real truth about not just Sela, but the appeal of both charters and especially language immersion in DC. It's not the only reason these schools are in high demand, but it's absolutely a huge part of it, and people who deny it on it's face are being disingenuous.

But people don't like to admit this because most parents with kids at immersion charters in DC are progressives who pay lip service to equity and will talk up the equity programs at their school. But their children will never set foot in a public school in DC (whether DCPS or charter) with a large population of at risk and/or unhoused kids. And that's not an accident.

I’m a minority and there are a good percentage of minorities (black and Hispanic) at our Spanish immersion charter.

We wanted language immersion for our high performing kid because he needed more challenge in school. School comes easy for him especially in DC where there is no G & T. He is not gifted but scores very high on standardized testing.

Most parents in DC are liberals and very comfortable with diversity.

The reason why at risk kids don’t do well in language immersion is because they don’t have support. A generalization but true that the majority of them don’t do well academically and are below grade level in ELA. So why would you put them in language immersion when they are struggling with the basics and get 0 or 50% less ELA instruction?? Learning another language is a bonus but not necessary. Learning English is a necessity. If my kid was struggling in ELA, I would pull him out of immersion.

Language immersion schools are a niche. It’s not for everyone and why you have non-immersion schools. Parents looking at the immersion charters are looking not only at the language but also at the academic performing cohort.

Nothing you say disproves the PP's point though. You are actually proving the point.

You are a "minority" parent at an immersion school. But not at risk. And then you explain that at risk kids don't do well in immersion because immersion requires at-home support and at risk kids don't get it. So if you want a school that doesn't have a lot of at risk kids, it is conveniently easy to accomplish this with an immersion charter.

Also, you say that liberal parents in DC are "comfortable" with diversity. I'd argue that like and want diversity, but only a certain kind. Progressive parents in DC (and I am one) love a school with a lot of diversity in race, country of origin, religion sexuality, etc. All of that diversity contributes to their progressive bonafides. But the one area quality where progressives in DC actually prefer LESS diversity? Socioeconomics. That's why immersion charters are so desirable. Their kids will go to school with a high-SES but otherwise diverse cohort, satisfying their desire for diversity while avoiding the negative aspects of true diversity, where some kids simply need a LOT more resources in order to have anything close to resembling equitable access.

If you don't understand these dynamics in the DC charter/lottery system, I think you are being purposefully obtuse. And I say that as a parent whose kids have attended a socioeconomically diverse DCPS and a racially "diverse" charter (where most kids are from UMC families). Progressives in DC talk the talk but mostly do not walk the walk.

Sela is a Title 1 school where a quarter of kids are at-risk.

But please, by all means keep going.

That Title 1 status raises questions for me, because Sela reports that 24% of its students are "at risk", but usually you need 35% or more FARMS students for Title 1 status.

Sela's at risk percentage is well below what would be representative for DC (where 46% of students across the district are deemed "at risk") and even further below the at risk percentage at many Title 1 DCPS schools (where it is not uncommon for 50-80% of kids to be at risk).

Also, as the PP who touted "diversity" at her language immersion charter noted, at risk kids tend not to last at these schools specifically because they lack the home support to do well with immersion. So what percent of Sela's at risk students are ECE versus middle and upper grades? Which is when the at risk designation, coincidentally, tends to be co-concurrent with behavioral issues and much higher needs in terms of tutoring and special ed offerings?

But yes, high SES parents at Sela can't say "my kids at a Title 1 school", which of course makes them feel good about themselves, but Sela looks nothing like the Title 1 DCPS schools in the city, and it's not because they magically figured out how to meet the needs of at-risk kids. It's because they are set up to limit the enrollment of at-risk kids and always keep it just under whatever enrollment would actually impact the experience of high SES kids at the school. A luxury by-right public schools don't have. It's a neat trick.

Title 1 is calculated based on FARMS, not at-risk, and these are not the same. This "raises questions" for you because you don't know what any of this means. If you want to make the point that parents with options in DC generally don't send their kids to majority at risk schools - that is, schools which are not actually in any way diverse - then congratulations, I guess, but no one would argue against that.

Ok, I'll explain it slowly.

Here's how you qualify as "at risk" in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child has been designated as homeless or in foster care during the academic year, or the child is at least one year older than the expected age for their grade.

Here's how you qualify for FARMS in DC public schools: your family qualifies for SNAP, your family qualifies for TANF, the child meets the definition of homeless, runaway, or has migrant status.

At risk encompasses FARMS, they are nearly identical.

Sela does not have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not captured by their "at risk" designation.

And by necessity, lots of parents in DC send their kids to schools that are majority at-risk, because there are SO MANY SCHOOLS THAT ARE MAJORITY AT-RISK. It's just that none of those schools are are language immersion charters, so if you want to avoid at risk students, attending an immersion charter is a good way to do it, and a lot of parents who do this will then also claim that this is not actually what they are doing.

At-risk encompasses FARMS, but not the other way around. You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income. It's 35% FARMS to be Title 1. Most recent numbers for Sela were 24% at-risk and about 38% FARMS. So they actually do have a bunch of FARMS kids who are not "at-risk." But, really, this is fun!

That doesn't make sense. If a child is FARMS, they should be designated at-risk. What would qualify a student for FARMS but not "at risk"? I don't get it.

"You can also qualify for FARMS based on family income." The income cut-offs are different for FARMS eligibility than for SNAP. It really does make sense, and the criteria for FARMS are right here: https://dcps.dc.gov/farm

This reminds me of an extremely sketchy thing I once heard from a parent with a child at Stokes East End. He was saying that the school wanted them to check a box for free lunch and he had said "we don't need free lunch" because they definitely don't (HHI must be at least 400k, probably higher). But the school said it was important to check the box so they could retain their Title 1 status.

He said this to me and I told him that if true, that would be fraud, because the school needs to be able to document that all FARMS kids qualify under one of the categories. He said he must have misunderstood and I agreed, because I don't understand how you could just "check a box" for FARMS -- if you don't qualify under one of the at risk categories, you generally have to submit an application with tax statements and/or pay stubs (except at a handful of schools that do free lunch for all, but none of those are charters). So it can't have been what he said it was.

But it still raised an alarm for me because this guy was clueless about FARMS and Title 1 status, but the school obviously cannot be, and it concerns me that they said anything even resembling this to a parent. It's not a normal way to talk about FARMS/Title 1. It's bothered me ever since we had the conversation (which was years ago).

First Stokes EE, is a title 1 school: https://www.dcschoolreportcard.org/schools/144-0159. FARMS and at-risk are not the same thing. People who check FARMS later will get a request for proof of income - unless they used a paystub for their residency paperwork and the paystub is an indicia that they qualify for FARMS. Schools repeatedly tell parents to fill out the FARMS paperwork because it is a federal requirement for schools to have parents either indicate they qualify or DON'T qualify for FARMS for accounting purposes. For this reason, it is part of the enrollment paperwork. As a general rule, the younger students are in an elementary school in DC that is outside Ward 3, they are more likely to be coming from MC/UMC parents. So if you have younger children, the parents you are encountering tend to be wealthier (and likely whiter/more Asian) than the student population of DC as a whole. This skews your perception of who is at a school and the resources of the school. As kids get older, they will peel off for privates and Ward 3 IBs. The students who remain tend come from parents with fewer financial resources. This might change if the immersion programs are able to field enough immersion seats for MS/HS, but that isn't the case now.

I think it is weird that you are still ruminating about something another parent said several years ago, that he acknowledged was probably a misunderstanding, and that you are extrapolating general impressions of immersion charters from that one incident.