What do we think about Latin second campus

[Anonymous]

I love that as soon as at-risk comes into effect, all the haves start talking about how all routes to dealing with inequality are “well-intentioned but unworkable.”

Somebody move your cheese?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a totally new school! It's a second campus for a mature, successful program.

True, but the first few years at Stokes East End were also a little tough with staff moving over, etc.

My concern is growing pains forever for my kid who would be in the leading grade.

Does your kid have a better option elsewhere? Because the likelihood s/he will get into the current Latin building is next to zero, unless you have sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

+1! This is why we did not put Latin as our first choice. According to all they say, they should be able to do very well with at-risk kids, but they aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

I've interviewed a dozen Latin seniors who were applying to my alma mater, an Ivy League university, in the last five years. None of them blew me away as applicants, although they were among the strongest students in their cohorts, not remotely. None were admitted, or wait listed. Meanwhile, two BASIS applicants I interviewed were admitted, and rightly so.

We're mired in relativism here in DC where public school quality is concerned. Sure, Latin is head and shoulders above DCPS high schools EotP academically, but that's only saying so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

Can you link to this? I don’t think you are correct on this. I believe it has more to do with the declining numbers of at-risk students and what was seen as disproportionate discipline. All of this stuff is public, though, so please cite your source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

Please link to the data that shows Latin does a poorer job with at-risk students then, say, DCPS middle schools. You may be right, but I’d like to see the data before we all jump on your train.

+1! This is why we did not put Latin as our first choice. According to all they say, they should be able to do very well with at-risk kids, but they aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

Please link to the data that shows Latin does a poorer job with at-risk students then, say, DCPS middle schools. You may be right, but I’d like to see the data before we all jump on your train.

+1! This is why we did not put Latin as our first choice. According to all they say, they should be able to do very well with at-risk kids, but they aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

+1! This is why we did not put Latin as our first choice. According to all they say, they should be able to do very well with at-risk kids, but they aren't.

Please link to the data that shows Latin does a poorer job with at-risk students then, say, DCPS middle schools. You may be right, but I’d like to see the data before we all jump on your train.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Of course not, silly, they jump to the front of the queue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of slots will be at risk? Presumably thr total composition will be higher than that bc at risk kids could get in thru the regular lotto too.

Yes, that's the point. But it would not have been zero. It's an incremental change and not that big of a deal.

Disagree.

1) 15-30% is a big deal. Non-sibling families currently have about a 17% of getting into Latin for 5th grade through the lottery; that will go down significantly for them with the at-risk prioritization.

2) There is a lot we don't know. Is at-risk going to be prioritized over sibling? If so, that will have even more impact.

3) After the first-year, at-risk will also be able to get sibling preference for brothers and sisters, so that will give the latter a double preference starting the year after next. Given that around 50% of DCPS is at-risk that mean that 5th grade Latin slots will be fewer and fewer every year.

Incremental change? No big deal? Nah.

That's not how it works. A sibling that is at-risk doesn't get to take up two seats.

Of course not, silly, they jump to the front of the queue.

Over time, the at-risk and sibling categories would overlap more and more. Or rather, the required number of at-risk students would be achieved more and more by admitting siblings. Therefore, it should be hardest the first year, and then get slightly easier to get in over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The at-risk preference is going to ruin Latin.

BASIS it is.

I think it will essentially ruin Latin for ambitious families that can't afford to supplement a lot outside school. The rest will up their game with more tutors, academic summer camps, parents teaching kids this and that at home etc. The at-risk preference is one of those road to hell paved with good intentions ideas. Test-in GT from elementary school would work a lot better for the city, the parents and the students concerned.

I think you might be underestimating Latin. They are trying to get back to the at-risk percentage where they started, except for now they are a fully-fledged program. My wife is an educator and we are consistently blown away by the caliber of teaching at Latin and how year after year they draw out new skills in our kids. They can handle it.

In all fairness, the poor performance of the small number of current at-risk kids is why the PCSB was reluctant to approve Latin’s expansion. I hope this works well for them, but what have they done to prove they can educate an even higher number of at -risk kids?

Can you link to this? I don’t think you are correct on this. I believe it has more to do with the declining numbers of at-risk students and what was seen as disproportionate discipline. All of this stuff is public, though, so please cite your source.

Here is the transcript
https://www.livebinders.com/media/get/MTkyNjcyMzk=
The board mentions concern about low enrollment, low test scores and high suspension rates for at-risk students.