The Sojourner Truth School - possible new public middle and high school option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish all the people proposing new charters - that aren’t serving a diverse population now - would publicly go to the Council and beg for an at-risk preference and commit to using it and not opening until they get it.

They have leverage. The city wants more “quality seats.” Let the schools walk the talk they include in their charters about wanting to serve all.

Personally I’d make at-risk the first preference for 5th through 12th, given that drop off and pickups isn’t an issue for older kids who can and do commute via public transit.

I listened to Lee representatives talk at both the November and December DCPCSB board meetings, and heard them advocate for exactly this both times. FWIW, my connection to Lee is that my PK3 kid just matched to their new location, so I'm in a "learn as much as I can" mode.

November Board meeting video, transcript

Starting at Page 14, Line 13, or at 10:57 in the video.

"In that time, we've learned a lot. In addition to solidifying ourselves as a high-quality Tier 1 school, we've really seen the impact of diversity. We've seen that both positively and negatively. To start with the drawbacks, it means an enrollment challenge, in that for every seat that we open, we see two applications from a low income family and eight from middle and upper income families. Without an at-risk preference or an income based preference, that means that we're serving fewer low income families than we intended and, in my opinion, too few. We'd like that number to be at around 40 percent, or at least 40 percent. Currently, our low income number is at about 25 percent."

If they wanted to serve more than 40% low income, they never should have located in ward 5. I suspect that they want to serve somewhere between 40% and 50% lower income and, rightly predicted that opening across the river would mean that few middle income families would have taken a chance on them as a new school in a far away neighborhood. Now they run into the opposite problem - lower income students crowded out in lottery by higher SES students. I think the goal of a truly economically diverse school with 40-50% lower income is commendable, but it's hard to find because middle income families in DC move in packs and they either ignore your school or flock to it in droves and crowd others out.

I am supportive of more school options and truly supportive of this school. But let's be real -- a charter that really wanted to serve more at-risk kids would open where there are more at-risk kids -- Ward 8 or at least Ward 7. The truth is these charters know that it's easier to open and have high performance in a highly gentrified area and then expand with a good reputation, than to risk performance and reputation by starting with a more at-risk population. Truly believe in your model? Start in Ward 8 and let's see it work.

Let’s be clear, there is no magic bullet or “model” that is going to be able to overcome the trauma, lack of home support and other challenges that low SES students have. They need wraparound services to include food, mentorship, laundry, clothing, therapy, field trips, etc. What can work are either schools that have these (expensive in money, time, and labor) services and very low student to teacher ratios, counseling, the works. Or we can create high performing schools that have a majority of students who are on or above grade level so teachers and staff can devote the appropriate time to the at-risk students that are there. You can have a great model but if you stick it in ward 8 without the wraparound resources or higher performing students, it’s doomed to fail.

Have you heard of KIPP? Folks on this site look the other way when referring to that school so location really doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't there a Montessori HS held inside of a Church in Petworth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The feeders are full of kids without a Montessori background in upper elementary as well (Shining Stars is, at least).

It’s definitely a big challenge (more with discipline than lesson planning, frankly) but I think of a school is going to claim to be a public institution it’s bullshit not to take all comers (looking at you, CHM)

Disagree. Maybe that’s why shining stars is such an epic disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish all the people proposing new charters - that aren’t serving a diverse population now - would publicly go to the Council and beg for an at-risk preference and commit to using it and not opening until they get it.

They have leverage. The city wants more “quality seats.” Let the schools walk the talk they include in their charters about wanting to serve all.

Personally I’d make at-risk the first preference for 5th through 12th, given that drop off and pickups isn’t an issue for older kids who can and do commute via public transit.

I listened to Lee representatives talk at both the November and December DCPCSB board meetings, and heard them advocate for exactly this both times. FWIW, my connection to Lee is that my PK3 kid just matched to their new location, so I'm in a "learn as much as I can" mode.

November Board meeting video, transcript

Starting at Page 14, Line 13, or at 10:57 in the video.

"In that time, we've learned a lot. In addition to solidifying ourselves as a high-quality Tier 1 school, we've really seen the impact of diversity. We've seen that both positively and negatively. To start with the drawbacks, it means an enrollment challenge, in that for every seat that we open, we see two applications from a low income family and eight from middle and upper income families. Without an at-risk preference or an income based preference, that means that we're serving fewer low income families than we intended and, in my opinion, too few. We'd like that number to be at around 40 percent, or at least 40 percent. Currently, our low income number is at about 25 percent."

If they wanted to serve more than 40% low income, they never should have located in ward 5. I suspect that they want to serve somewhere between 40% and 50% lower income and, rightly predicted that opening across the river would mean that few middle income families would have taken a chance on them as a new school in a far away neighborhood. Now they run into the opposite problem - lower income students crowded out in lottery by higher SES students. I think the goal of a truly economically diverse school with 40-50% lower income is commendable, but it's hard to find because middle income families in DC move in packs and they either ignore your school or flock to it in droves and crowd others out.

I am supportive of more school options and truly supportive of this school. But let's be real -- a charter that really wanted to serve more at-risk kids would open where there are more at-risk kids -- Ward 8 or at least Ward 7. The truth is these charters know that it's easier to open and have high performance in a highly gentrified area and then expand with a good reputation, than to risk performance and reputation by starting with a more at-risk population. Truly believe in your model? Start in Ward 8 and let's see it work.

Let’s be clear, there is no magic bullet or “model” that is going to be able to overcome the trauma, lack of home support and other challenges that low SES students have. They need wraparound services to include food, mentorship, laundry, clothing, therapy, field trips, etc. What can work are either schools that have these (expensive in money, time, and labor) services and very low student to teacher ratios, counseling, the works. Or we can create high performing schools that have a majority of students who are on or above grade level so teachers and staff can devote the appropriate time to the at-risk students that are there. You can have a great model but if you stick it in ward 8 without the wraparound resources or higher performing students, it’s doomed to fail.

Have you heard of KIPP? Folks on this site look the other way when referring to that school so location really doesn't matter.

KIPP offers a lot of wraparound services, proving PP's point. Also they attract and retain the more motivated families who can help their kids follow the many rules the school imposes. They also have a lot of discipline (I don't mean punishment, but they expect the kids to act in a fairly calm and prescribed fashion) that can match better with what some families think of as the ideal education than Montessori does. Lee and Truth and other charters will really need to sell the Montessori model to low-income families even if they got an at-risk preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you going to be one of those schools that pats itself on the back for good test scores but it isn't actually that impressive because almost all the kids are high-income?

+9234092384902304234

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:??? the comments on this are why we can’t have nice things. I assume the lottery system will be used which means that admission will be SES-blind. Do charters skew wealthier? Probably. But I can tell you that our Montessori elementary is much more diverse than the Montessori school we previously attended in the burbs. Nothing is going to be perfect. You can’t force lower SES families to choose Montessori. Last I checked middle and UMC kids deserve a good education too but the more strong middle school options we have outside of Deal, the better it is for everyone.

The funny thing is that I bet the people complaining about (perceived) lack of diversity are the same people complaining about the lack of middle school options in the city.

Charters do not skew wealthier. And they have more students of color and students with disabilities than DCPS (as of last year).

Creating a charter with a feeder system is in direct contradiction to the DC School Reform Act and requires legislative approval by the Council. To date, they have only approved it for children with disabilities and students in military families.

More diverse than your suburban Montessori is the wrong point of comparison. DC school age population is only 10% white and 40% at-risk. More students live in Wards 7 and 8 than any other Ward.

And if Sojourner Truth school is going to live up to its proposed namesake’s legacy, they best figure out how to attract, support and educate underserved kids first and foremost.

Personally the name of this school, knowing the school driving this and its demographics, is borderline offensive.

She was known for speaking out against oppression and slavery, equal rights for black women, courage, faith and fighting for what’s right and honorable. Why is this offensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish all the people proposing new charters - that aren’t serving a diverse population now - would publicly go to the Council and beg for an at-risk preference and commit to using it and not opening until they get it.

They have leverage. The city wants more “quality seats.” Let the schools walk the talk they include in their charters about wanting to serve all.

Personally I’d make at-risk the first preference for 5th through 12th, given that drop off and pickups isn’t an issue for older kids who can and do commute via public transit.

I listened to Lee representatives talk at both the November and December DCPCSB board meetings, and heard them advocate for exactly this both times. FWIW, my connection to Lee is that my PK3 kid just matched to their new location, so I'm in a "learn as much as I can" mode.

November Board meeting video, transcript

Starting at Page 14, Line 13, or at 10:57 in the video.

"In that time, we've learned a lot. In addition to solidifying ourselves as a high-quality Tier 1 school, we've really seen the impact of diversity. We've seen that both positively and negatively. To start with the drawbacks, it means an enrollment challenge, in that for every seat that we open, we see two applications from a low income family and eight from middle and upper income families. Without an at-risk preference or an income based preference, that means that we're serving fewer low income families than we intended and, in my opinion, too few. We'd like that number to be at around 40 percent, or at least 40 percent. Currently, our low income number is at about 25 percent."

If they wanted to serve more than 40% low income, they never should have located in ward 5. I suspect that they want to serve somewhere between 40% and 50% lower income and, rightly predicted that opening across the river would mean that few middle income families would have taken a chance on them as a new school in a far away neighborhood. Now they run into the opposite problem - lower income students crowded out in lottery by higher SES students. I think the goal of a truly economically diverse school with 40-50% lower income is commendable, but it's hard to find because middle income families in DC move in packs and they either ignore your school or flock to it in droves and crowd others out.

I am supportive of more school options and truly supportive of this school. But let's be real -- a charter that really wanted to serve more at-risk kids would open where there are more at-risk kids -- Ward 8 or at least Ward 7. The truth is these charters know that it's easier to open and have high performance in a highly gentrified area and then expand with a good reputation, than to risk performance and reputation by starting with a more at-risk population. Truly believe in your model? Start in Ward 8 and let's see it work.

Let’s be clear, there is no magic bullet or “model” that is going to be able to overcome the trauma, lack of home support and other challenges that low SES students have. They need wraparound services to include food, mentorship, laundry, clothing, therapy, field trips, etc. What can work are either schools that have these (expensive in money, time, and labor) services and very low student to teacher ratios, counseling, the works. Or we can create high performing schools that have a majority of students who are on or above grade level so teachers and staff can devote the appropriate time to the at-risk students that are there. You can have a great model but if you stick it in ward 8 without the wraparound resources or higher performing students, it’s doomed to fail.

Have you heard of KIPP? Folks on this site look the other way when referring to that school so location really doesn't matter.

KIPP offers a lot of wraparound services, proving PP's point. Also they attract and retain the more motivated families who can help their kids follow the many rules the school imposes. They also have a lot of discipline (I don't mean punishment, but they expect the kids to act in a fairly calm and prescribed fashion) that can match better with what some families think of as the ideal education than Montessori does. Lee and Truth and other charters will really need to sell the Montessori model to low-income families even if they got an at-risk preference.

Yeah, but the reason KIPP and most charters work in places like DC, Baltimore, places where Teach for America serves, is because these charters have rules where they can easily and without issue expel kids who are breaking their arbitrary rules, so that they can boast "100% college bound" or "100% of students made 4 years of growth" or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a fairly negative person, but this is nuts. This is a really interesting attempt to create something new. Current Montessori kids will have a path in because Montessori like a pyramid with many more primary students than in elementary and upper elementary. If the 60% comes through, that should be more than enough.

We now have a progressive option for high school, something we didn't have before. And it will be very diverse at least for the first 5 years, and then it will be at most 40% white, which is still pretty diverse by most standards. I doubt we'll take the leap, but I'm happy to have the option. Congrats and good luck to this school!

It will probably turn out like ITS-- adequate racial diversity but economic diversity in short supply, and lots of excuses.

Honestly? So what. Why do we keep upholding this crazy ideal that we can avoid this.

When you pick out a name like Sojourner Truth it should be no surprise that people have questions about this.

True, tough name choice. But the issue is that any school that’s marginally successful and non traditional can only do so much about this on its own.

I really dont understand all of the opposition to this name on this board. Care to explain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you going to be one of those schools that pats itself on the back for good test scores but it isn't actually that impressive because almost all the kids are high-income?

+9234092384902304234

??????????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a fairly negative person, but this is nuts. This is a really interesting attempt to create something new. Current Montessori kids will have a path in because Montessori like a pyramid with many more primary students than in elementary and upper elementary. If the 60% comes through, that should be more than enough.

We now have a progressive option for high school, something we didn't have before. And it will be very diverse at least for the first 5 years, and then it will be at most 40% white, which is still pretty diverse by most standards. I doubt we'll take the leap, but I'm happy to have the option. Congrats and good luck to this school!

It will probably turn out like ITS-- adequate racial diversity but economic diversity in short supply, and lots of excuses.

Honestly? So what. Why do we keep upholding this crazy ideal that we can avoid this.

When you pick out a name like Sojourner Truth it should be no surprise that people have questions about this.

True, tough name choice. But the issue is that any school that’s marginally successful and non traditional can only do so much about this on its own.

I really dont understand all of the opposition to this name on this board. Care to explain?

Because it will not turn out as diverse as the founders say they are aiming for. Like ITS. There may be a period in which it is easy to get in, but when it is mature it will be racially diverse with little economoc diversity. Without a very proactive plan to recruit low-income kids, that is inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a fairly negative person, but this is nuts. This is a really interesting attempt to create something new. Current Montessori kids will have a path in because Montessori like a pyramid with many more primary students than in elementary and upper elementary. If the 60% comes through, that should be more than enough.

We now have a progressive option for high school, something we didn't have before. And it will be very diverse at least for the first 5 years, and then it will be at most 40% white, which is still pretty diverse by most standards. I doubt we'll take the leap, but I'm happy to have the option. Congrats and good luck to this school!

It will probably turn out like ITS-- adequate racial diversity but economic diversity in short supply, and lots of excuses.

Honestly? So what. Why do we keep upholding this crazy ideal that we can avoid this.

When you pick out a name like Sojourner Truth it should be no surprise that people have questions about this.

True, tough name choice. But the issue is that any school that’s marginally successful and non traditional can only do so much about this on its own.

I really dont understand all of the opposition to this name on this board. Care to explain?

Because it will not turn out as diverse as the founders say they are aiming for. Like ITS. There may be a period in which it is easy to get in, but when it is mature it will be racially diverse with little economoc diversity. Without a very proactive plan to recruit low-income kids, that is inevitable.

And because calling any school "Truth" for short is self-aggrandizing amd pretentious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a fairly negative person, but this is nuts. This is a really interesting attempt to create something new. Current Montessori kids will have a path in because Montessori like a pyramid with many more primary students than in elementary and upper elementary. If the 60% comes through, that should be more than enough.

We now have a progressive option for high school, something we didn't have before. And it will be very diverse at least for the first 5 years, and then it will be at most 40% white, which is still pretty diverse by most standards. I doubt we'll take the leap, but I'm happy to have the option. Congrats and good luck to this school!

It will probably turn out like ITS-- adequate racial diversity but economic diversity in short supply, and lots of excuses.

Honestly? So what. Why do we keep upholding this crazy ideal that we can avoid this.

When you pick out a name like Sojourner Truth it should be no surprise that people have questions about this.

True, tough name choice. But the issue is that any school that’s marginally successful and non traditional can only do so much about this on its own.

I really dont understand all of the opposition to this name on this board. Care to explain?

Because it will not turn out as diverse as the founders say they are aiming for. Like ITS. There may be a period in which it is easy to get in, but when it is mature it will be racially diverse with little economoc diversity. Without a very proactive plan to recruit low-income kids, that is inevitable.

NP. Which will also open them up to charges of hypocrisy, naming a school after such a prominent abolitionist - and enrolling few black students.

It's not unlike Cesar Chavez, the charters named after a prominent labor union organizer and advocate, strenuously opposing its teachers' efforts to form a union.

[Anonymous]

I am astonished at the negativity on here! From everything I've seen, the founders are extraordinarily aware of the need for diversity and are working hard to achieve that. They're giving the city a new middle/high school option that was welcomed by the charter school board because of their excellent proposal that went into *great detail* about how they would address all the challenges they face, which they have thought about deeply.

This school doesn't even exist yet, but already people here on DCUM are predicting failure, and saying that the school will be opened up to "charges of hypocrisy" for daring to name their school after Sojourner Truth. Good Lord. What if the school is a great success? What if it's a racially and economically diverse new middle/high school that parents and students truly love? I personally am thrilled about the potential for this school and am grateful to the people who are working on it. Will it be perfect? Surely not--what is? But I think it is a good thing. It's a good thing to try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am astonished at the negativity on here! From everything I've seen, the founders are extraordinarily aware of the need for diversity and are working hard to achieve that. They're giving the city a new middle/high school option that was welcomed by the charter school board because of their excellent proposal that went into *great detail* about how they would address all the challenges they face, which they have thought about deeply.

This school doesn't even exist yet, but already people here on DCUM are predicting failure, and saying that the school will be opened up to "charges of hypocrisy" for daring to name their school after Sojourner Truth. Good Lord. What if the school is a great success? What if it's a racially and economically diverse new middle/high school that parents and students truly love? I personally am thrilled about the potential for this school and am grateful to the people who are working on it. Will it be perfect? Surely not--what is? But I think it is a good thing. It's a good thing to try.

Because it won't live up to the promises. There is no way to afford a truly diverse school via the UPSFF. It doesn't cover the true cost of high needs kids. And to have diversity and a lot of new at-risk kids via lottery while also keeping the Montessori fidelity people happy and also producing good enough test scores to retain high-income kids, is a hard needle to thread. But Montessori education for affluent children was Sojourner Truth's #1 priority, so...

[Anonymous]

Well, PP, you obviously don’t know anything about the founders of the school if you think that’s their priority.

And apparently you think it’s a good and useful thing to go around anonymously spreading negativity about people who are working hard and trying to make a difference.

I truly hope that other people will research the school, read the charter board proposal, and make up their own minds.