Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP you make it sound like Latin started in a Ward 3 palace. It started in a church basement (which I helped paint). The neighborhoods it has subsequently moved to are not by any stretch of the imagination swanky or high income. It was a strain on me to attend school events in the new locations from my home in Ward 3, but I did it. Our child had a long commute when riding public (often, with after school sports and activities). Latin has bent over backwards to recruit students from all wards and incomes. What it does is enough. It does not need to weight low income applicants.
There is no objective response here - just a bunch of rhetoric.
Anonymous wrote:I know the article was about Latin, but isn't BASIS more diverse than Ross?
Anonymous wrote:PP you make it sound like Latin started in a Ward 3 palace. It started in a church basement (which I helped paint). The neighborhoods it has subsequently moved to are not by any stretch of the imagination swanky or high income. It was a strain on me to attend school events in the new locations from my home in Ward 3, but I did it. Our child had a long commute when riding public (often, with after school sports and activities). Latin has bent over backwards to recruit students from all wards and incomes. What it does is enough. It does not need to weight low income applicants.
Anonymous wrote:Does Latin pay for the buses?
I also agree with the PP who said that Latin doesn't do much outreach to lower income areas. I have a 5th grader and last year I tried to be really aware of notices about open houses or information sessions. I don't remember seeing a single public notice at a library, community center, church or in a local paper for a schedule of such events. Again, having friends with kids there, I was a bit more clued in, but that was the only reason.
Anonymous wrote:PP you make it sound like Latin started in a Ward 3 palace. It started in a church basement (which I helped paint). The neighborhoods it has subsequently moved to are not by any stretch of the imagination swanky or high income. It was a strain on me to attend school events in the new locations from my home in Ward 3, but I did it. Our child had a long commute when riding public (often, with after school sports and activities). Latin has bent over backwards to recruit students from all wards and incomes. What it does is enough. It does not need to weight low income applicants.
Anonymous wrote:I like Martha, but I think it's bizarre that she propose that. Charter application is BY lottery and of course parental interest. Our city has far more middle and low-income than high-income residents who attend public or public charter schools (most of the highest income go private, as do shining stars academically or sports wise that are low income). There is a built in preference--it's called a lottery. No skin in this game- but the school has a great, almost enviable mix currently and the idea that that is becoming harder to achieve through regular mechanisms is nonsense. All the school needs to do is more outreach to low income communities.
Last-the point of charters is not that they be all things to all people. Because they a re specialized, people vote with their feet. When they try to be everything to everyone, they dilute what they offer in the first place. there are many schools in DC set up to address the challenges that low income families face--KIPP being the primary example. There should be charters specifically for at-risk, that are held to a reasonable standard of simply moving the kids to a better place of hope. Does WL have what it needs to address those challenges? I would say work to close the achievement gap of the kids you have first, while sticking to your core program which is what's different and attractive, before trying to weight preferences for more low income kids. Honestly, this kind of stuff is bizarre.
Anonymous wrote:I like Martha, but I think it's bizarre that she propose that. Charter application is BY lottery and of course parental interest. Our city has far more middle and low-income than high-income residents who attend public or public charter schools (most of the highest income go private, as do shining stars academically or sports wise that are low income). There is a built in preference--it's called a lottery. No skin in this game- but the school has a great, almost enviable mix currently and the idea that that is becoming harder to achieve through regular mechanisms is nonsense. All the school needs to do is more outreach to low income communities.
Last-the point of charters is not that they be all things to all people. Because they a re specialized, people vote with their feet. When they try to be everything to everyone, they dilute what they offer in the first place. there are many schools in DC set up to address the challenges that low income families face--KIPP being the primary example. There should be charters specifically for at-risk, that are held to a reasonable standard of simply moving the kids to a better place of hope. Does WL have what it needs to address those challenges? I would say work to close the achievement gap of the kids you have first, while sticking to your core program which is what's different and attractive, before trying to weight preferences for more low income kids. Honestly, this kind of stuff is bizarre.
Anonymous wrote:Interesting article, particularly the quote from Martha Cutts saying she would like there to be a low-income preference in the lottery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/charter-schools-appealing-to-more-diverse-families-as-dc-gentrifies/2015/12/03/1d79c3f8-8dab-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html