As I said a couple of pages ago, Washington Latin offers bus service from one upper class area, Tenleytown, and one area of mixed affluence, Union Station. That favors upper class kids. How about a bus from Minnesota Ave metro stop? Drop the Tenleytown, which is a relic from the former school location.

20:32 poster here again. @ 22:09, You're stating that I said things that I did not in fact say. I didn't say word about income, that was you bringing it into the equation. Of course low-income parents as a group care about their kids education - just like high-income parents as a group care about their kids education. It's not about income - it's about kids marooned in bad schools.

There are DC parents who may be illiterate, or not speak English, or simply not be the least bit engaged in their kids education. These parents may barely be able to get their kids to their neighborhood school, let alone navigate the charter application process. That means their kids don't apply to the charters - and that there is not as many people left advocating on behalf of the other schools. When the glib answer to bad schools becomes "All parents should go charter", you are going to leave kids behind.

^^^ families who care about their kids are NOT going to stay....

Anonymous wrote:Nobody hates Latin for their rigorous curriculum and decent test scores. The concern is that they subtly, rather than overtly, favor a certain group of people and harm the quality of public education for others.

The default of charters like Latin is that inherently favor a group of parents - the ones that are willing to go the extra mile and have the knowledge to do so to get into Latin. Admissions are inherently biased against parents that are under-educated, have language barriers, or are simply not able to expand their vision to include other schools beyond their neighborhood school. (And for all we know, Latin may subtly pick their parent pool in other ways -- do they do more information sessions in ward 3 than in other wards?)

Regardless of the reason why, the fact remains: you have a citywide public school that does not look like the city.

If the only basis for your claim that Latin "subtly, rather than overtly, favors a certain group of people" is that it favors parents who are "willing to go the extra mile and have the knowledge to do so", then you are basically making a claim that lower-income families either (a) don't care about their kids enough to go that "extra mile" and/or (b) lack the basic skills to fill out the lottery form. We've filled out the lottery stuff and it doesn't require a PhD. Nor do you need to be able to work a bureaucracy on the order of getting a disability application approved or the IRS to approve your depreciation write-off. So your argument seems pretty unfair to lower-income DC families.

Now if you had argued that the challenging workload at Latin means that kids coming from the worse DC publics may be ill-prepared to succeed, then you might have an interesting point. However, I'd still have to disagree. It seems the school "goes the extra mile" to help all types of kids get up to speed. The first year, for many kids, is all about catching up to the on-grade kids, and the school makes copious extra tutoring and summer school available.

I'm with the posters who say that families who care about their kids are going to stay in a school with a bunch of parents who, according to you, are unwilling to "go the extra mile" or "expand their vision." To the extent such parents exist - and I think you're doing a great injustice to lower-income DC parents - parents will go private or leave DC rather than stay in such a school. Latin simply gives them a reason to stay in DC.

Anonymous wrote:Original 15:22 poster here. Allow me to clarify a few things and expand on some thoughts.

First, the child in question is not in a private school, or a topflight upper NW school. It's a middle of the road (and improving) DC school. So I know a bit of what I speak.

Second, at no point did I suggest that parents be forced to stay in their neighborhood schools. I raised this point that when educated, committed parents -- making perfectly, rationale choices -- decide to leave their neighborhood schools for charters, the children of other, not-as-educated or not-as-committed parents, suffer. It's not the fault of anybody's parents and I'm not blaming anyone for their choice - but its a fact for the kids left behind.

With regard to the previous 20:32 poster, you are right - absent charter options, many parents would leave DC or DCPS, and that would not be good for anyone. But not all would leave. Let's break it down:

- Terrible schools - you are right - absent charter, most parents would leave anyway; arguably, the charters make no impact on the unlucky kids left behind here.

- Middling schools - absent charters, a lot of parents would leave, but some would stay, get involved, and work to improve these schools. Instead, the vast majority of these parents go charter. Net loss for kids left behind.

- Great schools - ie, the Upper NW Schools. Most parents would stay absent charters. Instead, a few of these parents go charter anyway. Hard to say what the impact is - maybe it makes no difference; maybe it means that the school is a bit worse off.

So...bad schools, it probably makes no difference. Middling schools are hurt. And great schools are not helped, and maybe not hurt.

Again - I'm not suggesting parents going to charters are making bad choices. I'm not saying parents should be forced to send their kids to rotten schools. I'm just describing what I see as the impacts of dedicated and committed parents making choices to go charter.

20:32 here. Thank you for clarifying. I think I can agree with most of this except for one point. I would make the case that the upper NW schools are actually helped, albeit it's hard to say how much. It probably varies from school to school. To the extent that charters draw students out of those schools, they leave openings for OOB students. And, to the extent that the OOB students differ from the largely middle-upper-middle class, largely white student body, they add diversity of background that is to everyone's benefit.

Original 15:22 poster here. Allow me to clarify a few things and expand on some thoughts.

First, the child in question is not in a private school, or a topflight upper NW school. It's a middle of the road (and improving) DC school. So I know a bit of what I speak.

Second, at no point did I suggest that parents be forced to stay in their neighborhood schools. I raised this point that when educated, committed parents -- making perfectly, rationale choices -- decide to leave their neighborhood schools for charters, the children of other, not-as-educated or not-as-committed parents, suffer. It's not the fault of anybody's parents and I'm not blaming anyone for their choice - but its a fact for the kids left behind.

With regard to the previous 20:32 poster, you are right - absent charter options, many parents would leave DC or DCPS, and that would not be good for anyone. But not all would leave. Let's break it down:

- Terrible schools - you are right - absent charter, most parents would leave anyway; arguably, the charters make no impact on the unlucky kids left behind here.

- Middling schools - absent charters, a lot of parents would leave, but some would stay, get involved, and work to improve these schools. Instead, the vast majority of these parents go charter. Net loss for kids left behind.

- Great schools - ie, the Upper NW Schools. Most parents would stay absent charters. Instead, a few of these parents go charter anyway. Hard to say what the impact is - maybe it makes no difference; maybe it means that the school is a bit worse off.

So...bad schools, it probably makes no difference. Middling schools are hurt. And great schools are not helped, and maybe not hurt.

Again - I'm not suggesting parents going to charters are making bad choices. I'm not saying parents should be forced to send their kids to rotten schools. I'm just describing what I see as the impacts of dedicated and committed parents making choices to go charter.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody hates Latin for their rigorous curriculum and decent test scores. The concern is that they subtly, rather than overtly, favor a certain group of people and harm the quality of public education for others.

The default of charters like Latin is that inherently favor a group of parents - the ones that are willing to go the extra mile and have the knowledge to do so to get into Latin. Admissions are inherently biased against parents that are under-educated, have language barriers, or are simply not able to expand their vision to include other schools beyond their neighborhood school. (And for all we know, Latin may subtly pick their parent pool in other ways -- do they do more information sessions in ward 3 than in other wards?)

Regardless of the reason why, the fact remains: you have a citywide public school that does not look like the city.

From the parent perspective, what is wrong with this? Nothing. If you are motivated, educated, etc, you deserve what you can get. But what about the kid perspective? Is it fair that Kid A gets a leg up to go to Latin while Kid B gets stuck in some crappy middle school just because his parents don't speak English? Of course not. That's why there is concern about what charters like this do to to the concept of "public education."

The net result is that these charters harm neighborhood schools - a group of parents that would be otherwise in the neighborhood schools (and yes, I know, some of these parents would not be in the public schools anyway because they would go private or move), and be active and engaged are instead at Latin (and soon enough BASIS).

It may not be anybody's fault. Nobody's a bad person for choosing Latin or BASIS. Nobody has to resent these schools or the parents who send their kids there. But we also shouldn't pretend that their absence does not have an adverse impact on the quality of neighborhood schools.

Au contraire. The only reason these families are still in the city, contributing to the tax base, is because of the option to escape neighborhood schools. Otherwise they would leave. Hundreds of thousands of families abandoned cities for that exact reason - it was called "white flight." Try to force them back into their neighborhood schools, and they'll leave again. Only this time, they'll be taking the middle and upper-middle class families of color, with them.

You know, when Latin started, there were several hiccups, a coup in administration and muttering that it would never work. Even now, Latin is working on graduating that first crop of seniors, so I wouldn't say it was a proven success yet. I hope both schools succeed though. I posed the question about untested management at the community outreach meetings, and I am positive that the brains behind BASIS will not let it flounder due to poor administration. As for saying our kids aren't Arizonians, I can't dispute that...but DC is the home of 99% testers, if you read the private school forum. As a parent who realizes some students will never see the inside of an AP class in their neighborhood schools, I am happy to think these kids could participate in 3 or 6 classes as a norm.

Haven't read every post, but can't believe there is valid conversation. Latin is a proven commodity (my kids don't attend, but many friends' kids do an love it). BASIS DC is not. Latin has had time to work out kinks, grow a devoted community and committed teachers, BASIS wants to attempt to do something so extraordinary it defies common sense -- this is not Arizona. The teachers have never worked in DC. Rhee failed and fled. If their sights were a little more real for a first year, then exclaim their brilliance, fine. Bur right now we're going on a cartoon, from drawing Arizona kids into DC's city limits to the executive director or whatever they call her, an over-zealous mom who has the will but perhaps not the managerial skills to pull this off. Latin all the way. This year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...

My understanding from the information sessions is that BASIS does not engage in social promotion. Each child must test into the next grade by passing comprehensive exams at the end of the year. If a child is woefully unprepared and cannot be caught up by the support staff, he will spend multiple years in the fifth grade until he either learns what is required for promotion to the sixth grade or withdraws to attend a school that promotes socially.

...

THAT is going to create big, big problems for the school, and very quickly.

The far bigger problem is the status quo.

If kids haven't mastered the material, why should they be allowed to advance?

Social promotion is precisely why we have lots of kids graduating from DC high schools barely literate, barely able to do basic math, woefully underprepared to enter responsible adulthood and the workforce.

You aren't doing kids any favors by giving them a pass on things that they need to know in order to function productively, all it does is pass the problem along and compound it even further.

That is incorrect. The research is quite negative on retention, and/or "test-based" promotion. It's not that anyone is in favor of social promotion, but the data on retention is even worse.

http://www.education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/retention/CSP_RetentionDropout2002.pdf

http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/nasp_position_stmt.php?type=subject&id=10

http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/grade_retention.php

http://www.news.wisc.edu/3389

http://www.nasponline.org/communications/spawareness/Grade%20Retention.pdf

http://edr.sagepub.com/content/39/2/110.abstract

The obvious flaw shown in the articles is that there is a third option: Dropout.

Dropout, social promotions - all just cop outs and a way of failing our children to tolerate either, neither should be allowed.

Pp here: I want to add one thing. I wrote

" But the middle class will never stand for being the minority at a poor school and the city will empty out again."

But I want to add that middle class will never stand for being the minority at a poor school THE WAY THEY ARE RUN NOW. If the system could run quality schools with well thought out programming despite a majority of poor families, this wouldnt be such an issue.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody hates Latin for their rigorous curriculum and decent test scores. The concern is that they subtly, rather than overtly, favor a certain group of people and harm the quality of public education for others.

The default of charters like Latin is that inherently favor a group of parents - the ones that are willing to go the extra mile and have the knowledge to do so to get into Latin. Admissions are inherently biased against parents that are under-educated, have language barriers, or are simply not able to expand their vision to include other schools beyond their neighborhood school. (And for all we know, Latin may subtly pick their parent pool in other ways -- do they do more information sessions in ward 3 than in other wards?)

Regardless of the reason why, the fact remains: you have a citywide public school that does not look like the city.

From the parent perspective, what is wrong with this? Nothing. If you are motivated, educated, etc, you deserve what you can get. But what about the kid perspective? Is it fair that Kid A gets a leg up to go to Latin while Kid B gets stuck in some crappy middle school just because his parents don't speak English? Of course not. That's why there is concern about what charters like this do to to the concept of "public education."

The net result is that these charters harm neighborhood schools - a group of parents that would be otherwise in the neighborhood schools (and yes, I know, some of these parents would not be in the public schools anyway because they would go private or move), and be active and engaged are instead at Latin (and soon enough BASIS).

It may not be anybody's fault. Nobody's a bad person for choosing Latin or BASIS. Nobody has to resent these schools or the parents who send their kids there. But we also shouldn't pretend that their absence does not have an adverse impact on the quality of neighborhood schools.

This is a very unconvincing argument by someone who I am sure has their kids in a private school or a good neighborhood school.

Unless you want to force everyone to use their neighborhood school with absolutely no other option, you are just dreaming that people in dc will use their neighborhood school by choice no matter what " because it is the best thing for the whole city"

And, forcing people to use their neighborhood school as you seem to want to do is worst for those who can only afford the most poverty stricken areas. Those are the people who most need the lifeline of school choice. So do you then want to legislate for vouchers for the poor to move to a functioning school but the most motivated, savvy, privilged people must stay where they are because their children are needed to improve the school? How is that right? To use children s futures, their one chance to become educated as leverage to improve an entire system?

So maybe you would like to bus kids around in order to economically integrate schools? But the middle class will never stand for being the minority at a poor school and the city will empty out again.

You are fighting the wrong end of this. You are advocating for families to have limited choices for good schools so that they become the change at their neighborhood school. You should be advocating for competency and funding and smart planning in order to improve schools so that they will attract the parents you want to stay in the neighborhood.

Why can't DCPS run its own Latin? Make the demands on the kids and the families and hire the best teachers to do it? That is because of political, cultural and systemic problems that are far from being solved. In the meantime, the best thing for our.city is to provide parents options. KIPP doesn't represent the city, neither does LATIN, or Roots but they are having success where before their was only abysmal failure. I will take it.

the thing that bothers me about Latin is the buses. They provide bus service from Tenleytown and Union Station. Both, but especially Tenleytown, are accessible to upper class families. But, no bus service from Wards 7 or 8?

Anonymous wrote:Nobody hates Latin for their rigorous curriculum and decent test scores. The concern is that they subtly, rather than overtly, favor a certain group of people and harm the quality of public education for others.

The default of charters like Latin is that inherently favor a group of parents - the ones that are willing to go the extra mile and have the knowledge to do so to get into Latin. Admissions are inherently biased against parents that are under-educated, have language barriers, or are simply not able to expand their vision to include other schools beyond their neighborhood school. (And for all we know, Latin may subtly pick their parent pool in other ways -- do they do more information sessions in ward 3 than in other wards?)

Regardless of the reason why, the fact remains: you have a citywide public school that does not look like the city.

From the parent perspective, what is wrong with this? Nothing. If you are motivated, educated, etc, you deserve what you can get. But what about the kid perspective? Is it fair that Kid A gets a leg up to go to Latin while Kid B gets stuck in some crappy middle school just because his parents don't speak English? Of course not. That's why there is concern about what charters like this do to to the concept of "public education."

The net result is that these charters harm neighborhood schools - a group of parents that would be otherwise in the neighborhood schools (and yes, I know, some of these parents would not be in the public schools anyway because they would go private or move), and be active and engaged are instead at Latin (and soon enough BASIS).

It may not be anybody's fault. Nobody's a bad person for choosing Latin or BASIS. Nobody has to resent these schools or the parents who send their kids there. But we also shouldn't pretend that their absence does not have an adverse impact on the quality of neighborhood schools.

But what if you don't like what your neighborhood school has to offer in terms of curriculum or learning approach? Why would I invest energy in my neighborhood when I don't like or value their curriculum or educational approach? I could have enrolled my son in our neighborhood school which is considered one of the good east of the park schools. I liked the diversity and the parents are invested in the school but I was not impressed with the curriculum/educational approach and there is nothing I can do or any other families to change the school and honestly, I don't think the school should change, I just don't like their approach for my child and because I have a choice in DC, I looked and enrolled elsewhere. Simple as that.

Anonymous wrote:But the complaint the PP is making is not specific to charter schools. There are lots of ways to educate your kids in DCPS that give a leg up to more motivated, savvy parents. Lots of parents work the OOB system, including figuring out how to enroll a child in an OOB school in time to feed to a better middle or high school. Lots of DCPS programs have special admissions requirements or otherwise result in a non-random selection of parents. Back when we were looking for a school for our older child, for example, it was common knowledge that the Montessory program (then at Watkins, now at Logan) had an interview requirement and used non-random, non-lottery selection precisely in order to cherry-pick the student body. I'm sure lots of other examples are out there. Hell, just the ability to transport your child to an OOB school or arrange for them to get there requires a level of planning, work, financial resources, etc., that are not there for a number of FARMS families. You can't pin charters alone for this.

ITA-- when looking for schools, I am not limiting my choices to charters only. That is the point -- school choice. Even if the charters didn't exist, as long as there is a lottery for OOB students in DC, I will NEVER pick my neighborhood school. Honestly, I would move or pay for private if my child didn't get a seat in a more desirable OOB school.