Anonymous wrote:Hi Op, I only read a few pages of this thread (did not have time to read it entirely) and had to write to apologize for all of the very rude people who responded!

My child is in an immersion program and you can bet that if I had to relocate, I would try my hardest to get him into another immersion school! I personally do not understand why you cannot test an enter into a higher grade (provided you got in via lottery) - this seems very unfair. I imagine that if a YY parent had to move to another state they would also try to do the same.

I just want to say that you are certainly not asking anything unreasonable and I wish you luck in your search! Please come back to update us!

As a Yu Ying parent getting ready to move to another state, we are doing everything in our power to get into another immersion charter. I've yet to find one that doesn't allow test in. Clearly, the entire country must be against poor children. Honestly, the argument that rich kids with tutors will take over these schools if they can test in is preposterous. We are a bilingual household and I can't tell you how long it takes children to proficiently speak in both languages (not just understand). If one of those languages is English, it can take even longer. Not allowing testing at higher grades just discourages native speakers. I'm starting to wonder if most on this thread are okay with discriminating against Chinese, not just African Americans.

Agree, PP....

A student trying to get in to an advanced grade without placement in Mandarin at Yu Ying - who didn't yet have the opportunity to learn it STILL won't have the opportunity to learn it at the same level even if he does get in, because he will have missed out on the foundational work that was taught in the previous years. That's why they SHOULD be allowed to do testing and placement. The argument against it is irrational.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You obviously forgot the 3rd DC: the one full of people who think that the only way to be "dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan" is to have policies, plans and structures that serve your middle and upper classes and push lower classes out. Because that is pretty much what you're saying about the fact that the public charter school board does not allow charters to test in at any grade because it doesn't want to cut out access to families who can't afford a private Mandarin tutor, or Spanish summer camp, or private Montessori schools until they can nab a spot at a public one.

So your answer is to cut out access to everyone at the expense of additional resources to the school, which affects all grade levels, including the lower grades that are serving the underprivileged children?

Anonymous wrote:

Deal with it entitled people: the very people preventing a test in option are the "stagnant, old-school, retrograde" people who were part of creating the charter schools that you so desperately want entry to now. Trying to keep the door even faintly open for lower SES families and families who don't have geographic advantages of being IB for great DCPS schools is NOT stagnant, and while I do hope there will some day be a way to figure out increasing applications and interest from families who already speak Mandarin or French or whatever, so that the pool of applicants includes more native speakers, I defend to the end the randomness of admission and the fact that kids who herwise wouldn't have a shot in a million years at speaking Mandarin and all the doors that may open to that child, that that child has a shot - a loooooong shot (like everyone else's long shot), but a shot nonetheless, at going to a school like Yu Ying.

But you can defend that to the end and still admit that there's some point where it makes no sense to put someone with no mandarin experience in a classroom otherwise full of mandarin speakers, and actually disserves that person by setting them up to fail. You can defend randomness in early-grade admission while admitting that the spot could be filled by someone who does speak Mandarin, whether because they just moved here from another state or country, or because they speak Mandarin at home, or because they have tutors (though this last seems the least likely possibility), and that the school is better poised for success for all grade levels if its enrollment is not artificially limited.

To defend a policy on principle when applied to situations where it does not serve any of the values behind the policy is asinine.

??? I'm not defending on principle, I'm defending based on how YY actually works now. What do you mean "admit that it makes no sense to put someone with no Mandarin experience in a class full of Mandarin speakers"? YY cuts off new admissions at 2nd grade, is moving towards doing it at 1st grade (or maybe now they already do?) and has support structures in place for catching new-to-Mandarin students up - exactly to make sure that students do not start so far behind they can't catch up. The whole reason YY fought to cut off new admissions earlier twas to avoid the scenario where new students are so far behind, it is a set up to fail. You are calling something "artificially limited", when it's far from "artificial" - YY is a school set up to educate urband students in Mandarin and English. Why is a 1st or 2nd grade cut off, and supports for the new-to-Mandarin 1st or 2nd grader, "artificial" in your eyes?? It's the whole premise of the school! Under YY's current admissions policy, or DCI's where the assumption is that new students will come in with no foreign language proficiency, where would it happen that as a regular occurrence students would enter into a classroom of "Mandarin speakers" and be so far behind they can't catch up?

But I think this is exactly what OP was questioning. Through regular attrition, YY is likely to lose a handful of students in 3,4,5 grade. If a student can successfully test in at thost grade levels, then who exactly is being denied? They aren't taking a lottery spot from someone because there is NO Lottery spot to be taken at those grade levels. Its a waste of resources. They have the facility, resources and capacity to take mandarin ready student in third grade, and they have the space then its a total waste to leave the seat empty. And to the poster who said Charters are set up to first and foremost to serve the kids with the most needs...are you serious about that? By and large, Charters become self selecting by the most engaged and concerned families who also have the ability to 1) transport their kid across town 2) visit schools and ask questions 3) learn about the lottery etc...all those kinds of parents would likely have kids who would be successful anywhere. Based on your reasoning then parents who live in Ward 3 shouldnt be allowed in charters because they don't have needs.

Exactly. But the pp thinks allowing kids who are proficient in Mandarin to test-in for 3rd, 4th and 5th grades is "unfair" to kids who don't know Mandarin b/c they never had the opportunity to learn it. In DC, everything has to be equal and school entry strictly based on location and/or luck nevermind rationality in running schools or ability of students.

Results in DC schools being at the bottom of any similar urban school district.

Hi Op, I only read a few pages of this thread (did not have time to read it entirely) and had to write to apologize for all of the very rude people who responded!

My child is in an immersion program and you can bet that if I had to relocate, I would try my hardest to get him into another immersion school! I personally do not understand why you cannot test an enter into a higher grade (provided you got in via lottery) - this seems very unfair. I imagine that if a YY parent had to move to another state they would also try to do the same.

I just want to say that you are certainly not asking anything unreasonable and I wish you luck in your search! Please come back to update us!

Anonymous wrote:In theory, charter schools are for families/kids interested in a particularlar focus. In practice, though, charters are filled with kids whose families don't necessarily object to the charter's special focus, but who just want any good school for their kids to attend, applied to every lottery and sent their kid to the Spanish Montessori school when they were in fact most passionate about the special ed inclusion school. I hope the new lottery reduces the practice, but I'm not holding my breath.

Part of the problem is that too many parents get caught up in "popular" and fail to scratch below the surface to really understand what a school's all about. What's great for one kid might be awful for another kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize why this thread is 9 pages long over a seemingly innocuous question?? I have tried to read but the posts are too long.

If you aren't reading, how will you know if someone answers your question?

Because that was not the person who initiated the thread. I am the OP

Oh duh!!! For a moment I though that.....oh never mind. This has been a long day, and a long thread!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize why this thread is 9 pages long over a seemingly innocuous question?? I have tried to read but the posts are too long.

If you aren't reading, how will you know if someone answers your question?

Because that was not the person who initiated the thread. I am the OP

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize why this thread is 9 pages long over a seemingly innocuous question?? I have tried to read but the posts are too long.

If you aren't reading, how will you know if someone answers your question?

In theory, charter schools are for families/kids interested in a particularlar focus. In practice, though, charters are filled with kids whose families don't necessarily object to the charter's special focus, but who just want any good school for their kids to attend, applied to every lottery and sent their kid to the Spanish Montessori school when they were in fact most passionate about the special ed inclusion school. I hope the new lottery reduces the practice, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But I think this is exactly what OP was questioning. Through regular attrition, YY is likely to lose a handful of students in 3,4,5 grade. If a student can successfully test in at thost grade levels, then who exactly is being denied? They aren't taking a lottery spot from someone because there is NO Lottery spot to be taken at those grade levels. Its a waste of resources. They have the facility, resources and capacity to take mandarin ready student in third grade, and they have the space then its a total waste to leave the seat empty. And to the poster who said Charters are set up to first and foremost to serve the kids with the most needs...are you serious about that? By and large, Charters become self selecting by the most engaged and concerned families who also have the ability to 1) transport their kid across town 2) visit schools and ask questions 3) learn about the lottery etc...all those kinds of parents would likely have kids who would be successful anywhere. Based on your reasoning then parents who live in Ward 3 shouldnt be allowed in charters because they don't have needs.

Find where anyone said charters "first and foremost are set up to serve the kids with the most needs". All I said is that they were founded and funded on the presumption that they were to offer quality education options for students that otherwise had the worst options. Meaning, they were never set up to have income-based admission or to have needs assessments to be a certain amount UNDER-grade level, but at the same time there was and is a built in protection against effectively funding an alternative where, just like neighborhood preference in JKLMM schools, you have to be able to afford to get in. If there is supposed to be an equal, random chance for someone from Ward 8 to go to Yu Ying, allowing language proficiency to be the preference determinator for PS through 2nd grade new admissions spots, which are getting fewer and fewer every year, you would be cutting off access to the very students that the protection was set up to allow access for (when they win the lottery).

Where did anyone in this thread say that "charters were set up to first and foremost serve the kids with the most needs?"

"Equal, random chance to attend" are the words of someone who clearly doesn't understand the whole point of "CHARTER" in the term "CHARTER SCHOOL". Charter schools themselves aren't equal and random. Their charters are for specific purposes, and that's all spelled out in the charter. Why pursue an "equal, random chance" to send a kid to St. Collettas when they have no disability? That makes no sense. Why "equal, random chance" to send a kid to Carlos Rosario when it's intended for adult learners. It makes no sense, just as it makes no sense to send your kid to Yu Ying if you have no interest in Chinese language and culture. Those things are spelled out in the charter. It makes zero sense to send kids off to random schools without any understanding of what the mission and charter of those schools is.

Riiiight... because, who exactly is it that's talking about the public school system deciding which kids will go to which schools?? Seriously, who are you responding to, because no one is talking abotu that. We are only talking about any given family's ability to have equal access to the schools they WANT, not some random situation where kids where despite what a family wants, kids are being sent to a Chinese immersion school when they really wanted Spanish Montessori. You are seriously hearing and responding to what you want to hear, not what is being said, and this is the 2nd time.

PARENTS choose which schools they will apply to for their kids. We all know there is more demand than supply for the most popular schools, but at the end of the day, what the CHARTERS are supposed to insure is that ANY DC PARENT who wants to try to get their kid in, has an EQUAL CHANCE of getting their kid in. NO ONE is talking about sending kids whose families have no interest in Chinese to Yu Ying.

Which brings us back to the original question of access... and at this point, I realize that you are just AGAINST maintaining a system that prioritizes access over testing in, even with all the good reasons (including the increased value of more native speakers and attrition at higher grades) for wanting testing in. That's fine, that's your right to value that over equal shots at the few slots for ALL families, including those who can't afford Mandarin childcare from day 1. But for heavens sake just say you're against it. All this cloaking it in random shit that no one is even saying is frustrating. And with that, you'll be glad to know I'm bowing out of this discussion. If you don't understand my position and why by now, no number of random, surrealist pulling-examples-out-of-your-___ exchanges will make this an actual discussion of access.

If you had a real counter to my main point, you'd have given it by now, so just say you don't really care about poor kids as much as you care about allowing testing in and be done with it. Adios Yu Ying thread, it's been... interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You obviously forgot the 3rd DC: the one full of people who think that the only way to be "dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan" is to have policies, plans and structures that serve your middle and upper classes and push lower classes out. Because that is pretty much what you're saying about the fact that the public charter school board does not allow charters to test in at any grade because it doesn't want to cut out access to families who can't afford a private Mandarin tutor, or Spanish summer camp, or private Montessori schools until they can nab a spot at a public one.

So your answer is to cut out access to everyone at the expense of additional resources to the school, which affects all grade levels, including the lower grades that are serving the underprivileged children?

Anonymous wrote:

Deal with it entitled people: the very people preventing a test in option are the "stagnant, old-school, retrograde" people who were part of creating the charter schools that you so desperately want entry to now. Trying to keep the door even faintly open for lower SES families and families who don't have geographic advantages of being IB for great DCPS schools is NOT stagnant, and while I do hope there will some day be a way to figure out increasing applications and interest from families who already speak Mandarin or French or whatever, so that the pool of applicants includes more native speakers, I defend to the end the randomness of admission and the fact that kids who herwise wouldn't have a shot in a million years at speaking Mandarin and all the doors that may open to that child, that that child has a shot - a loooooong shot (like everyone else's long shot), but a shot nonetheless, at going to a school like Yu Ying.

But you can defend that to the end and still admit that there's some point where it makes no sense to put someone with no mandarin experience in a classroom otherwise full of mandarin speakers, and actually disserves that person by setting them up to fail. You can defend randomness in early-grade admission while admitting that the spot could be filled by someone who does speak Mandarin, whether because they just moved here from another state or country, or because they speak Mandarin at home, or because they have tutors (though this last seems the least likely possibility), and that the school is better poised for success for all grade levels if its enrollment is not artificially limited.

To defend a policy on principle when applied to situations where it does not serve any of the values behind the policy is asinine.

??? I'm not defending on principle, I'm defending based on how YY actually works now. What do you mean "admit that it makes no sense to put someone with no Mandarin experience in a class full of Mandarin speakers"? YY cuts off new admissions at 2nd grade, is moving towards doing it at 1st grade (or maybe now they already do?) and has support structures in place for catching new-to-Mandarin students up - exactly to make sure that students do not start so far behind they can't catch up. The whole reason YY fought to cut off new admissions earlier twas to avoid the scenario where new students are so far behind, it is a set up to fail. You are calling something "artificially limited", when it's far from "artificial" - YY is a school set up to educate urband students in Mandarin and English. Why is a 1st or 2nd grade cut off, and supports for the new-to-Mandarin 1st or 2nd grader, "artificial" in your eyes?? It's the whole premise of the school! Under YY's current admissions policy, or DCI's where the assumption is that new students will come in with no foreign language proficiency, where would it happen that as a regular occurrence students would enter into a classroom of "Mandarin speakers" and be so far behind they can't catch up?

But I think this is exactly what OP was questioning. Through regular attrition, YY is likely to lose a handful of students in 3,4,5 grade. If a student can successfully test in at thost grade levels, then who exactly is being denied? They aren't taking a lottery spot from someone because there is NO Lottery spot to be taken at those grade levels. Its a waste of resources. They have the facility, resources and capacity to take mandarin ready student in third grade, and they have the space then its a total waste to leave the seat empty. And to the poster who said Charters are set up to first and foremost to serve the kids with the most needs...are you serious about that? By and large, Charters become self selecting by the most engaged and concerned families who also have the ability to 1) transport their kid across town 2) visit schools and ask questions 3) learn about the lottery etc...all those kinds of parents would likely have kids who would be successful anywhere. Based on your reasoning then parents who live in Ward 3 shouldnt be allowed in charters because they don't have needs.

Find where anyone said charters "first and foremost are set up to serve the kids with the most needs". All I said is that they were founded and funded on the presumption that they were to offer quality education options for students that otherwise had the worst options. Meaning, they were never set up to have income-based admission or to have needs assessments to be a certain amount UNDER-grade level, but at the same time there was and is a built in protection against effectively funding an alternative where, just like neighborhood preference in JKLMM schools, you have to be able to afford to get in. If there is supposed to be an equal, random chance for someone from Ward 8 to go to Yu Ying, allowing language proficiency to be the preference determinator for PS through 2nd grade new admissions spots, which are getting fewer and fewer every year, you would be cutting off access to the very students that the protection was set up to allow access for (when they win the lottery).

Where did anyone in this thread say that "charters were set up to first and foremost serve the kids with the most needs?"

"Equal, random chance to attend" are the words of someone who clearly doesn't understand the whole point of "CHARTER" in the term "CHARTER SCHOOL". Charter schools themselves aren't equal and random. Their charters are for specific purposes, and that's all spelled out in the charter. Why pursue an "equal, random chance" to send a kid to St. Collettas when they have no disability? That makes no sense. Why "equal, random chance" to send a kid to Carlos Rosario when it's intended for adult learners. It makes no sense, just as it makes no sense to send your kid to Yu Ying if you have no interest in Chinese language and culture. Those things are spelled out in the charter. It makes zero sense to send kids off to random schools without any understanding of what the mission and charter of those schools is.

Can someone summarize why this thread is 9 pages long over a seemingly innocuous question?? I have tried to read but the posts are too long.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You obviously forgot the 3rd DC: the one full of people who think that the only way to be "dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan" is to have policies, plans and structures that serve your middle and upper classes and push lower classes out. Because that is pretty much what you're saying about the fact that the public charter school board does not allow charters to test in at any grade because it doesn't want to cut out access to families who can't afford a private Mandarin tutor, or Spanish summer camp, or private Montessori schools until they can nab a spot at a public one.

So your answer is to cut out access to everyone at the expense of additional resources to the school, which affects all grade levels, including the lower grades that are serving the underprivileged children?

Anonymous wrote:

Deal with it entitled people: the very people preventing a test in option are the "stagnant, old-school, retrograde" people who were part of creating the charter schools that you so desperately want entry to now. Trying to keep the door even faintly open for lower SES families and families who don't have geographic advantages of being IB for great DCPS schools is NOT stagnant, and while I do hope there will some day be a way to figure out increasing applications and interest from families who already speak Mandarin or French or whatever, so that the pool of applicants includes more native speakers, I defend to the end the randomness of admission and the fact that kids who herwise wouldn't have a shot in a million years at speaking Mandarin and all the doors that may open to that child, that that child has a shot - a loooooong shot (like everyone else's long shot), but a shot nonetheless, at going to a school like Yu Ying.

But you can defend that to the end and still admit that there's some point where it makes no sense to put someone with no mandarin experience in a classroom otherwise full of mandarin speakers, and actually disserves that person by setting them up to fail. You can defend randomness in early-grade admission while admitting that the spot could be filled by someone who does speak Mandarin, whether because they just moved here from another state or country, or because they speak Mandarin at home, or because they have tutors (though this last seems the least likely possibility), and that the school is better poised for success for all grade levels if its enrollment is not artificially limited.

To defend a policy on principle when applied to situations where it does not serve any of the values behind the policy is asinine.

??? I'm not defending on principle, I'm defending based on how YY actually works now. What do you mean "admit that it makes no sense to put someone with no Mandarin experience in a class full of Mandarin speakers"? YY cuts off new admissions at 2nd grade, is moving towards doing it at 1st grade (or maybe now they already do?) and has support structures in place for catching new-to-Mandarin students up - exactly to make sure that students do not start so far behind they can't catch up. The whole reason YY fought to cut off new admissions earlier twas to avoid the scenario where new students are so far behind, it is a set up to fail. You are calling something "artificially limited", when it's far from "artificial" - YY is a school set up to educate urband students in Mandarin and English. Why is a 1st or 2nd grade cut off, and supports for the new-to-Mandarin 1st or 2nd grader, "artificial" in your eyes?? It's the whole premise of the school! Under YY's current admissions policy, or DCI's where the assumption is that new students will come in with no foreign language proficiency, where would it happen that as a regular occurrence students would enter into a classroom of "Mandarin speakers" and be so far behind they can't catch up?

But I think this is exactly what OP was questioning. Through regular attrition, YY is likely to lose a handful of students in 3,4,5 grade. If a student can successfully test in at thost grade levels, then who exactly is being denied? They aren't taking a lottery spot from someone because there is NO Lottery spot to be taken at those grade levels. Its a waste of resources. They have the facility, resources and capacity to take mandarin ready student in third grade, and they have the space then its a total waste to leave the seat empty. And to the poster who said Charters are set up to first and foremost to serve the kids with the most needs...are you serious about that? By and large, Charters become self selecting by the most engaged and concerned families who also have the ability to 1) transport their kid across town 2) visit schools and ask questions 3) learn about the lottery etc...all those kinds of parents would likely have kids who would be successful anywhere. Based on your reasoning then parents who live in Ward 3 shouldnt be allowed in charters because they don't have needs.

Find where anyone said charters "first and foremost are set up to serve the kids with the most needs". All I said is that they were founded and funded on the presumption that they were to offer quality education options for students that otherwise had the worst options. Meaning, they were never set up to have income-based admission or to have needs assessments to be a certain amount UNDER-grade level, but at the same time there was and is a built in protection against effectively funding an alternative where, just like neighborhood preference in JKLMM schools, you have to be able to afford to get in. If there is supposed to be an equal, random chance for someone from Ward 8 to go to Yu Ying, allowing language proficiency to be the preference determinator for PS through 2nd grade new admissions spots, which are getting fewer and fewer every year, you would be cutting off access to the very students that the protection was set up to allow access for (when they win the lottery).

Where did anyone in this thread say that "charters were set up to first and foremost serve the kids with the most needs?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the opposition to selective admission for charters. What difference does it make if it's a charter?

Banneker, Oyster and several other DCPS schools have been noted here for their selective admissions. They are public schools. If it's fine for DCPS then what is the argument against the same for charters?

It makes zero sense.

Also, on that "access" argument - not every kid succeeds at tryouts for the football team. Where's the equal access there?

Or another analogy to throw into the mix - DCPS provides special bussing and covers expenses for out-of-state schooling for special needs students. But is the same available for any kid? No. Is it appropriate for every kid? No.

Face it, not all kids are the same. They don't all have the same capabilities, the same level of preparation, the same level of skills, et cetera. Not every kid is fantastic at math. Not ever kid is fantastic at football. Not every kid is a fantastic writer. Not every kid is fantastic at music.

So why act like they are and constrain everyone to an equal-access but one-size-fits-none model? That's what you seem to want to do here.

This is the most bizarre post! Who ever said all kids are the same? That is not the basis of anyone's argument here. But if funds were specifically allocated to DC to fund charter schools to provide other quality options for students with the worst options, why is ok with you that the funds effectively be siphoned off to fund schools that have cut off access? Your analogies are totally flawed. It isn't about whether everyone is cut out to play football. An accurate analogy to the charter system is if a school received federal funds for their girls' sports programs, and instead used the funds to start more teams for boys.

Why are you ok with money going to a school or a school system for a specific, understood by all parties purpose, and then the school/system choosing to do something different with those funds that undermines the contracted purpose?

Your logic circuits clearly aren't working here. Let's try again and go through your arguments...

To turn your argument against selective admissions around, why are you OK with Banneker "siphoning off public funds" when they cut off access due to selective admissions? Because that's what they do. So do some other DCPS schools If you are OK with Banneker then you should be OK with any other school doing it, to include charters.

And, they aren't "siphoning off money" - they are educating kids with that money. What difference does it make if the kids are in Building A with Teacher B or if they are in Building X with Teacher Y - they are all getting taught. It's not as though money is being evaporated off into the ether.

And where do you get this bizarre complaint about schools doing something different than what they agreed to? Nobody here said anything about that. The agreed-upon purpose of Ellington is a school for the arts. The agreed upon purpose of Phelps is construction and architecture. The agreed-upon purpose of St. Colettas is to serve special needs. The agreed-upon purpose of Yu Ying is Chinese immersion. And, that's what they all do. The agreed-upon purpose of one school can be different from the agreed upon purpose of another school, and that's fine. That's why they have charters and oversight.

There are a lot of conversations going on, so I'm going to attribute the fact that you are naming schools that are NOT charter schools as due to it being hard to follow the thread. EVERYTHING that I have said is about charter schools. Yu Ying is a charter school. Yu Ying is the subject of the original thread. Specialization and testing in for DCPS is not at issue, and I am not commenting on any of that. As far as I know, DCPS doesn't get dedicated money like charters get that requires random admissions and no testing in.

So your petty insults aside, why are you bringing up schools that are irrelevant to the conversation about charters? And what is it you don't understand about the federal funds that charters get that forbid testing in or pre-screening, why those are the rules, and why someone like me that is dedicated to equal opportunities for access is opposed to that for DC charters? Because, let's review for clarity since you seem lost, if Mandarin proficiency gives you a leg up, the few spots go to the parents who already spoke Mandarin or who could provide their young kids Mandarin resources. That is the FURTHEST THING from random or equal possibility of access.

Honestly, and I am not being snarky, the schools you name in your post and the fact that you say "who is talking about schools not doing what they committed to" proves you have no clue what I"m talking about re: the rules about no testing in and why. Maybe it's the number of posts, maybe it's the length of my posts, but whatever the reason is, you are raising issues that are not issues in my posts. Stick to charters in what you say, and tell me, again, why you are ok with funds that are given to charters with the rule that access has to be random and no testing in is allowed in order to NOT give a leg up to well-resourced parents over under-resourced parents, why are you so totally comfy with that rule being trampled and the very group that access was supposed to be open to effectively cut off from access? And please, stick to charters in your answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You obviously forgot the 3rd DC: the one full of people who think that the only way to be "dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan" is to have policies, plans and structures that serve your middle and upper classes and push lower classes out. Because that is pretty much what you're saying about the fact that the public charter school board does not allow charters to test in at any grade because it doesn't want to cut out access to families who can't afford a private Mandarin tutor, or Spanish summer camp, or private Montessori schools until they can nab a spot at a public one.

So your answer is to cut out access to everyone at the expense of additional resources to the school, which affects all grade levels, including the lower grades that are serving the underprivileged children?

Anonymous wrote:

Deal with it entitled people: the very people preventing a test in option are the "stagnant, old-school, retrograde" people who were part of creating the charter schools that you so desperately want entry to now. Trying to keep the door even faintly open for lower SES families and families who don't have geographic advantages of being IB for great DCPS schools is NOT stagnant, and while I do hope there will some day be a way to figure out increasing applications and interest from families who already speak Mandarin or French or whatever, so that the pool of applicants includes more native speakers, I defend to the end the randomness of admission and the fact that kids who herwise wouldn't have a shot in a million years at speaking Mandarin and all the doors that may open to that child, that that child has a shot - a loooooong shot (like everyone else's long shot), but a shot nonetheless, at going to a school like Yu Ying.

But you can defend that to the end and still admit that there's some point where it makes no sense to put someone with no mandarin experience in a classroom otherwise full of mandarin speakers, and actually disserves that person by setting them up to fail. You can defend randomness in early-grade admission while admitting that the spot could be filled by someone who does speak Mandarin, whether because they just moved here from another state or country, or because they speak Mandarin at home, or because they have tutors (though this last seems the least likely possibility), and that the school is better poised for success for all grade levels if its enrollment is not artificially limited.

To defend a policy on principle when applied to situations where it does not serve any of the values behind the policy is asinine.

??? I'm not defending on principle, I'm defending based on how YY actually works now. What do you mean "admit that it makes no sense to put someone with no Mandarin experience in a class full of Mandarin speakers"? YY cuts off new admissions at 2nd grade, is moving towards doing it at 1st grade (or maybe now they already do?) and has support structures in place for catching new-to-Mandarin students up - exactly to make sure that students do not start so far behind they can't catch up. The whole reason YY fought to cut off new admissions earlier twas to avoid the scenario where new students are so far behind, it is a set up to fail. You are calling something "artificially limited", when it's far from "artificial" - YY is a school set up to educate urband students in Mandarin and English. Why is a 1st or 2nd grade cut off, and supports for the new-to-Mandarin 1st or 2nd grader, "artificial" in your eyes?? It's the whole premise of the school! Under YY's current admissions policy, or DCI's where the assumption is that new students will come in with no foreign language proficiency, where would it happen that as a regular occurrence students would enter into a classroom of "Mandarin speakers" and be so far behind they can't catch up?

But I think this is exactly what OP was questioning. Through regular attrition, YY is likely to lose a handful of students in 3,4,5 grade. If a student can successfully test in at thost grade levels, then who exactly is being denied? They aren't taking a lottery spot from someone because there is NO Lottery spot to be taken at those grade levels. Its a waste of resources. They have the facility, resources and capacity to take mandarin ready student in third grade, and they have the space then its a total waste to leave the seat empty. And to the poster who said Charters are set up to first and foremost to serve the kids with the most needs...are you serious about that? By and large, Charters become self selecting by the most engaged and concerned families who also have the ability to 1) transport their kid across town 2) visit schools and ask questions 3) learn about the lottery etc...all those kinds of parents would likely have kids who would be successful anywhere. Based on your reasoning then parents who live in Ward 3 shouldnt be allowed in charters because they don't have needs.