Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing the point.

Creating a stable student body is a huge advantage for a school, but it doesn't make sense from a public policy standpoint.

Public schools need to deal with students coming in at any given time.
Private schools can tell people to buzz off.

So are you proposing that LAMB, Yu Ying, Latin and Basis all need to take students at every grade level, even though that runs against their approved charters? Because public policy?

Close. I'm not saying that's current public policy, otherwise those charters wouldn't have been approved. I'm saying that policy should be changed to disallow that type of arrangement in a charter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing the point.

Creating a stable student body is a huge advantage for a school, but it doesn't make sense from a public policy standpoint.

Public schools need to deal with students coming in at any given time.
Private schools can tell people to buzz off.

So are you proposing that LAMB, Yu Ying, Latin and Basis all need to take students at every grade level, even though that runs against their approved charters? Because public policy?

Close. I'm not saying that's current public policy, otherwise those charters wouldn't have been approved. I'm saying that policy should be changed to disallow that type of arrangement in a charter.

So I guess you're just against immersion schools. I personally really love the concept, even if it prevents some children from entering in later years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing the point.

Creating a stable student body is a huge advantage for a school, but it doesn't make sense from a public policy standpoint.

Public schools need to deal with students coming in at any given time.
Private schools can tell people to buzz off.

So are you proposing that LAMB, Yu Ying, Latin and Basis all need to take students at every grade level, even though that runs against their approved charters? Because public policy?

Close. I'm not saying that's current public policy, otherwise those charters wouldn't have been approved. I'm saying that policy should be changed to disallow that type of arrangement in a charter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing the point.

Creating a stable student body is a huge advantage for a school, but it doesn't make sense from a public policy standpoint.

Public schools need to deal with students coming in at any given time.
Private schools can tell people to buzz off.

So are you proposing that LAMB, Yu Ying, Latin and Basis all need to take students at every grade level, even though that runs against their approved charters? Because public policy?

Close. I'm not saying that's current public policy, otherwise those charters wouldn't have been approved. I'm saying that policy should be changed to disallow that type of arrangement in a charter.

Should we also get rid of application schools like Walls and Ellington? Why should taxpayers fund those schools if they are not open to any student at any time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing the point.

Creating a stable student body is a huge advantage for a school, but it doesn't make sense from a public policy standpoint.

Public schools need to deal with students coming in at any given time.
Private schools can tell people to buzz off.

So are you proposing that LAMB, Yu Ying, Latin and Basis all need to take students at every grade level, even though that runs against their approved charters? Because public policy?

Close. I'm not saying that's current public policy, otherwise those charters wouldn't have been approved. I'm saying that policy should be changed to disallow that type of arrangement in a charter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing the point.

Creating a stable student body is a huge advantage for a school, but it doesn't make sense from a public policy standpoint.

Public schools need to deal with students coming in at any given time.
Private schools can tell people to buzz off.

So are you proposing that LAMB, Yu Ying, Latin and Basis all need to take students at every grade level, even though that runs against their approved charters? Because public policy?

Anonymous wrote:I think you're missing the point.

Creating a stable student body is a huge advantage for a school, but it doesn't make sense from a public policy standpoint.

Public schools need to deal with students coming in at any given time.
Private schools can tell people to buzz off.

Anonymous wrote:I think HD Cooke and Marie Reed and Bancroft have more ELLs than LAMB and DC Bilingual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the poster you are responding to, but how do you equate their restricted entry years to "taking public funding without serving the public"? This is an extremely offensive charge about a Tier 1 charter that has done an exemplary job of educating students. Even their split lottery was an attempt to get more native Spanish speakers into the program, which not only helped the quality of the program but also helped get more low-income kids into the school. It is no coincidence that the FARMS rate has been falling since they got rid of the dual lottery. (And I say that a parent who applied under the dual lottery knowing that our chances as a native English family were much lower.)

Again, I don't understand why so many people want to bitch at LAMB for doing things their way when they are obviously meeting the challenge of educating their students effectively and expanding to accommodate as many kids as they can.

NP here. Imagine if our neighborhood school restricted entry after a certain year. You'd say that's unfair, and not serving the public, right? But it would seriously improve things for the students at the school. All the kids would pick up the school culture / educational benefits from an early age...

It's just not the right policy answer for a public school.

That's also why test-in specialty schools need to be centrally managed. You can't just start that up all over the place and still claim to have a public system.

Perhaps you don't understand the charter school system. Each school is, in fact, its own school district. Having an individual model is the whole point.

I understand it exactly. They want all the funding of DCPS, but don't want to play by the same rules. An individual model is great, but not if it's skirting the general public system.

I could create a fantastic* charter school with a few basic rules to make my "individual model"
1. no poors / ELLs (ok, maybe a few token of each)
2. I will kick your kid out if they are even a little out of line
3. I'll only take "high performing" kids (wink wink)

I think I'll call it "Exclusive Learning Public Charter School"

watch out - there's probably already some desperate DCUM asking if "Exclusive Learning" is part of the common lottery and how to apply.

Anonymous wrote:Some history - when LAMB opened it made the decision to admit only 3 and 4 yos. Had they admitted 5 yos (K) the founder/principal could have enrolled her daughter but she couldn't/didn't. She understands first hand the implication of these decisions.

But if you watch the video of the meeting you will see that they are reconsidering and leaning toward admitting at K. They are thinking through how to catch these kids up and not disrupt the rest of the primary community.

It will all be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic that the reason LAMB has to worry/consider this now is because they are in front of the DCPCS Board to add a large number of new seats to accommodate new families. I feel badly for them for having their educational model screwed with as they try to open the school up to more kids.

+1

I'm amazed at the at all of the brainpower being spent analyzing and critiquing LAMB. People here in DCUM really seem to know best how they should run that school. Maybe the best way to show how much smarter you are than LAMB's leadership would be to use all of that brainpower to complete your own charter application for your ideal bilingual Montessori school. Then you can admit kids of all ages and really show LAMB how it should be done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not the poster you are responding to, but how do you equate their restricted entry years to "taking public funding without serving the public"? This is an extremely offensive charge about a Tier 1 charter that has done an exemplary job of educating students. Even their split lottery was an attempt to get more native Spanish speakers into the program, which not only helped the quality of the program but also helped get more low-income kids into the school. It is no coincidence that the FARMS rate has been falling since they got rid of the dual lottery. (And I say that a parent who applied under the dual lottery knowing that our chances as a native English family were much lower.)

Again, I don't understand why so many people want to bitch at LAMB for doing things their way when they are obviously meeting the challenge of educating their students effectively and expanding to accommodate as many kids as they can.

NP here. Imagine if our neighborhood school restricted entry after a certain year. You'd say that's unfair, and not serving the public, right? But it would seriously improve things for the students at the school. All the kids would pick up the school culture / educational benefits from an early age...

It's just not the right policy answer for a public school.

That's also why test-in specialty schools need to be centrally managed. You can't just start that up all over the place and still claim to have a public system.

Perhaps you don't understand the charter school system. Each school is, in fact, its own school district. Having an individual model is the whole point.