Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution is to not let Latin parents bus kids from the Hill.

Solution:
1 . not to give sibling priority
2. offer a bus from a target area - and do aggressive marketing to that community

3. Locate EOTR

Which seems to be what the Latin leadership is foreshadowing. But as the Stokes replication illustrates, it is no guarantee of an economically diverse student body, especially if you are close to the river and easily commutable for people who live on the other side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution is to not let Latin parents bus kids from the Hill.

Solution:
1 . not to give sibling priority
2. offer a bus from a target area - and do aggressive marketing to that community

They do, and have done, a bus from a lower-income target area for years. If they are doing aggressive marketing, it isn't working very well and they should change tactics.

Totally agree re sibling preference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Solution is to not let Latin parents bus kids from the Hill.

Solution:
1 . not to give sibling priority
2. offer a bus from a target area - and do aggressive marketing to that community

3. Locate EOTR

Anonymous wrote:Solution is to not let Latin parents bus kids from the Hill.

Solution:
1 . not to give sibling priority
2. offer a bus from a target area - and do aggressive marketing to that community

Solution is to not let Latin parents bus kids from the Hill.

I watched the live stream last night.

Aside from the approvals, there was discussion of the expansions.

Re Latin -- the Board acknowledged it met all the formal criteria for expansions, board member Steve Bumbaugh took the opportunity to press the Latin leadership on a few points.

He noted that in Washington, D.C. fully half of all public school students are categorized as "at-risk," but the population at Washington Latin for this group of children is 6.8 percent in middle school and 16.8 percent in high school.

He said he found it "frustrating" that the suspension rate for these students is 26.6 percent, at this point he was applauded by the audience. HOS Peter Anderson and principal Diana Smith, spoke about their efforts to reduce the suspension rate, and will utilize the still undetermined location for the second campus together with revised marketing efforts to increase the number of low-income kids that it serves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really happy the Hillsdale College - Anna Julia Cooper - didn't get approved.

+1.
That weird subversive Hillsdale/DeVos stuff was no good

Why not? I thought charter people loved right wing funding.

They only love it if they can pretend they aren't getting it. It was a woefully clueless application!

There is not a single high-performing charter in DC (except BASIS) that has not at one time accepted funds, particularly start-up funds, from a conservative foundation or an org that takes its money from conservatives, such as the New School Venture fund, for example.

The New School Venture fund isn’t very politically active.
It’s not the Walton or Bradley Foundations, or a DeVos, Koch, Heritage affiliated group that wants to destroy public education for political ends.

A school like Mundo that took startup money from NSVF to get going and they’re now doing good work in the city. I don’t begrudge Mundo that. But we should avoid Walton and Hillsdale influencing DC.

New School Venture Fund - $5+ million from each of these foundations (full list of major donors here: https://www.newschools.org/about-us/team/donors/)
Laura & John Arnold Foundation
The Broad Foundation
The Byers Family
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Chan Zuckerberg Foundation
Michael & Susan Dell Foundation
John & Ann Doerr
Doris & Donald Fisher Fund
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Robertson Foundation
And others at lower levels

Nat'l Alliance for Charter Schools (for example, Latin said they are supporting its expansion; has funded other DC charters) https://www.publiccharters.org/our-work/what-we-stand-for/funders
Its donors are:
Gates Foundation
Eli and Edythe Broad
Walton Foundation
Doris and Donald Fisher
Walton Family Foundation
and others

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really happy the Hillsdale College - Anna Julia Cooper - didn't get approved.

+1.
That weird subversive Hillsdale/DeVos stuff was no good

Why not? I thought charter people loved right wing funding.

They only love it if they can pretend they aren't getting it. It was a woefully clueless application!

There is not a single high-performing charter in DC (except BASIS) that has not at one time accepted funds, particularly start-up funds, from a conservative foundation or an org that takes its money from conservatives, such as the New School Venture fund, for example.

The New School Venture fund isn’t very politically active.
It’s not the Walton or Bradley Foundations, or a DeVos, Koch, Heritage affiliated group that wants to destroy public education for political ends.

A school like Mundo that took startup money from NSVF to get going and they’re now doing good work in the city. I don’t begrudge Mundo that. But we should avoid Walton and Hillsdale influencing DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really happy the Hillsdale College - Anna Julia Cooper - didn't get approved.

+1.
That weird subversive Hillsdale/DeVos stuff was no good

Why not? I thought charter people loved right wing funding.

They only love it if they can pretend they aren't getting it. It was a woefully clueless application!

There is not a single high-performing charter in DC (except BASIS) that has not at one time accepted funds, particularly start-up funds, from a conservative foundation or an org that takes its money from conservatives, such as the New School Venture fund, for example.

Anonymous wrote:Did they vote on the Washington Latin replication?

No. Last night was the hearing. Vote next month

Anonymous wrote:Did they vote on the Washington Latin replication?

I have the same question

Why so many?

Did they vote on the Washington Latin replication?

If the schools could exist as a sideline to a thriving system that serves everyone places like ‘the interesting Arabic middle school’ would be great and I’d love them for my kids.

But then they just turn out to be another puzzle piece in continuing the the lack of integration we get in this city - the DCPS ‘can’t do middle school’ DCUM ‘we need another Latin’ option. There is a cohort of parents of 4th graders on the Hill who can’t get their kid into Latin to take the bus from the Hill to play lacrosse and use the nice gym they built up on Ingraham St

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just please don’t come to Wards 1 or 4

Because?

More enclaves to serve upper class people who don't want to mix with their neighbors isn't what DC needs. Their unwillingness to go anywhere without a high proportion of upper class families is telling. They say Ward 6 preferred, Ward 1 and 4 maybe, no to Ward 5 and a hard no to Wards 7 or 8. Why?

Which one? I just skimmed a few of them and one was trying to be “intentionally diverse,” which 7&8 are not.

Girls global wants to serve predominantly girls of color but wants to locate in Ward 2. I wonder where they have a lead on a place.