Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might be fine with it, but those of us who actually believe that charter schools should best serve the needs of the community think that you should just pay up for private Hebrew school if you think it would be so charming to prepare your DC to be a CIA operative.

As I said above, if you want resources allocated fairly & logically, you should probably be an inherent enemy of charters. As it is, your dislike of this proposed school has zero influence in the real world.

Many charters give disproportionate resources to under-served minorities, like KIPP. I'm fine with that. Giving disproportionate resources to groups who already tend to be well off is a lot harder to justify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might be fine with it, but those of us who actually believe that charter schools should best serve the needs of the community think that you should just pay up for private Hebrew school if you think it would be so charming to prepare your DC to be a CIA operative.

As I said above, if you want resources allocated fairly & logically, you should probably be an inherent enemy of charters. As it is, your dislike of this proposed school has zero influence in the real world.

Resources are definitely disproportionately allocated to DCPS, and charters schools (and students) are under-funded as a result. Yet, they manage to achieve better results. It's hard to take a logical position against them.

I meant my comment in the context of a debate over the need for a Hebrew charter. I agree that many charters do a great job, but the fact remains that as long Azerbaijan they make plans to accomodate all comers, potential charters don't need to prove they're in the top 10, 50, or 1,000 most practical programs.

I don't understand this comment. Did your iphone decide you were talking about Azerbaijan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might be fine with it, but those of us who actually believe that charter schools should best serve the needs of the community think that you should just pay up for private Hebrew school if you think it would be so charming to prepare your DC to be a CIA operative.

As I said above, if you want resources allocated fairly & logically, you should probably be an inherent enemy of charters. As it is, your dislike of this proposed school has zero influence in the real world.

Resources are definitely disproportionately allocated to DCPS, and charters schools (and students) are under-funded as a result. Yet, they manage to achieve better results. It's hard to take a logical position against them.

I meant my comment in the context of a debate over the need for a Hebrew charter. I agree that many charters do a great job, but the fact remains that as long Azerbaijan they make plans to accomodate all comers, potential charters don't need to prove they're in the top 10, 50, or 1,000 most practical programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might be fine with it, but those of us who actually believe that charter schools should best serve the needs of the community think that you should just pay up for private Hebrew school if you think it would be so charming to prepare your DC to be a CIA operative.

As I said above, if you want resources allocated fairly & logically, you should probably be an inherent enemy of charters. As it is, your dislike of this proposed school has zero influence in the real world.

Resources are definitely disproportionately allocated to DCPS, and charters schools (and students) are under-funded as a result. Yet, they manage to achieve better results. It's hard to take a logical position against them.

Anonymous wrote:You might be fine with it, but those of us who actually believe that charter schools should best serve the needs of the community think that you should just pay up for private Hebrew school if you think it would be so charming to prepare your DC to be a CIA operative.

As I said above, if you want resources allocated fairly & logically, you should probably be an inherent enemy of charters. As it is, your dislike of this proposed school has zero influence in the real world.

You might be fine with it, but those of us who actually believe that charter schools should best serve the needs of the community think that you should just pay up for private Hebrew school if you think it would be so charming to prepare your DC to be a CIA operative.

Anonymous wrote:Latin and Greek are of use because they provide insight into English words which are a little less commonplace. The Hebrew will neither provide better insight into English, nor many business and social uses.

It might still be good in training CIA operatives, though I doubt most kids will be enrolled with that goal in mind.

I'm fine with that.

Latin and Greek are of use because they provide insight into English words which are a little less commonplace. The Hebrew will neither provide better insight into English, nor many business and social uses.

It might still be good in training CIA operatives, though I doubt most kids will be enrolled with that goal in mind.

Anonymous wrote:Countries we trade more with than Israel:

Korea, South
United Kingdom
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Taiwan
France
Ireland
India
Nigeria
Russia
Italy
Brazil
Malaysia
Thailand
Switzerland
Netherlands
Israel

A language is only valuable if we have a trade relationship?

So much for Latin and Greek then. You visionary, you.

A NW/wards 1-5 location and pre-k with decent aftecare is enough to get a charter in this town. I'm Jewish and wouldn't consider it unless it was walking distance from my house (shabbat anyone?) and in a permanent location from day 1. Can't help but feel they chose DC because MoCo is pretty anti-charter.

Nice idea. Wrong locale. They won't pull enough modern Hebrew speaking families and staff to make it a worthwhile immersion experience for non-Hebrew speakers.

I do applaud their chutzpah. (Yiddish, not Hebrew )

The charter law requires that a group come up with a plan for educating children--a plan that specifically forbids cherry-picking only the brightest or wealthiest kids. If a school's charter is approved, it's on the school to recruit kids, each of whom comes with $10K+ per year in city funds. If only a dozen kids enroll, the school probably can't afford to run without a massive infusion of private money.

So Washington Hebrew would fold, or it would bring in big private $$ to stay afloat. A huge dollars-to-pupil ratio would bring attention, and the school would attract more applicants the next year--parents who might have zero interest in Hebrew, but would be thrilled to have their child in a classroom with a 5:1 student:teacher ratio.

In a world of limited resources, it would make sense to look at the whole city's needs and direct funds exactly where they're needed most. That's what DCPS is supposed to do (hence the lower per-pupil funding for several WoP schools), but the charter system is exempt from that. If you don't like it, try to convince Congress to let us change the charter law. And send your kid to your neighborhood school, and your PA dues to the lowest-performing school you can find.

I think the PG Wodehouse Charter School concept really has legs, so to speak. Open to all, not just those with strong ties to Anglo culture.

Washington Equestrian! Open to all, but it helps if you have your own horse.

Here's the cold, hard, reasoning against Washington Hebrew.

This school would be at public expense. Is it the best way for the City to spend money needed for all of its citizens?

It would strongly draw interest from and provide benefit to a privileged subgroup in a city with many in need: those who would like their children to speak Hebrew due to cultural affiliation to Hebrew and Judaism.

It would be of significantly less interest to those who are not specifically interested in Hebrew for their children, because, factually, Hebrew has very little utility outside of those with strong cultural affiliation to Israel.

The unequal benefit and attraction of this program should not lead the city to prioritize it among its funding needs.

Disagree if you want. But explain why, in a zero-sum funding world, this program should be favored over other programs with broader interest or benefit to those in need.

What difference does it make? Capital City has physical education as a core component of its program. Roots PCS is an "African Centered" school. I don't see any argument about whether these help US trade relations. I'm happy to let niche schools try--if they can attract students and educate them, I don't care what frame they use.