Anonymous wrote:I agree the group was all wrong. I, for one, am avoiding my high FARM inbounds school because it's not good enough for my child. So, I obviuosly wouldn't be interested in starting a FARM charter. Experts in the field aren't meeting their needs, so I know I'm not qualified to even pretend I could serve them with dignity and justice. I also would not play Russian roulet with my kid's education by embarking upon such a social experiment. Furthermore, I have zero tolerance for hipster protests types who pretend to care about FARM kids, but then clutch their purses and stay far away from them when they see them on the playground. So, it wasn't for me and it wasn't for anyone else. Nor did I feel obligated to whip out my resume to the self-appointed leader. So, I ignored the group after that. Things happen for a reason- we got into a great school shortly thereafter.

Wow, you sure "learned" a lot about this group - including how they dress and how they act on playgrounds - for someone who never met anyone in person and never got past introductions. Interesting, nothing in these 13 pages of discussion indicates anyone else felt the way you did about the group or the goals. And now you're in a great school and not interested anymore. Which sounds like it means the coast is clear for anyone considering this now, because they have one less saboteur in the mix

Wouldn't it be great if the group pretended to disband but secretly kept meeting, just without this incredibly "imaginative" and judgemental person? How cool if a plan for this school was presented to PCSB this summer all fleshed out! Guessing that's close to impossible, but those of us still searching for the right school can dream can't we!

I agree the group was all wrong. I, for one, am avoiding my high FARM inbounds school because it's not good enough for my child. So, I obviuosly wouldn't be interested in starting a FARM charter. Experts in the field aren't meeting their needs, so I know I'm not qualified to even pretend I could serve them with dignity and justice. I also would not play Russian roulet with my kid's education by embarking upon such a social experiment. Furthermore, I have zero tolerance for hipster protests types who pretend to care about FARM kids, but then clutch their purses and stay far away from them when they see them on the playground. So, it wasn't for me and it wasn't for anyone else. Nor did I feel obligated to whip out my resume to the self-appointed leader. So, I ignored the group after that. Things happen for a reason- we got into a great school shortly thereafter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ social justice faker- you're back at it, huh?! Thanks for derailing the process by pulling one-two switch-up with a FARM focus. Really, you should have just been honest and said you were committed to an immersion for FARM kids from the get-go. You waited until interest was drummed up and then pulled that agenda out your phony hat. Then you demanded everyone show you our resumes. Second nail in the coffin. I just feel sorry for any kids you may be involved with. What they need are truly caring adults out for their own good. Not someone who's more interested in comparing fedoras and skinny pants at protest gatherings. And that is the truth!

Whoever you are, and whatever your problem is, what is fascinating is that apparently you let the interest of one person throw you totally off task. Why is someone who wants to serve FARMS students so absolutely frightening to you? Why would an entire group of people who were just getting to know each other and just starting to discuss what the process would take and figure out who is in and who is out - how would someone saying they want to serve FARMS children make you (or anyone with a clue about how much work this effort would likely be) run screaming for the doors? Did you really think a group of identically-minded people would find each other right from the start, and no one would have differences of opinion? Did the group even engage the question of focus and population?

This. The group "derailed" before even meeting in person just because one person wanted to help low-income kids? Wrong group to start a school. They should be glad they fizzled before real time & effort was spent - they would have never made it.

Anonymous wrote:^^ social justice faker- you're back at it, huh?! Thanks for derailing the process by pulling one-two switch-up with a FARM focus. Really, you should have just been honest and said you were committed to an immersion for FARM kids from the get-go. You waited until interest was drummed up and then pulled that agenda out your phony hat. Then you demanded everyone show you our resumes. Second nail in the coffin. I just feel sorry for any kids you may be involved with. What they need are truly caring adults out for their own good. Not someone who's more interested in comparing fedoras and skinny pants at protest gatherings. And that is the truth!

Whoever you are, and whatever your problem is, what is fascinating is that apparently you let the interest of one person throw you totally off task. Why is someone who wants to serve FARMS students so absolutely frightening to you? Why would an entire group of people who were just getting to know each other and just starting to discuss what the process would take and figure out who is in and who is out - how would someone saying they want to serve FARMS children make you (or anyone with a clue about how much work this effort would likely be) run screaming for the doors? Did you really think a group of identically-minded people would find each other right from the start, and no one would have differences of opinion? Did the group even engage the question of focus and population?

Anonymous wrote:^^ social justice faker- you're back at it, huh?! Thanks for derailing the process by pulling one-two switch-up with a FARM focus. Really, you should have just been honest and said you were committed to an immersion for FARM kids from the get-go. You waited until interest was drummed up and then pulled that agenda out your phony hat. Then you demanded everyone show you our resumes. Second nail in the coffin. I just feel sorry for any kids you may be involved with. What they need are truly caring adults out for their own good. Not someone who's more interested in comparing fedoras and skinny pants at protest gatherings. And that is the truth!

Whoever you are, and whatever your problem is, what is fascinating is that apparently you let the interest of one person throw you totally off task. Why is someone who wants to serve FARMS students so absolutely frightening to you? Why would an entire group of people who were just getting to know each other and just starting to discuss what the process would take and figure out who is in and who is out - how would someone saying they want to serve FARMS children make you (or anyone with a clue about how much work this effort would likely be) run screaming for the doors?

^^ social justice faker- you're back at it, huh?! Thanks for derailing the process by pulling one-two switch-up with a FARM focus. Really, you should have just been honest and said you were committed to an immersion for FARM kids from the get-go. You waited until interest was drummed up and then pulled that agenda out your phony hat. Then you demanded everyone show you our resumes. Second nail in the coffin. I just feel sorry for any kids you may be involved with. What they need are truly caring adults out for their own good. Not someone who's more interested in comparing fedoras and skinny pants at protest gatherings. And that is the truth!

Ooops, anyone who wants to get started to learn from our history. There are apparently a zillion pages of discussion for you scan through too if you like... although talking to successful charter founders and starting a new conversation is probably a lot more productive!

Anonymous wrote:I was also a part of the discussion from the beginning and you're not accurate regarding what happened. From the get go there were two agendas, which were mutually exclusive. The group started by parents who were shut out of the lottery- not by a charter champion of at-risk kids. The latter became pronounced when a random member introduced the desire to focus on FARM children. It was abrupt IMO and seemed more like the hipster type described above- a person who enjoys social movement and suddenly found an outlet for it. It did not appear as if the person had any genuine understanding of the plight of minority kids or what was necessary to serve them. I might be wrong, but it seemed illigit to go from a gentrifier mom who wants immersion along with other shut out parents to harbinger of the poor and wanting to shake up the school system. Once that shift occurred, which was alarming, the group was derailed. Had there been a focus from the beginning calling on families to support an immersion program for the city's most neediest kids, I would have been 100% for it. But doing it for the sake of fitting in with hipster protest type- no thank you!

I was also involved from the beginning, matter of fact I think I may have started this thread! First off, if you're replying to the post above you, not sure that person said they were actually involved. Following the thread is different then being involved, although they can correct me if I have that wrong.

But mainly, you are wrong, it's really that simple. The group was just getting to know each other, barely past the point of introducing themselves to each other, when one person (who never did introduce themselves - lesson learned future charter starters: meet in person as early as possible, to prevent what followed) started posting back on this thread both unfair, inaccurate, and most of all inappropriate information. The person who had been kind enough to take leadership in setting up a yahoo group and several others discussed how inappropriate this sharing of offline conversation details on DCUM was, especially by someone who hadn't had the courage to introduce themselves to the offline group. It was like spying, and it pretty much marked the end of the discussion.

Seriously, we were just introducing ourselves and setting up a first meet up, when someone stated their interest in serving FARMS kids. There were a couple others who were similarly interested, maybe several others with no interest, but you PP are totally misrepresenting the timeline as if the planning was actually underway when someone showed up all of a sudden with a different agenda. To put it the most simply: it was NOT diverging agendas that did the group in the first time around. We never even got to the point where we got to discuss diverging agendas. The spy/mole who was judgemental and frankly nasty about it on DCUM really soured the process. That happened around the time we were setting up our first meeting and that fell through and the will/commitment fell away after that to get another initial meeting together.

So please, learn from us folks, if you're getting this going, get together in person to discuss and get to know each other and discuss agendas as early as possible. There are many people out there that for whatever reason 1) have way too much time on their hands and 2) have ill will towards seeing things like this succeed. Offline electronic conversations with no way to make sure everyone is really there because they want to explore the idea, as opposed to sitting on the sidelines wanting to report back to DCUM and make fun of it, is really important.

Lastly, best thing you can do if you're really serious about this is to seek out the founders of whatever charters you respect/are inspired by, and talk to them about how they got started. There is so much wisdom out there, tap into it early and often if possible.

Good luck to all who want to do this, some of us are at great schools because others took these exact risks and started them. I'm channelling my "giving back" into social work as opposed to education, but I applaud and am rooting for anyone who gets this going. Just watch out for haters - you will always have them, especially if you start to gain steam, but just stay focused on the goals. Haters be damned!

Not gonna comment on your evaluation of motives, knowledge, agendas. Just want to set the record straight that your presentation is highly misleading, and beg anyone who wants

Anonymous wrote:I was also a part of the discussion from the beginning and you're not accurate regarding what happened. From the get go there were two agendas, which were mutually exclusive. The group started by parents who were shut out of the lottery- not by a charter champion of at-risk kids. The latter became pronounced when a random member introduced the desire to focus on FARM children. It was abrupt IMO and seemed more like the hipster type described above- a person who enjoys social movement and suddenly found an outlet for it. It did not appear as if the person had any genuine understanding of the plight of minority kids or what was necessary to serve them. I might be wrong, but it seemed illigit to go from a gentrifier mom who wants immersion along with other shut out parents to harbinger of the poor and wanting to shake up the school system. Once that shift occurred, which was alarming, the group was derailed. Had there been a focus from the beginning calling on families to support an immersion program for the city's most neediest kids, I would have been 100% for it. But doing it for the sake of fitting in with hipster protest type- no thank you!

Fascinating, in a sad way.

I was also a part of the discussion from the beginning and you're not accurate regarding what happened. From the get go there were two agendas, which were mutually exclusive. The group started by parents who were shut out of the lottery- not by a charter champion of at-risk kids. The latter became pronounced when a random member introduced the desire to focus on FARM children. It was abrupt IMO and seemed more like the hipster type described above- a person who enjoys social movement and suddenly found an outlet for it. It did not appear as if the person had any genuine understanding of the plight of minority kids or what was necessary to serve them. I might be wrong, but it seemed illigit to go from a gentrifier mom who wants immersion along with other shut out parents to harbinger of the poor and wanting to shake up the school system. Once that shift occurred, which was alarming, the group was derailed. Had there been a focus from the beginning calling on families to support an immersion program for the city's most neediest kids, I would have been 100% for it. But doing it for the sake of fitting in with hipster protest type- no thank you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as the school made its mission based upon a desire to help level the playing field for FARM and at-risk children and went through the trouble of recruiting and retaining them I'd be in support. I hope this effort is undertaken and I hope it is not hijacked by gentrifier moms looking for an immersion program for their precious snowflakes.

What does it mean if you would or wouldn't support it in practical terms?

If I met a parent group who wanted to start a charter and they didn't seem to be honest wedded to the idea of serving minority kids I wouldn't support it. There's a culture in the city of people who move here just to be a part of the protest and social movement culture. I think people are more in love with that- group formation- than actually making a difference. When those sorts of people meet DC schools you'll find a lot of community type organizer hipsters who don't really care about poor kids. They want the thrill of starting a charter for the social aspect- being able to meet in local bars and talk about how bad the world is. It's icing on the cake to get a coveted immersion spot along the way. I find it all gross and a disservice to truly deserving amazing kids who just so happen to be poor and of color.

DP and I totally get where you're coming from. Just know that I watched this thread as it originally unfolded, and those who are threatened by, annoyed by, or against a stated focus on minority or low-income kids went quite a distance in de-railing this effort the first time. So if anyone is serious about getting this going and the focus on the kids in DC who most need it, know that the folks only in this for their own kids (as opposed to their own kids and bettering the overall system) can be a negative force to be reckoned with. And can stir up crap without offering anything productive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as the school made its mission based upon a desire to help level the playing field for FARM and at-risk children and went through the trouble of recruiting and retaining them I'd be in support. I hope this effort is undertaken and I hope it is not hijacked by gentrifier moms looking for an immersion program for their precious snowflakes.

What does it mean if you would or wouldn't support it in practical terms?

If I met a parent group who wanted to start a charter and they didn't seem to be honest wedded to the idea of serving minority kids I wouldn't support it. There's a culture in the city of people who move here just to be a part of the protest and social movement culture. I think people are more in love with that- group formation- than actually making a difference. When those sorts of people meet DC schools you'll find a lot of community type organizer hipsters who don't really care about poor kids. They want the thrill of starting a charter for the social aspect- being able to meet in local bars and talk about how bad the world is. It's icing on the cake to get a coveted immersion spot along the way. I find it all gross and a disservice to truly deserving amazing kids who just so happen to be poor and of color.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as the school made its mission based upon a desire to help level the playing field for FARM and at-risk children and went through the trouble of recruiting and retaining them I'd be in support. I hope this effort is undertaken and I hope it is not hijacked by gentrifier moms looking for an immersion program for their precious snowflakes.

While I cannot stand the term "snowflake" used on DCUM, I do agree with your stance. I'd support it too under the framework you describe. I just think it's better to say it without being insulting about it. Every person's kid is precious to them. But I agree that some kids need much more access to better options and the playing field is indeed ridiculously slanted. It needs to be fixed.

I agree with you, but I think the insult comes from frustration. You have a lot of gentrifier hipster types who IMO pretend to care about poor black and brown kids, but really they're interested in securing immersion programs for their own kids. I totally understand looking out for self, but it's the dishonesty I can't stand. If people want immersion programs for their kids then by all means go for it. However, don't pretend to care about at-risk kids and try to get an immersion program going under that guise. It's exploitive and disgusting IMO... And unnecessary.

Anonymous wrote:As long as the school made its mission based upon a desire to help level the playing field for FARM and at-risk children and went through the trouble of recruiting and retaining them I'd be in support. I hope this effort is undertaken and I hope it is not hijacked by gentrifier moms looking for an immersion program for their precious snowflakes.

What does it mean if you would or wouldn't support it in practical terms?

Anonymous wrote:I would be very interested in supporting a French immersion program aimed at FARM families. If this could be pulled off it could be an amazing school. When you provide kids with resources they can do magical things. I've seen it at my charter.

You said it. When you provide KIDS with resources -- instead of the adults often sucking resources for their own employment and benefit. Remember, at risk kids get allocated a much higher per capita funding than "normal" kids