Last time I heard murmurs about this project a few years ago, the interested families (and if it's the same group, the founding families) were youngish middle-income (and yes, Jewish) people living in central neighborhoods like Dupont, Adams Morgan, and Logan Circle. So not upper-NW families well-served by DCPS, and not people who could afford private options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only argument I've seen upthread is Hebrew = Jewish. To which I say: So? If a school gives kids an adequate education, I don't care what framework they use.

BTW, I'm only one of at least two defenders of the concept posting on this thread, and I have no affiliation at all with the school. I'd be pretty surprised if any of the founders were actually reading this, let alone posting.

Please don't pull the anti-semitism card, it really doesn't fit this thread.

There have been lots of posts showing that Yu-Ying teaches a major commercial language, while Latin teaches a language that is the basis of a lot of literature, science and medicine. A few PPs (not me) posted lists of the most important trade and commercial languages, and Hebrew was way down the list.

I'm surprised you missed all this! You just don't seem to be taking any criticism seriously. Let me reiterate, if you or whoever is preparing the application goes before the charter board with this smug, you-can't-touch-me attitude, not to mention the unjustified charges of anti-semitism, you will deserve to fail.

Irrelevant.

It is you who is not taking criticism seriously. There is ZERO obligation to prove the commercial or scientific value of a language in an immersion program. The obligation is to establish that the school provides a viable framework for teaching both the DC Standards, and the mission-specific objections proposed by the charter.

actually, there is quite a bit more required...

Anonymous wrote:So it's fine that a limited but generally wealthy subgroup of the DC population would attend this school? You have no problem with that?

If they can only interest a handful of students, either:

They'll fail. Problem solved.

Or they'll be heavily supplemented with private $. If that happens, I predict that the high $-to-pupil ratio will result in a stellar program, which will attract more students, who will be interested in going to a fantastic school and don't much care that it's also Hebrew. Again, problem solved.


I'll add, though, that I disagree with your assumption that Hebrew = Jewish = wealthy.

So it's fine that a limited but generally wealthy subgroup of the DC population would attend this school? You have no problem with that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only argument I've seen upthread is Hebrew = Jewish. To which I say: So? If a school gives kids an adequate education, I don't care what framework they use.

BTW, I'm only one of at least two defenders of the concept posting on this thread, and I have no affiliation at all with the school. I'd be pretty surprised if any of the founders were actually reading this, let alone posting.

Please don't pull the anti-semitism card, it really doesn't fit this thread.

There have been lots of posts showing that Yu-Ying teaches a major commercial language, while Latin teaches a language that is the basis of a lot of literature, science and medicine. A few PPs (not me) posted lists of the most important trade and commercial languages, and Hebrew was way down the list.

I'm surprised you missed all this! You just don't seem to be taking any criticism seriously. Let me reiterate, if you or whoever is preparing the application goes before the charter board with this smug, you-can't-touch-me attitude, not to mention the unjustified charges of anti-semitism, you will deserve to fail.

Irrelevant.

It is you who is not taking criticism seriously. There is ZERO obligation to prove the commercial or scientific value of a language in an immersion program. The obligation is to establish that the school provides a viable framework for teaching both the DC Standards, and the mission-specific objections proposed by the charter.

Objectives, not objections. (Auto-correct doesn't like me today.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only argument I've seen upthread is Hebrew = Jewish. To which I say: So? If a school gives kids an adequate education, I don't care what framework they use.

BTW, I'm only one of at least two defenders of the concept posting on this thread, and I have no affiliation at all with the school. I'd be pretty surprised if any of the founders were actually reading this, let alone posting.

Please don't pull the anti-semitism card, it really doesn't fit this thread.

There have been lots of posts showing that Yu-Ying teaches a major commercial language, while Latin teaches a language that is the basis of a lot of literature, science and medicine. A few PPs (not me) posted lists of the most important trade and commercial languages, and Hebrew was way down the list.

I'm surprised you missed all this! You just don't seem to be taking any criticism seriously. Let me reiterate, if you or whoever is preparing the application goes before the charter board with this smug, you-can't-touch-me attitude, not to mention the unjustified charges of anti-semitism, you will deserve to fail.

Irrelevant.

It is you who is not taking criticism seriously. There is ZERO obligation to prove the commercial or scientific value of a language in an immersion program. The obligation is to establish that the school provides a viable framework for teaching both the DC Standards, and the mission-specific objections proposed by the charter.

The prevalence of Hebrew is Irrelevant to the Charter Board. An applicant doesn't need to show that a program increases the social good, just that the school can teach kids what they're required by DC law to learn.

So how has Washington Hebrew shown that it can't teach the basics?

Anonymous wrote:The only argument I've seen upthread is Hebrew = Jewish. To which I say: So? If a school gives kids an adequate education, I don't care what framework they use.

BTW, I'm only one of at least two defenders of the concept posting on this thread, and I have no affiliation at all with the school. I'd be pretty surprised if any of the founders were actually reading this, let alone posting.

Please don't pull the anti-semitism card, it really doesn't fit this thread.

There have been lots of posts showing that Yu-Ying teaches a major commercial language, while Latin teaches a language that is the basis of a lot of literature, science and medicine. A few PPs (not me) posted lists of the most important trade and commercial languages, and Hebrew was way down the list.

I'm surprised you missed all this! You just don't seem to be taking any criticism seriously. Let me reiterate, if you or whoever is preparing the application goes before the charter board with this smug, you-can't-touch-me attitude, not to mention the unjustified charges of anti-semitism, you will deserve to fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't have to convince us, although several of us seem skeptical about any proposal to create a charter that doesn't fill any broadly shared social goal, whether that goal is serving under-served kids or building the multi-lingual workforce of the future. The group you will need to convince is the charter school board. But so far I haven't seen them approve anything that caters quite so obviously to upper NW families with such narrow interests. There's always a first time, though.

It worked for Washington Latin and Washington Yu Ying. How different, really, is the concept of Washington Hebrew? Would it skew disproportionately middle and upper-middle class? Yes, so do they. Would it still serve low-income students? Yes, so do they. The idea of the school is to provide an education to all student who are enrolled, not just the Jewish ones.

It's very different from Latin and Yu Ying - many PPs have pointed out why. You need to think about these earlier posts, rather than just keep asking us to repeat the same thing over and over.

I mean it: if you want this concept to succeed, you need to take criticism seriously, and figure out good responses, rather than just pretending you just don't hear any criticism.

Not everyone accepts the argument that it is very different. The efforts to "point out why" are not persuasive, they're pedantic. There are a lot of students whose families try to get them into good schools and they get shut out. This is one more option. We say that we want middle class families to invest in the public schools, and then we do our best to stymie them. It's inconsistent.

The only argument I've seen upthread is Hebrew = Jewish. To which I say: So? If a school gives kids an adequate education, I don't care what framework they use.

BTW, I'm only one of at least two defenders of the concept posting on this thread, and I have no affiliation at all with the school. I'd be pretty surprised if any of the founders were actually reading this, let alone posting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't have to convince us, although several of us seem skeptical about any proposal to create a charter that doesn't fill any broadly shared social goal, whether that goal is serving under-served kids or building the multi-lingual workforce of the future. The group you will need to convince is the charter school board. But so far I haven't seen them approve anything that caters quite so obviously to upper NW families with such narrow interests. There's always a first time, though.

It worked for Washington Latin and Washington Yu Ying. How different, really, is the concept of Washington Hebrew? Would it skew disproportionately middle and upper-middle class? Yes, so do they. Would it still serve low-income students? Yes, so do they. The idea of the school is to provide an education to all student who are enrolled, not just the Jewish ones.

It's very different from Latin and Yu Ying - many PPs have pointed out why. You need to think about these earlier posts, rather than just keep asking us to repeat the same thing over and over.

I mean it: if you want this concept to succeed, you need to take criticism seriously, and figure out good responses, rather than just pretending you just don't hear any criticism.

Anonymous wrote:You don't have to convince us, although several of us seem skeptical about any proposal to create a charter that doesn't fill any broadly shared social goal, whether that goal is serving under-served kids or building the multi-lingual workforce of the future. The group you will need to convince is the charter school board. But so far I haven't seen them approve anything that caters quite so obviously to upper NW families with such narrow interests. There's always a first time, though.

It worked for Washington Latin and Washington Yu Ying. How different, really, is the concept of Washington Hebrew? Would it skew disproportionately middle and upper-middle class? Yes, so do they. Would it still serve low-income students? Yes, so do they. The idea of the school is to provide an education to all student who are enrolled, not just the Jewish ones.

You don't have to convince us, although several of us seem skeptical about any proposal to create a charter that doesn't fill any broadly shared social goal, whether that goal is serving under-served kids or building the multi-lingual workforce of the future. The group you will need to convince is the charter school board. But so far I haven't seen them approve anything that caters quite so obviously to upper NW families with such narrow interests. There's always a first time, though.

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.

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.

But the PUBLIC resources given for each pupil is identical across charters. If KIPP, or Washington Hebrew or Yu Ying--or Janney or HD Cooke--are using outside money to mprove the school, and those benefits are available to anyone able to attend, where is the misuse of public funds?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Looks like an auto-correct to me. Unsure what it was corrected from, though...