Can't you really not hear what you're saying? The "smart jewish kids" tag actually confirms that several posters, with divergent reactions to the school, think a school that teaches Hebrew will inevitably have a majority jewish student body. Even if, as they also argue, it might manage to attract a few christians who can't afford Sidwell and the occasional black kid who is willing to do the 1-hour-each-way commute from Anacostia to NW. None of you, pro or con, is arguing that the jewish kids will be swamped by the non-jewish kids. In fact, you're using the expecting jewish majority as a selling point.

How do you think that creating a school for a certain religion will fly with the charter board? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many DC charters are not diverse right now -- they are majority or total AA.

I do believe the the Hebrew school would be attractive to non-jewish parents who will put up with a little hebrew to have their kids taught along side smart jewish kids. Like a little inside joke.

The hebrew itself is not very valuable to practicing jews, except at bar mitzvah time. Taxpayers should pay for this?

The whole concept seems contrived.

that same sentence appeared before...

You bet it has -- and not only on this forum -- "Smart" and "jewish" are often uttered in the same breath. Like smart and high-income and smart and ward 3 - or perhaps all three - smart, high income and ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many DC charters are not diverse right now -- they are majority or total AA.

I do believe the the Hebrew school would be attractive to non-jewish parents who will put up with a little hebrew to have their kids taught along side smart jewish kids. Like a little inside joke.

The hebrew itself is not very valuable to practicing jews, except at bar mitzvah time. Taxpayers should pay for this?

The whole concept seems contrived.

that same sentence appeared before...

Indeed. In the context of somebody pointing out that the concept seems "contrived." Looks like more than one poster has the same reaction.

Anonymous wrote:Many DC charters are not diverse right now -- they are majority or total AA.

I do believe the the Hebrew school would be attractive to non-jewish parents who will put up with a little hebrew to have their kids taught along side smart jewish kids. Like a little inside joke.

The hebrew itself is not very valuable to practicing jews, except at bar mitzvah time. Taxpayers should pay for this?

The whole concept seems contrived.

that same sentence appeared before...

(a) Yes, it's a patronizing stereotype. Not to mention, the supporter on this thread seems to be proving the stereotype wrong!

(b) It's exactly what you DON'T want people to think about your school, i.e. that it's going to be some kind of haven for NW kids who don't want to rub shoulders with those "unsmart" kids from those other wards.

You're getting some good advice here. Pay more attention instead of just dismissing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. I'm not Jewish and am also not the least offended by this concept. I'd consider sending my children there.

What attracts you to this school? the opportunity to learn Hebrew? So your kid could be educated with smart Jewish kids? Both? Something else?

Yikes, did you really just say that?

What, is this unspeakable? Patronizing?

Yu Ying teaches the commercial language of the future. And Hebrew?

Because Latin has for centuries been the basis of a solid education? Because colleges appreciate seeing Latin on the transcript? Because learning Latin has a measurable impact on SAT scores? Because Latin is the basis for many medical and scientific terms that kids may use in their later careers?

The same patronizing attitude is made towards Latin and Yu Ying- that they try to cater to and create a selective grouping of privileged students. Then, the charter lotteries occur and the demographics of enrolled students include significant AA student populations. Why do posters assume automatically and don't challenge the belief that black parents wouldn't be interested in Hebrew?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. I'm not Jewish and am also not the least offended by this concept. I'd consider sending my children there.

What attracts you to this school? the opportunity to learn Hebrew? So your kid could be educated with smart Jewish kids? Both? Something else?

Yikes, did you really just say that?

Anonymous wrote:

This. I'm not Jewish and am also not the least offended by this concept. I'd consider sending my children there.

What attracts you to this school? the opportunity to learn Hebrew? So your kid could be educated with smart Jewish kids? Both? Something else?

But let me ask, why exactly do you like the idea so much? I'm going to guess, because it looks like a selective school, even a magnet school, in a school system that doesn't allow magnets. Probably lots of people would want this for their kids.

So the issue is: if the Charter Board won't allow magnets, and if Latin faced significant hostility from the Charter Board for perceived elitism, how is this new school going to prove that it isn't finely targeted to kids in NW DC, and basically, elitist?

I'm all for magnets, BTW, but I can't see this pseudo-magnet passing the Charter Board's smell test.

I still haven't seen anybody explain what this brings to the scene apart from it's "selectivity." You can't argue "we can start any school we want" and not bother to prove there is a need for the school, at least not in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Don't know about KAMIT, but let's say its goal (like many of charters) is to meet educational needs of a substantial subset of DC students, e.g. AA, low income/aspiring (KIPP), college bound (BASIS, Latin), bilingual (YY).

Can't say that about Hebrew school -- plus it appeals to a religious subset, unlike all other charters and public schools of any kind.

You can, actually.

If you go back and carefully read the proposal for Washington Hebrew, and then carefully read the proposal for Washington Latin, they read almost exactly the same. No joke, I'll sit here and wait while you do it. The only difference is that the Latin instruction is mandatory but not immersion; the Hebrew instruction is mandatory and taught "using the immersion model." A rigorous, classic curriculum appeals to a substantial number of DC children.

You're getting hung up on the fact that American Jews study the Hebrew language in advance of bar/bat mitzvah. That alone is not enough under the U.S. Constitution to defeat a proposal like this under the 1st amendment. If there is not even a whiff of religious instruction offered, current case law would suggest this kind of school should pass legal muster.

This. I'm not Jewish and am also not the least offended by this concept. I'd consider sending my children there.

I think you're getting hung up on the legal aspects. I'm not the poster who thinks that Hebrew=religion, although I see her point, that a school that has majority jewish teachers and students is going to have a hard time avoiding religion, if only at recess and lunchtime. But the real problem you're going to have with the charter board is probably different.

The objection that others besides myself have raised is, how would catering to kids who are already advantaged fill a "need" in the school system? You are going to come up against DC leaders who strongly oppose charters BECAUSE they syphon upper-middle-class kids from the rest of the system. All your talk about a "select" group of kids *wink, wink* just makes their point for them.

So: convince us this isn't just an attempt to create a "select" school for rich NW families. And a school that caters to a religious subgroup, no less. Moreover, I'm going to bet the plan is to locate the school in NW, and not next door to KIPP in NW. So go ahead, tell me why I'm wrong?

This school may or may not fill a niche on the DC charter landscape. I can't tell from the inept boosting on this thread. In order to sell it to the board, you need to take the concerns that have been raised seriously, and not dismiss them as mere noise and babble from the JKLM crowd.

Anonymous wrote:

Don't know about KAMIT, but let's say its goal (like many of charters) is to meet educational needs of a substantial subset of DC students, e.g. AA, low income/aspiring (KIPP), college bound (BASIS, Latin), bilingual (YY).

Can't say that about Hebrew school -- plus it appeals to a religious subset, unlike all other charters and public schools of any kind.

You can, actually.

If you go back and carefully read the proposal for Washington Hebrew, and then carefully read the proposal for Washington Latin, they read almost exactly the same. No joke, I'll sit here and wait while you do it. The only difference is that the Latin instruction is mandatory but not immersion; the Hebrew instruction is mandatory and taught "using the immersion model." A rigorous, classic curriculum appeals to a substantial number of DC children.

You're getting hung up on the fact that American Jews study the Hebrew language in advance of bar/bat mitzvah. That alone is not enough under the U.S. Constitution to defeat a proposal like this under the 1st amendment. If there is not even a whiff of religious instruction offered, current case law would suggest this kind of school should pass legal muster.

The fact that the proposals "read" almost exactly the same way doesn't mean they are the same. It could mean the Hebrew School proposal writers copied the tone of the Latin proposal to make the Hebrew proposal seem appropriate and to avoid raising concerns about religion.

That doesn't mean religious concerns are non-existent or that DC students would benefit from having a Hebrew language focused school. It means Hebrew school organizers have clever proposal writers -- but apparently not clever enough to avoid divulging their methods.