Anonymous wrote:Again OP is asking about entrance into 3rd grade by demonstrating proficiency in Mandarin. Currently seats in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades stay empty if a student leaves. Replacing students who leave with those who know Mandarin at that grade level rather than keeping that seat empty isn't taking away from anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To OP - I also want to apologize for the nastiness of the DCUM citizenry on this thread. In person, we're more civilized. Online and anonymously, we're not. Good luck with your move!

This is incorrect. I'm equally as, what you would call nasty but I call direct and blunt, in person. And guess what, I have a great family and community here in DC, including friends with as little tolerance as I have for the entitled bullshit that is rampant in DC. We find it best to call it like it is, celebrate beauty and good deeds where we see them, and keep it moving. No apologies from us to people like OP with an attitude.

Anonymous wrote:Again OP is asking about entrance into 3rd grade by demonstrating proficiency in Mandarin. Currently seats in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades stay empty if a student leaves. Replacing students who leave with those who know Mandarin at that grade level rather than keeping that seat empty isn't taking away from anyone.

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be huge amount of confusion on this board. Local school boards can do what they like with their schools - establish test-in programs, magnets, immersion etc., as they have to stay within the bounds of local laws, and their employees are public employees. Thus, Oyster, the MoCo Mandarin programs etc. can allow in later grade admissions.

Charter schools, which involves the transfer of public money to private entities in the form of the school's board or, in some cases, one of these national corporations like Edison, are subject to stricter oversight in the form of federal regulations. They must award spaces by lottery. That's the only way to keep resources from being siphoned off from the original mission of improving schools for low income kids (although the record of charters on that front nationwide is not great). The Options case suggests that charters need some oversight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I often think there are two DCs. The dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan DC which has the best and brightest coming from all over the country and all over the world to try and make a change - versus a stagnant, old-school, retrograde core that's resistant to change.

That's why thread after thread boils over here. Movers and shakers bringing something better or pushing for something better and then those who did nothing either feeling threatened and lashing out at everyone or asking where their piece of the pie is.

You obviously forgot the 3rd DC: the one full of people who think that the only way to be "dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan" is to have policies, plans and structures that serve your middle and upper classes and push lower classes out. Because that is pretty much what you're saying about the fact that the public charter school board does not allow charters to test in at any grade because it doesn't want to cut out access to families who can't afford a private Mandarin tutor, or Spanish summer camp, or private Montessori schools until they can nab a spot at a public one.

You do a disservice to visionary people everywhere who who are dynamic, innovative and progressive who actually want a present and a future where EVERYONE is served well, not just a DC where only those who can afford to live here and go to school here (even in public school). When you trash the policy of not testing in for charter schools, you trash one of the fundamental values that DC charter schools were developed for: offering other quality options to DC residents who had the worst of options. Guess who those DC residents were when charters were first established here? Not you, not me, not OP, because we weren't sending our kids ot public school then (unless we lived IB for the only decent middle or high school). To turn around and say you can test in absolutely undermines the commitment to providing access to ALL DC residents (just like neighborhood preference would as well). No, that is NOT "stagnant, old-school and retrograde being resistent to change.

Deal with it entitled people: the very people preventing a test in option are the "stagnant, old-school, retrograde" people who were part of creating the charter schools that you so desperately want entry to now. Trying to keep the door even faintly open for lower SES families and families who don't have geographic advantages of being IB for great DCPS schools is NOT stagnant, and while I do hope there will some day be a way to figure out increasing applications and interest from families who already speak Mandarin or French or whatever, so that the pool of applicants includes more native speakers, I defend to the end the randomness of admission and the fact that kids who herwise wouldn't have a shot in a million years at speaking Mandarin and all the doors that may open to that child, that that child has a shot - a loooooong shot (like everyone else's long shot), but a shot nonetheless, at going to a school like Yu Ying.

Instead of writing a book on DCUM, read one dipshit... and get therapist!

Excellent! If that is the best response you can come up with, I've obviously made my point. But really, I'm pretty sure I'm not having this conversation with you anyway. You don't sound like anyone with enough of a clue to be a threat to anything I believe in, so don't bother coming back with a specific book recommendation for me to read - I'm certain I'm not interestd in what you think at all.

Cheers!

Anonymous wrote:Hi, 15:21.

I read the follow-up from OP that pissed you off as "here is how things should work in a perfect world."

The rants that followed made me wonder how much some parents hate the lower SES families that won the charter school lottery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I often think there are two DCs. The dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan DC which has the best and brightest coming from all over the country and all over the world to try and make a change - versus a stagnant, old-school, retrograde core that's resistant to change.

That's why thread after thread boils over here. Movers and shakers bringing something better or pushing for something better and then those who did nothing either feeling threatened and lashing out at everyone or asking where their piece of the pie is.

You obviously forgot the 3rd DC: the one full of people who think that the only way to be "dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan" is to have policies, plans and structures that serve your middle and upper classes and push lower classes out. Because that is pretty much what you're saying about the fact that the public charter school board does not allow charters to test in at any grade because it doesn't want to cut out access to families who can't afford a private Mandarin tutor, or Spanish summer camp, or private Montessori schools until they can nab a spot at a public one.

You do a disservice to visionary people everywhere who who are dynamic, innovative and progressive who actually want a present and a future where EVERYONE is served well, not just a DC where only those who can afford to live here and go to school here (even in public school). When you trash the policy of not testing in for charter schools, you trash one of the fundamental values that DC charter schools were developed for: offering other quality options to DC residents who had the worst of options. Guess who those DC residents were when charters were first established here? Not you, not me, not OP, because we weren't sending our kids ot public school then (unless we lived IB for the only decent middle or high school). To turn around and say you can test in absolutely undermines the commitment to providing access to ALL DC residents (just like neighborhood preference would as well). No, that is NOT "stagnant, old-school and retrograde being resistent to change.

Deal with it entitled people: the very people preventing a test in option are the "stagnant, old-school, retrograde" people who were part of creating the charter schools that you so desperately want entry to now. Trying to keep the door even faintly open for lower SES families and families who don't have geographic advantages of being IB for great DCPS schools is NOT stagnant, and while I do hope there will some day be a way to figure out increasing applications and interest from families who already speak Mandarin or French or whatever, so that the pool of applicants includes more native speakers, I defend to the end the randomness of admission and the fact that kids who herwise wouldn't have a shot in a million years at speaking Mandarin and all the doors that may open to that child, that that child has a shot - a loooooong shot (like everyone else's long shot), but a shot nonetheless, at going to a school like Yu Ying.

Instead of writing a book on DCUM, read one dipshit... and get therapist!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Yu Ying is the only Mandarin immersion school in the country that does not allow students to test in for their higher grades. All thanks to DC politics.

Really? Exactly which "DC politics" benefit from this policy? Seriously, if you're going to spew ridiculous, uninformed soundbites, back them up. What "politics" are behind keeping this policy?

The same policy that does not allow for pure test-in charters. So back to the initial question, know any Mandarin schools that are not allowed to take test-in students in the later grades?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Yu Ying is the only Mandarin immersion school in the country that does not allow students to test in for their higher grades. All thanks to DC politics.

Really? Exactly which "DC politics" benefit from this policy? Seriously, if you're going to spew ridiculous, uninformed soundbites, back them up. What "politics" are behind keeping this policy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I often think there are two DCs. The dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan DC which has the best and brightest coming from all over the country and all over the world to try and make a change - versus a stagnant, old-school, retrograde core that's resistant to change.

That's why thread after thread boils over here. Movers and shakers bringing something better or pushing for something better and then those who did nothing either feeling threatened and lashing out at everyone or asking where their piece of the pie is.

You obviously forgot the 3rd DC: the one full of people who think that the only way to be "dynamic, innovative, progressive and cosmopolitan" is to have policies, plans and structures that serve your middle and upper classes and push lower classes out. Because that is pretty much what you're saying about the fact that the public charter school board does not allow charters to test in at any grade because it doesn't want to cut out access to families who can't afford a private Mandarin tutor, or Spanish summer camp, or private Montessori schools until they can nab a spot at a public one.

You do a disservice to visionary people everywhere who who are dynamic, innovative and progressive who actually want a present and a future where EVERYONE is served well, not just a DC where only those who can afford to live here and go to school here (even in public school). When you trash the policy of not testing in for charter schools, you trash one of the fundamental values that DC charter schools were developed for: offering other quality options to DC residents who had the worst of options. Guess who those DC residents were when charters were first established here? Not you, not me, not OP, because we weren't sending our kids ot public school then (unless we lived IB for the only decent middle or high school). To turn around and say you can test in absolutely undermines the commitment to providing access to ALL DC residents (just like neighborhood preference would as well). No, that is NOT "stagnant, old-school and retrograde being resistent to change.

Deal with it entitled people: the very people preventing a test in option are the "stagnant, old-school, retrograde" people who were part of creating the charter schools that you so desperately want entry to now. Trying to keep the door even faintly open for lower SES families and families who don't have geographic advantages of being IB for great DCPS schools is NOT stagnant, and while I do hope there will some day be a way to figure out increasing applications and interest from families who already speak Mandarin or French or whatever, so that the pool of applicants includes more native speakers, I defend to the end the randomness of admission and the fact that kids who herwise wouldn't have a shot in a million years at speaking Mandarin and all the doors that may open to that child, that that child has a shot - a loooooong shot (like everyone else's long shot), but a shot nonetheless, at going to a school like Yu Ying.