Overcrowded Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

If there are not already the kids in the neighborhood to potentially go to the school, then that calculation is largely meaningless. (And I would argue that the public/private choice probably is not as relevant.) But even if it is not, I think for many schools there is a chicken and egg problem. Why not go? Because the IB percentage is low. Why is the IB percentage low? Because people don't go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

If there are not already the kids in the neighborhood to potentially go to the school, then that calculation is largely meaningless. (And I would argue that the public/private choice probably is not as relevant.) But even if it is not, I think for many schools there is a chicken and egg problem. Why not go? Because the IB percentage is low. Why is the IB percentage low? Because people don't go.

There are kids in the neighborhood to potentially go to the school; they just aren't. The 104/140 number is ONLY counting kids already in PUBLIC school. It leaves out the school age kids who are in private school/homeschool. That was pointed out up thread; the person who originally posted this stat did not read the header on the spreadsheet correctly. The boundary participation number is measuring what percentage of students who choose public school choose their neighborhood public school, as opposed to charter or OOB public schools. No private school children are in these numbers anywhere (except perhaps in the columns measuring population growth by age in the clusters -- which is also a misleading figure because the so-called clusters are not even remotely aligned to the actual school boundaries past or present).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Hearst is extremely desirable--and always has been- to middle/upper middle class, educated families outside of Ward 3. Previously, the OOBs student population was majority African American. It's headed towards 50/50, black/white now since lots of new EOTP families have discovered Hearst. Prior to this past year, Hearst was rarely discussed on these boards and to many OOBs families, was considered a best kept secret.

The only reason why Hearst is not the "envy of the city" is because the test scores are behind those of other Ward 3 schools (but well ahead of most of the city). As has been previously noted, after expanding from a PK-3 early childhood center five years ago, Hearst went through major growing pains as well as, a few principals. The leadership changes meant Hearst wasn't afforded the same academic stability that its neighboring schools had. Don't believe me--just look at the history of 3rd grade scores prior to the school expanding to a PK-5 campus (and yes, it was primarily OOBs with those high scores).

Even in the midst of the changes, the community was always great and the kids were happy. Some families headed for the exit doors but for those of us who stuck through the changes and the new families who took a leap of faith, it is now paying of BIG TIME. My oldest who is now at Deal said that Hearst was "the best school ever!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

Hearst has become an in-demand school. Why, even some families from Maryland apparently send their kids to Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

Hearst has become an in-demand school. Why, even some families from Maryland apparently send their kids to Hearst.

Not you again! Please give it a rest, troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

If there are not already the kids in the neighborhood to potentially go to the school, then that calculation is largely meaningless. (And I would argue that the public/private choice probably is not as relevant.) But even if it is not, I think for many schools there is a chicken and egg problem. Why not go? Because the IB percentage is low. Why is the IB percentage low? Because people don't go.

There are kids in the neighborhood to potentially go to the school; they just aren't. The 104/140 number is ONLY counting kids already in PUBLIC school. It leaves out the school age kids who are in private school/homeschool. That was pointed out up thread; the person who originally posted this stat did not read the header on the spreadsheet correctly. The boundary participation number is measuring what percentage of students who choose public school choose their neighborhood public school, as opposed to charter or OOB public schools. No private school children are in these numbers anywhere (except perhaps in the columns measuring population growth by age in the clusters -- which is also a misleading figure because the so-called clusters are not even remotely aligned to the actual school boundaries past or present).

Yup understand exactly what is in the spreadsheet. But I just don't think that the numbers that will switch between private and public are all that large. Certainly some, but not enough to make any really difference. So then you just have 104. And even if every single one of those children went to the school, the IB would be 33 percent. That's a pretty low ceiling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

Hearst has become an in-demand school. Why, even some families from Maryland apparently send their kids to Hearst.

Not you again! Please give it a rest, troll.

Everyone knows that there have been PG kids at Hearst. You can call "troll" all you want, but that suggests you want to cover it up -- are one of the cheaters? This has long been a problem in DCPS schools, not just Hearst. Look how Wilson had to forfeit participating in the football championship because one of its players actually lived in PG.

[Anonymous]

Part of the school boundary proposal should have included a beefed-up enforcement unit to ferret out residency fraud. It is distressing that neighborhoods are being moved out of high performing schools under the guise of "overcrowding" when there are students in those schools who don't even live in DC. Maybe it's a lot, maybe not, but they and their families need to be identified and made enforcement examples of.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hearst has become an in-demand school. Why, even some families from Maryland apparently send their kids to Hearst.

Not you again! Please give it a rest, troll.

Everyone knows that there have been PG kids at Hearst. You can call "troll" all you want, but that suggests you want to cover it up -- are one of the cheaters? This has long been a problem in DCPS schools, not just Hearst. Look how Wilson had to forfeit participating in the football championship because one of its players actually lived in PG.

Or it could suggest that I want to put a sock in an unreasonable troll who for some bizarre reason has something against the school. I am an IB parent, very active, and know a lot of people at the school. I have yet to see anything that suggested residency fraud. Do I know families where the parent without custody lived in Maryland? Yes. Or grandparents? Yes. But never anyone who was an identifiable residency cheat. If you have some verifiable information, then please report it. I would welcome that. But stop trolling this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

I think people put too much stock in IB percentage. I've posted this elsewhere on this forum, but really: If you made a list of all DCPS schools in order of IB percentage, you would find both strong and weak schools distributed all over the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hearst has become an in-demand school. Why, even some families from Maryland apparently send their kids to Hearst.

Not you again! Please give it a rest, troll.

Everyone knows that there have been PG kids at Hearst. You can call "troll" all you want, but that suggests you want to cover it up -- are one of the cheaters? This has long been a problem in DCPS schools, not just Hearst. Look how Wilson had to forfeit participating in the football championship because one of its players actually lived in PG.

Or it could suggest that I want to put a sock in an unreasonable troll who for some bizarre reason has something against the school. I am an IB parent, very active, and know a lot of people at the school. I have yet to see anything that suggested residency fraud. Do I know families where the parent without custody lived in Maryland? Yes. Or grandparents? Yes. But never anyone who was an identifiable residency cheat. If you have some verifiable information, then please report it. I would welcome that. But stop trolling this forum.

NP here. I know atleast 10 families that live in PG County and attend DC schools including Hearst. Residency fraud is in every public school in DC. So do I report nope. Why? Because they are all well behaved high acheiving children who have crappy choices in their neighborhood. Is is lying to go to a good school the right thing? I would say no but my children go to Tier 1 schools so I don't have to worry about poor educational choices. If I was in their shoes I might feel differently. As long as Wards 7, 8 and 9(PG County), have crappy schools abounding and wards 1,2,4,5, and 6 have limited options ward three will continue to be over run with students whose parents are desperate for better educational options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems short sighted on the part of the Murch and Janney parents. All it would take is another 100 IB kids and Hearst would be then envy of the city. Small classes and brand new facilities.

It's extremely short sighted. Hearst's population is similar to Eaton and Stoddert--solidly middle/upper middle class across all races. Score wise, Hearst should be on par with these schools, but in the last five years went through an expansion from an early childhood center to a PK-5 and simultaneously suffered through multiple principal changes. The consistent rise in test scores is evidence that the dust is finally settling. If the DCCAS were continuing, the school was on track to hit Reward status next year. It's clear that Hearst is going to follow the same pattern as Eaton and Stoddert, whether it is majority IB or not. It's a good little school. Always has been. It just had to work through some growing pains.

Bottom line: In two years, I doubt if even the Murch and Janney families will be anti-Hearst.

In fact Hearst may surpass Eaton in popularity and performance because Hearst will remain part of the Deal cluster, while Eaton will go to Hardy.

Perhaps, but sadly many folks on this forum and in NW equate IB percentage will success and that will never happen with a too small boundary. But more to the point, why is that? If the school is well performing, is a warm and welcoming community of involved parents, has a dynamic new principal and wonderful staff (including an amazing new music teacher, a native-speaking Spanish teacher, and the coolest ful-time librarian around), is soon opening a beautiful new building with full gym, stage, new turfed soccer field, etc., then why isn't the "envy of the city" already?

Outside observer to the particular community here: I suppose that's because a low in bound percentage means your neighbors' kids are going to a different school because your neighbors don't think the school was good enough for their kids. Or in the case of Hearst, they can afford private school, got in, and chose it over Hearst. That is something to pay attention to, right? People gauge school quality in part by what the people around them who went before them chose. If your neighbors uniformly said, no way, and put their money where their mouths are, then choosing the school is harder. When a school has changed as much as Hearst has, perhaps you can't use your older neighbors' opinions and experiences anymore, and you have to do your own digging and take a leap of faith. Some people are not willing to do that with their kids; some are. If you chose Hearst from OOB, didn't you make the same sort of analysis about your IB school relative to your neighbors and your children?

If there are not already the kids in the neighborhood to potentially go to the school, then that calculation is largely meaningless. (And I would argue that the public/private choice probably is not as relevant.) But even if it is not, I think for many schools there is a chicken and egg problem. Why not go? Because the IB percentage is low. Why is the IB percentage low? Because people don't go.

The parents in the southern parts of Janney and Murch should ban together and go on offense and ASK Bowser/Catania to rezone them to Hearst. Another 50-60 IB kids and Hearst becomes elite and it instantly becomes HJKLMM. Small classes, two classes per grade, next to Hearst Rec, no need for trailers once the addition is built, pathway to Deal, AND PS3 next year. Do they not see the huge potential? Instead they play defense and obstruct and send their kids to overcrowded schools that look like the shipping yard at the Port of Baltimore.