What are the differences between the JLKMs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

Exactly. Not everyone aspires to your life, believe it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the near future, Jefferson Academy, Elliott/Hine, and Stuart Hobson middle schools will become stellar schools and will be competitive with strong reputations. That will lure some students from Deal. Jefferson used to have a stellar math-science program. All these schools are in walking distance from Metro Stations. And it’s OK to have minority children in abundance. Their families want successful schools and children too.

All the Upper Northwest elementary schools appear to be quite good, but there are other good ones in D.C. Looking forward to a rise in schools in other neighborhoods with diverse socioeconomic demographics.

This!! ^^ We hocked our future vacations and savings to buy a house in boundary for a JKLM that feeds into Deal and Wilson, and honestly, nothing would make me happier than in five years to wish we had paid less money since there are other great options. Rising tide! I want ALL DCPS students to have kick-ass options and futures. It's good for everyone!

+1

+2

We're IB for Deal, but I would love it if Hardy continues to improve (we chose based on elementary school, and I would have been happy with Hardy or Deal, believe it or not). I would love it if JKLMM became totally meaningless because it was JKLMSHER+. Better schools everywhere are better for everyone!

[Anonymous]

My kids attend one of the JKLM schools. I visited many DCPS schools, including most of the JKLMs and other well respected schools, before deciding where to move, and the one I chose I found to be much more impressive than the others. Visit the schools. There are lots of good enough schools, but that doesn't mean that some aren't especially amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say there's not a lot of difference at the top level of the tier. Janney and Mann are quite similar, although Mann unfortunately feeds to Hardy while Janney is in Deal. Lafayette is very strong. Murch is strong, but it's not exactly in the top drawer with Janney and Mann.

Why do people (or a person) have to keep repeating this - there is nothing unfortunate about being fed to Hardy. Given some of the downsides of larger schools some might actually prefer Hardy which is not even half as large as Deal.

I laugh when people boost Hardy, knowing that if they had the choice of Deal vs. Hardy, they would choose Deal 98 out of 100 times.

We just made that choice, and we chose Hardy. Sorry you're uninformed and probably a little bit racist. Enjoy your upper NW suburb!

Enjoy "Dee-cee Middle"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton has the strongest PARCC results for students of color. Although note that the data set includes multiple schools that didn’t have enough students of color to be statistically significant.

Sorry, but Eaton is still pretty second-highest tier compared to JKLM. It baffling that it still can't even draw a majority of its enrollment from the local neighborhood, which shows that it needs more improvement before it gets real traction locally. For now, Eaton's really an EOTP school that happens to be WOTP.

I'll never understand why people need to bash other schools.

1.) Eaton had 54% IB in SY 2016/2017. No data released yet for SY 2017/108.

2.) Even if every single child in the Eaton boundary attended Eaton, at its current over capacity stuffed size, the school could still not be fully IB, there are simply not enough children IB. Perhaps that wouldn't be an issue if the school population was right-sized to its building, but politics preempts reason.

Can someone answer the simple question as to why, if Eaton is 46% OOB, the school is quite overcrowded today? Isn't the solution to manage the OOB student population down rigorously, to right-size the population to the site, as the PP suggests?

I mean, I'm pretty sure I gave the right answer - politics preempts reason. Though, with that said, given that Eaton had traditionally been an access point to WOTP schools, including through the Deal feed, maybe that will is changing ever so slightly since there wasn't any protest from downtown about cutting the Deal access...but I suppose since Shepard still feeds Deal and is 61% OOB, that's still one remaining OOB pipeline to Deal after they shut off Bancroft's feed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton has the strongest PARCC results for students of color. Although note that the data set includes multiple schools that didn’t have enough students of color to be statistically significant.

Sorry, but Eaton is still pretty second-highest tier compared to JKLM. It baffling that it still can't even draw a majority of its enrollment from the local neighborhood, which shows that it needs more improvement before it gets real traction locally. For now, Eaton's really an EOTP school that happens to be WOTP.

I'll never understand why people need to bash other schools.

1.) Eaton had 54% IB in SY 2016/2017. No data released yet for SY 2017/108.

2.) Even if every single child in the Eaton boundary attended Eaton, at its current over capacity stuffed size, the school could still not be fully IB, there are simply not enough children IB. Perhaps that wouldn't be an issue if the school population was right-sized to its building, but politics preempts reason.

Can someone answer the simple question as to why, if Eaton is 46% OOB, the school is quite overcrowded today? Isn't the solution to manage the OOB student population down rigorously, to right-size the population to the site, as the PP suggests?

There is no will within DCPS to turn kids away at any of the WOTP schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter part makes you sound a little crazy. So you wouldn't buy in any neighborhood near (but outside of) Spring Valley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter part makes you sound a little crazy. So you wouldn't buy in any neighborhood near (but outside of) Spring Valley?

A lot of people feel that way. Part of the FUDS is in AU Park and given all the changing info over the years, plenty of people are uncomfortable looking too close to the boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter part makes you sound a little crazy. So you wouldn't buy in any neighborhood near (but outside of) Spring Valley?

A lot of people feel that way. Part of the FUDS is in AU Park and given all the changing info over the years, plenty of people are uncomfortable looking too close to the boundary.

The boundaries have never been adjusted though, and most of AU Park was never owned by AU and already residentially developed by the time the Army used the FUDS for testing. Look into the history. If you shun AU Park (except for the small part that was part of the FUDS) for fear of FUDS proximity, you need to equally shun all other adjacent neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter part makes you sound a little crazy. So you wouldn't buy in any neighborhood near (but outside of) Spring Valley?

A lot of people feel that way. Part of the FUDS is in AU Park and given all the changing info over the years, plenty of people are uncomfortable looking too close to the boundary.

The boundaries have never been adjusted though, and most of AU Park was never owned by AU and already residentially developed by the time the Army used the FUDS for testing. Look into the history. If you shun AU Park (except for the small part that was part of the FUDS) for fear of FUDS proximity, you need to equally shun all other adjacent neighborhoods.

Plenty of people do this too. Honestly, it's going to be a nonissue for most AU Park residents (and others in adjacent neighborhoods), but for us the huge investment and the potential for health risks made it easy to skip that part of town. Might be an overreaction but I know a lot of others who felt similarly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

Ugh. I own a house in AU Park and I seriously hope I never meet you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter part makes you sound a little crazy. So you wouldn't buy in any neighborhood near (but outside of) Spring Valley?

A lot of people feel that way. Part of the FUDS is in AU Park and given all the changing info over the years, plenty of people are uncomfortable looking too close to the boundary.

The boundaries have never been adjusted though, and most of AU Park was never owned by AU and already residentially developed by the time the Army used the FUDS for testing. Look into the history. If you shun AU Park (except for the small part that was part of the FUDS) for fear of FUDS proximity, you need to equally shun all other adjacent neighborhoods.

Plenty of people do this too. Honestly, it's going to be a nonissue for most AU Park residents (and others in adjacent neighborhoods), but for us the huge investment and the potential for health risks made it easy to skip that part of town. Might be an overreaction but I know a lot of others who felt similarly.

Yes, it's an overreaction. I have spent time looking into this issue and would NEVER buy on the FUDS, but I have zero concerns about a neighborhood that was already built up residentially and marketed to buyers well before WWI, especially one located uphill from Spring Valley like AU Park. I agree there is a lot of uncertainty about the degree and distribution of contamination on the FUDS (including that southern part of AU Park), but there has never been uncertainty about which land AU owned and allowed the Army to use. It takes magical thinking to believe that the soil contamination of SV would somehow contaminate nearby neighborhoods, be it AU Park, Wesley Heights, or the Palisades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter part makes you sound a little crazy. So you wouldn't buy in any neighborhood near (but outside of) Spring Valley?

A lot of people feel that way. Part of the FUDS is in AU Park and given all the changing info over the years, plenty of people are uncomfortable looking too close to the boundary.

The boundaries have never been adjusted though, and most of AU Park was never owned by AU and already residentially developed by the time the Army used the FUDS for testing. Look into the history. If you shun AU Park (except for the small part that was part of the FUDS) for fear of FUDS proximity, you need to equally shun all other adjacent neighborhoods.

Plenty of people do this too. Honestly, it's going to be a nonissue for most AU Park residents (and others in adjacent neighborhoods), but for us the huge investment and the potential for health risks made it easy to skip that part of town. Might be an overreaction but I know a lot of others who felt similarly.

Yes, it's an overreaction. I have spent time looking into this issue and would NEVER buy on the FUDS, but I have zero concerns about a neighborhood that was already built up residentially and marketed to buyers well before WWI, especially one located uphill from Spring Valley like AU Park. I agree there is a lot of uncertainty about the degree and distribution of contamination on the FUDS (including that southern part of AU Park), but there has never been uncertainty about which land AU owned and allowed the Army to use. It takes magical thinking to believe that the soil contamination of SV would somehow contaminate nearby neighborhoods, be it AU Park, Wesley Heights, or the Palisades.

I actually wouldn't worry about AU Park, but it's hardly "magical thinking" to think that soil contamination can spread...Construction on contaminated sites + wind = most obvious mechanism. (Think about the studies that show that the presence of a nearby construction site raises the risk of infant botulism). But the type of soil matters too; certain contaminants flow easily through sandy soils, for instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JKLMs aren't really a thing anymore. Lots of elementary schools in DC are great now.

Dream on. Sorry that you can't afford to buy in AU Park. But you can pretend.

You're gross and, honestly, the reason we didn't consider AU Park. That and the buried toxic waste nearby.

--Sitting here crying in my million dollar house.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the latter part makes you sound a little crazy. So you wouldn't buy in any neighborhood near (but outside of) Spring Valley?

A lot of people feel that way. Part of the FUDS is in AU Park and given all the changing info over the years, plenty of people are uncomfortable looking too close to the boundary.

The boundaries have never been adjusted though, and most of AU Park was never owned by AU and already residentially developed by the time the Army used the FUDS for testing. Look into the history. If you shun AU Park (except for the small part that was part of the FUDS) for fear of FUDS proximity, you need to equally shun all other adjacent neighborhoods.

Plenty of people do this too. Honestly, it's going to be a nonissue for most AU Park residents (and others in adjacent neighborhoods), but for us the huge investment and the potential for health risks made it easy to skip that part of town. Might be an overreaction but I know a lot of others who felt similarly.

Yes, it's an overreaction. I have spent time looking into this issue and would NEVER buy on the FUDS, but I have zero concerns about a neighborhood that was already built up residentially and marketed to buyers well before WWI, especially one located uphill from Spring Valley like AU Park. I agree there is a lot of uncertainty about the degree and distribution of contamination on the FUDS (including that southern part of AU Park), but there has never been uncertainty about which land AU owned and allowed the Army to use. It takes magical thinking to believe that the soil contamination of SV would somehow contaminate nearby neighborhoods, be it AU Park, Wesley Heights, or the Palisades.

I actually wouldn't worry about AU Park, but it's hardly "magical thinking" to think that soil contamination can spread...Construction on contaminated sites + wind = most obvious mechanism. (Think about the studies that show that the presence of a nearby construction site raises the risk of infant botulism). But the type of soil matters too; certain contaminants flow easily through sandy soils, for instance.

Well, good thing it's all clay around here!

But seriously, you are right, and maybe I'd be concerned if I lived within a block or so of the FUDS (given that I tend to worry about such things), but further away, I don't think it's reasonable to be concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eaton has the strongest PARCC results for students of color. Although note that the data set includes multiple schools that didn’t have enough students of color to be statistically significant.

Sorry, but Eaton is still pretty second-highest tier compared to JKLM. It baffling that it still can't even draw a majority of its enrollment from the local neighborhood, which shows that it needs more improvement before it gets real traction locally. For now, Eaton's really an EOTP school that happens to be WOTP.

I'll never understand why people need to bash other schools.

1.) Eaton had 54% IB in SY 2016/2017. No data released yet for SY 2017/108.

2.) Even if every single child in the Eaton boundary attended Eaton, at its current over capacity stuffed size, the school could still not be fully IB, there are simply not enough children IB. Perhaps that wouldn't be an issue if the school population was right-sized to its building, but politics preempts reason.

Can someone answer the simple question as to why, if Eaton is 46% OOB, the school is quite overcrowded today? Isn't the solution to manage the OOB student population down rigorously, to right-size the population to the site, as the PP suggests?

Eaton was down to letting in 7 OOB kids in the lottery for K this past year & none for PreK. Back in 2014/15 it was 25 for K. Doesn't explain why there are any with the overcrowding (like Janney or Stoddert or Lafayette which all basically let in no on the tiniest #s of OOBs)