Advice on Two River PCS

[Anonymous]

+1.

[Anonymous]

Two Rivers just isn't what is was even 5 years ago. Pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two Rivers just isn't what is was even 5 years ago. Pass.

It was failing 5 years ago when we left under the previous HOS. It appears to be in further decline.

[Anonymous]

the kids I know there are mostly

a) white boys from wealthy and highly-educated families with ADHD or other mild neurodiversity

b) black kids of either sex whose parents were unhappy with their inbounds schools and ranked 2R fairly low on their lottery lists, but it was where they got in.

This is a change from previous years, but people are increasingly excited about JO Wilson, Ludlow-Taylor, Chisholm, and Payne and their destination middle schools, and increasingly unhappy with 2R for middle school, so I guess it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the kids I know there are mostly

a) white boys from wealthy and highly-educated families with ADHD or other mild neurodiversity

b) black kids of either sex whose parents were unhappy with their inbounds schools and ranked 2R fairly low on their lottery lists, but it was where they got in.

This is a change from previous years, but people are increasingly excited about JO Wilson, Ludlow-Taylor, Chisholm, and Payne and their destination middle schools, and increasingly unhappy with 2R for middle school, so I guess it makes sense.

You forgot

c) from PG County.

TR basically self-immolated during COVID with some of the most restrictions and longest closure. They also up until at least a few years ago (maybe still) were using the whole language/Lucy Caulkkns approach to reading. meaning basically entire cohorts at TR received no or terrible reading instruction.

[Anonymous]

You hear nothing but bad things about both of them on here lately, but between Two Rivers (either campus) and CHML, which is the less bad choice for, say, PK through third? They seem somewhat similar as far as demographics and test scores, etc, but that’s purely on paper. Any consensus on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You hear nothing but bad things about both of them on here lately, but between Two Rivers (either campus) and CHML, which is the less bad choice for, say, PK through third? They seem somewhat similar as far as demographics and test scores, etc, but that’s purely on paper. Any consensus on that?

If Montessori is a good fit and those are the two options, I would probably pick CHML because having the structure provided by DCPS could be helpful. I would not have said this 10-15 years ago. But I would pick pretty much any DCPS on the Hill over either if you have IB rights to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the kids I know there are mostly

a) white boys from wealthy and highly-educated families with ADHD or other mild neurodiversity

b) black kids of either sex whose parents were unhappy with their inbounds schools and ranked 2R fairly low on their lottery lists, but it was where they got in.

This is a change from previous years, but people are increasingly excited about JO Wilson, Ludlow-Taylor, Chisholm, and Payne and their destination middle schools, and increasingly unhappy with 2R for middle school, so I guess it makes sense.

This strikes me as accurate — sort of a noxious mix of “neurodiversity” and low-SES deficits/dysfunction. School maybe deal with one, but not both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are both TR campuses still struggling? My DS was at the Young campus years ago, we thankfully were able to leave after 4th grade. It was a bad experience for us in terms of curriculum and behavioral issues. Not to mention the leadership seems to be in denial about the issues.

I don't think the leadership is in denial, just not effective.

I think both elementary campuses are doing slightly better, but still not well. They do seem to be filling their seats, but other metrics aren't good. The middle school isn't doing very well either but not terrible.

Sorry, what now? They are no longer filling every seat in every grade and even for formerly high demand ECE seats they are getting awfully close to working all the way through their waitlists.

As long as they're hitting their LEA-wide total enrollment target by Count Day, I consider that filling their seats. Because that's what matters for their budget. I know their waitlists are a far cry from what they used to be, but ultimately that's not what truly matters.

But they aren't. Review the last few board meetings and financials and you'll see they have admitted a revenue problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are both TR campuses still struggling? My DS was at the Young campus years ago, we thankfully were able to leave after 4th grade. It was a bad experience for us in terms of curriculum and behavioral issues. Not to mention the leadership seems to be in denial about the issues.

I don't think the leadership is in denial, just not effective.

I think both elementary campuses are doing slightly better, but still not well. They do seem to be filling their seats, but other metrics aren't good. The middle school isn't doing very well either but not terrible.

Sorry, what now? They are no longer filling every seat in every grade and even for formerly high demand ECE seats they are getting awfully close to working all the way through their waitlists.

As long as they're hitting their LEA-wide total enrollment target by Count Day, I consider that filling their seats. Because that's what matters for their budget. I know their waitlists are a far cry from what they used to be, but ultimately that's not what truly matters.

But they aren't. Review the last few board meetings and financials and you'll see they have admitted a revenue problem.

They do have a problem. But the last board meeting minutes say they have exceeded their enrollment goal of 1039 to 1053.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are both TR campuses still struggling? My DS was at the Young campus years ago, we thankfully were able to leave after 4th grade. It was a bad experience for us in terms of curriculum and behavioral issues. Not to mention the leadership seems to be in denial about the issues.

I don't think the leadership is in denial, just not effective.

I think both elementary campuses are doing slightly better, but still not well. They do seem to be filling their seats, but other metrics aren't good. The middle school isn't doing very well either but not terrible.

Sorry, what now? They are no longer filling every seat in every grade and even for formerly high demand ECE seats they are getting awfully close to working all the way through their waitlists.

As long as they're hitting their LEA-wide total enrollment target by Count Day, I consider that filling their seats. Because that's what matters for their budget. I know their waitlists are a far cry from what they used to be, but ultimately that's not what truly matters.

But they aren't. Review the last few board meetings and financials and you'll see they have admitted a revenue problem.

They do have a problem. But the last board meeting minutes say they have exceeded their enrollment goal of 1039 to 1053.

Wait until count day and ask them again, and for a break down of enrollment. I guarantee you that number is fudged (for instance likely includes students who have not yet technically re-enrolled for this year but also haven't told the school they have left, which is not a true accounting of enrollment and not all of those kids are coming back) and that the timing of that count was selected to make it sound like a win. You should also be asking specifically for attrition rates per grade, starting in K.

Also I just want to let people in the neighborhood know: we've done both TR4 and JO Wilson and I would recommend JOW if those are your only two options. For any grade. JOW is an imperfect school but I'd rather deal with the imperfections there than at TR4. And actually, with JOW I would say a lot of what reads as "imperfections" are not, it's just that the school is not really geared towards meeting the needs of UMC white familes in the neighborhood because historically that is not who has attended. Some of what people don't like about it are actually major assets for the school's traditional population of kids and families, and once you realize that, there's a deep appreciation for what the school is doing. It may not be a perfect fit for you or your family, but it's full of highly competent, experienced educators who are good at their jobs.

I cannot say the same thing about TR4. In fact it's kind of the opposite, but worse -- the school is designed to focus on the needs and priorities of UMC white families, but they do this poorly. As a result, a lot of those families have fled the school, and it has a much more socioeconomically and racially diverse population, but it's not serving the needs of the other groups well either.

I apologize to any current families for whom this is hard to hear. I've been there, it sucks. But at this point I believe in being brutally honest about schools and trying to share my experience in ways that will be helpful to others. If you are at TR now, my recommendation is to look really critically about where your kid is academically and find ways to support and enrich until you can leave. And then I suggest being open minded about where you might move and figure out what you really prioritize. Realistically, no school is going to meet all your needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are both TR campuses still struggling? My DS was at the Young campus years ago, we thankfully were able to leave after 4th grade. It was a bad experience for us in terms of curriculum and behavioral issues. Not to mention the leadership seems to be in denial about the issues.

I don't think the leadership is in denial, just not effective.

I think both elementary campuses are doing slightly better, but still not well. They do seem to be filling their seats, but other metrics aren't good. The middle school isn't doing very well either but not terrible.

Sorry, what now? They are no longer filling every seat in every grade and even for formerly high demand ECE seats they are getting awfully close to working all the way through their waitlists.

As long as they're hitting their LEA-wide total enrollment target by Count Day, I consider that filling their seats. Because that's what matters for their budget. I know their waitlists are a far cry from what they used to be, but ultimately that's not what truly matters.

But they aren't. Review the last few board meetings and financials and you'll see they have admitted a revenue problem.

They do have a problem. But the last board meeting minutes say they have exceeded their enrollment goal of 1039 to 1053.

Wait until count day and ask them again, and for a break down of enrollment. I guarantee you that number is fudged (for instance likely includes students who have not yet technically re-enrolled for this year but also haven't told the school they have left, which is not a true accounting of enrollment and not all of those kids are coming back) and that the timing of that count was selected to make it sound like a win. You should also be asking specifically for attrition rates per grade, starting in K.

Also I just want to let people in the neighborhood know: we've done both TR4 and JO Wilson and I would recommend JOW if those are your only two options. For any grade. JOW is an imperfect school but I'd rather deal with the imperfections there than at TR4. And actually, with JOW I would say a lot of what reads as "imperfections" are not, it's just that the school is not really geared towards meeting the needs of UMC white familes in the neighborhood because historically that is not who has attended. Some of what people don't like about it are actually major assets for the school's traditional population of kids and families, and once you realize that, there's a deep appreciation for what the school is doing. It may not be a perfect fit for you or your family, but it's full of highly competent, experienced educators who are good at their jobs.

I cannot say the same thing about TR4. In fact it's kind of the opposite, but worse -- the school is designed to focus on the needs and priorities of UMC white families, but they do this poorly. As a result, a lot of those families have fled the school, and it has a much more socioeconomically and racially diverse population, but it's not serving the needs of the other groups well either.

I apologize to any current families for whom this is hard to hear. I've been there, it sucks. But at this point I believe in being brutally honest about schools and trying to share my experience in ways that will be helpful to others. If you are at TR now, my recommendation is to look really critically about where your kid is academically and find ways to support and enrich until you can leave. And then I suggest being open minded about where you might move and figure out what you really prioritize. Realistically, no school is going to meet all your needs.

I agree with this about JOW. I sent a challenging kid there several years ago and the teachers did their absolute best, as did the principal. The school psychologist was another matter. All of them have since left the school, but I know other families (of various races and economic levels) with kids there now and have attended some school events; it seems to be a caring environment. I also know kids who have moved on from there to Stuart-Hobson and charter middle schools; some went on to selective DCPSs and did well.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t matter with Trump and co. Nothing does. Why am I even alive?

[Anonymous]

I am hoping the day will come when TR has to more seriously reckon with its mismanagement. Maybe this year is the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t matter with Trump and co. Nothing does. Why am I even alive?

Pull it together. I'm sorry TR is a mess but don't be ridiculous. Your kids actually DO matter, and while Trump is awful he presently has very little to do with your school problems in DC (that could change but one thing at a time).

Just figure it out. If you are on this board, you are likely an UMC professional with a lot of resources. If you are at TR and lamenting its decline, check out post-lottery applications at Watkins, Payne, JO Wilson, and Brent. Those last two are burning through their waitlists because they are in swing spaces this year, but if you get into one of them, the bonus is that you would then get to attend the nice new campus when it's done. And JO feeds to Stuart-Hobson, which has a 100+ waitlist for 6th right now.

You need to get over yourself.