DCPS demographic data by school for 2015-16?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For someone who is watching to see if a particular DCPS school is gentrifying, I think the change in FARMS from one year to the next is very relevant.

If the neighborhood is gentrifying then the school is gentrifying too (although lagged by some amount). It's happening all over the city. But it also happens very slowly. If you're not comfortable with the current FARMS percentages now, then is a few percent different really going to matter?

Exactly.

its about seeing the trends. and they can be self fulfilling. If parents seem some transistion in the numbers then the may be more likely to committ in the future.

And the previous year's numbers will be out well ahead of the lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For someone who is watching to see if a particular DCPS school is gentrifying, I think the change in FARMS from one year to the next is very relevant.

If the neighborhood is gentrifying then the school is gentrifying too (although lagged by some amount). It's happening all over the city. But it also happens very slowly. If you're not comfortable with the current FARMS percentages now, then is a few percent different really going to matter?

Actually, yes, when you schools that are right on the Title 1 border, and you are trying to convince families of the trend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For someone who is watching to see if a particular DCPS school is gentrifying, I think the change in FARMS from one year to the next is very relevant.

If the neighborhood is gentrifying then the school is gentrifying too (although lagged by some amount). It's happening all over the city. But it also happens very slowly. If you're not comfortable with the current FARMS percentages now, then is a few percent different really going to matter?

It actually varies a lot by school and neighborhood. Look at brent and ross, on the one hand, and garrison and hardy, on the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For someone who is watching to see if a particular DCPS school is gentrifying, I think the change in FARMS from one year to the next is very relevant.

If the neighborhood is gentrifying then the school is gentrifying too (although lagged by some amount). It's happening all over the city. But it also happens very slowly. If you're not comfortable with the current FARMS percentages now, then is a few percent different really going to matter?

Actually, yes, when you schools that are right on the Title 1 border, and you are trying to convince families of the trend.

Assuming the cutoff for Title 1 is 40% economically disadvantaged, it's FAR BETTER to have 40% and get additional staff and social services supports for students in need than to have 38-29% and not qualify for the Title I designation.

Schools just shy of the cutoff will still have a large number of students in need but less ability and resources to support them.

[Anonymous]

Brent and Maury gentrified rapidly - like in four years.

[Anonymous]

The Hill schools gentrified because the in-boundary families were (to overstate it) white and rich and the school had previously had a lot of out-of-boundary students.

Unless your in-boundary homes and families are like that, you won't get a flip like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Hill schools gentrified because the in-boundary families were (to overstate it) white and rich and the school had previously had a lot of out-of-boundary students.

Unless your in-boundary homes and families are like that, you won't get a flip like that.

And you don't need to see the FARMS data to know its' happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For someone who is watching to see if a particular DCPS school is gentrifying, I think the change in FARMS from one year to the next is very relevant.

If the neighborhood is gentrifying then the school is gentrifying too (although lagged by some amount). It's happening all over the city. But it also happens very slowly. If you're not comfortable with the current FARMS percentages now, then is a few percent different really going to matter?

Actually, yes, when you schools that are right on the Title 1 border, and you are trying to convince families of the trend.

Assuming the cutoff for Title 1 is 40% economically disadvantaged, it's FAR BETTER to have 40% and get additional staff and social services supports for students in need than to have 38-29% and not qualify for the Title I designation.

Schools just shy of the cutoff will still have a large number of students in need but less ability and resources to support them.

True, but strangely, people don't think that way when it comes to sending their kids to a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill schools gentrified because the in-boundary families were (to overstate it) white and rich and the school had previously had a lot of out-of-boundary students.

Unless your in-boundary homes and families are like that, you won't get a flip like that.

And you don't need to see the FARMS data to know its' happening.

You may not need FARMS data, but it helps to have demographic data.

[Anonymous]

Agree - because I don't think they know whta Title 1 means in terms of resources.

They know it means there are poor students but the whole reason that the data is gathered is to try to make sure that those schools get more teachers, more specialists, social workers, free or reduced aftercare, free breakfasts and lunches.

I think you want to be in a school with <20% or Title 1. Not the in-between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill schools gentrified because the in-boundary families were (to overstate it) white and rich and the school had previously had a lot of out-of-boundary students.

Unless your in-boundary homes and families are like that, you won't get a flip like that.

And you don't need to see the FARMS data to know its' happening.

You do need the FARMS data to know if the in bounds families are sending their kids to the schools. There are ungentrified or partially gentrified "Hill" schools (JO Wilson, Watkins, Tyler, Payne, Miner) where this same phenomenon applies, but the Brent/Maury effect hasn't totally taken off yet. For instance, my understanding is that 15-18 upper middle class SES families all sent their PK3ers to Miner this year; that could have an enormous affect on the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill schools gentrified because the in-boundary families were (to overstate it) white and rich and the school had previously had a lot of out-of-boundary students.

Unless your in-boundary homes and families are like that, you won't get a flip like that.

And you don't need to see the FARMS data to know its' happening.

You do need the FARMS data to know if the in bounds families are sending their kids to the schools. There are ungentrified or partially gentrified "Hill" schools (JO Wilson, Watkins, Tyler, Payne, Miner) where this same phenomenon applies, but the Brent/Maury effect hasn't totally taken off yet. For instance, my understanding is that 15-18 upper middle class SES families all sent their PK3ers to Miner this year; that could have an enormous affect on the school.

The key is whether those families stay past PK. Free PK is great, but it will they stick around for K and beyond?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree - because I don't think they know whta Title 1 means in terms of resources.

They know it means there are poor students but the whole reason that the data is gathered is to try to make sure that those schools get more teachers, more specialists, social workers, free or reduced aftercare, free breakfasts and lunches.

I think you want to be in a school with <20% or Title 1. Not the in-between.

I think that many families do know what it means in terms of resources -- this is DC after all, where most educated families know how to google and tend to research the heck out of everything. The concern tends to be whether the school is trending downward in terms of FARMS numbers. Yes, there will be a time when the school is stuck just under FARMS and that's not the best, but how long does it stay there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree - because I don't think they know whta Title 1 means in terms of resources.

They know it means there are poor students but the whole reason that the data is gathered is to try to make sure that those schools get more teachers, more specialists, social workers, free or reduced aftercare, free breakfasts and lunches.

I think you want to be in a school with <20% or Title 1. Not the in-between.

I think that many families do know what it means in terms of resources -- this is DC after all, where most educated families know how to google and tend to research the heck out of everything. The concern tends to be whether the school is trending downward in terms of FARMS numbers. Yes, there will be a time when the school is stuck just under FARMS and that's not the best, but how long does it stay there?

meant to write "stuck just under Title 1"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS didn't actually post the new demographic data until nearly Thanksgiving last year, I'm guessing by design.

By design? What exactly would be the reason for hiding it?

I doubt not posting the data until November (or whenever it is ready) is "by design" but your question in response raises another for me:

What exactly is your reason for wanting it?

NP. I want to see it because I want to know the demographics in DCPS by school. Why else would someone want it?

The don't change that much from year to year. Go to learnDC.org, pick a school and click on profile/enrollment. You can even sort by grade level - which you can't do from the DCPS profile pages.

why does learndc.org not break out white students as a subgroup? only AA, latinos or some other economic sub group?