WCP article on Watkins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watkins should close and be reopened as a neighborhood middle school. Only 30% of the students are in-boundary -- they can be redistributed to Payne, Brent, and Tyler. Watkins Middle School should serve Miner, Maury, Payne and Brent; Stuart should serve Ludlow, JO, and Tyler non-Spanish. Or something like that.

You do realize that represents a steady improvement, right - and it's 34%? that number was in the low 20% just a few years ago and it's likely to be higher this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

[Anonymous]

The Watkins principal must be a strong person. I think I would have PTSD if I faced what she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Watkins principal must be a strong person. I think I would have PTSD if I faced what she did.

You say strong, I say stubborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

I'm the one who posted that and you couldn't be more wrong. But with Watkins (and other DCPS schools with low in-boundary percentages) what I see is DCPS essentially offering their own version of a charter school -- it's not serving neighborhood students. Why? If we really think that even the lowest performing neighborhood schools can do better with more funding, then why not close DCPS charter-like schools that aren't serving the neighborhood, and redirect that money to the neighborhood schools that people think aren't funded well enough?

There's no reason for Watkins to exist when there's plenty of room to serve in-bounds kids in that neighborhood at the other Capitol Hill elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

I'm the one who posted that and you couldn't be more wrong. But with Watkins (and other DCPS schools with low in-boundary percentages) what I see is DCPS essentially offering their own version of a charter school -- it's not serving neighborhood students. Why? If we really think that even the lowest performing neighborhood schools can do better with more funding, then why not close DCPS charter-like schools that aren't serving the neighborhood, and redirect that money to the neighborhood schools that people think aren't funded well enough?

There's no reason for Watkins to exist when there's plenty of room to serve in-bounds kids in that neighborhood at the other Capitol Hill elementary schools.

This post makes no sense. If you’re interested in Watkins, come visit during the school day and ask to be taken around. See the classes for yourself. It’s a much better way to make an informed opinion rather than to read the nonsense about Watkins on DCUM. 90% of it is outdated or greatly exaggerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

I'm the one who posted that and you couldn't be more wrong. But with Watkins (and other DCPS schools with low in-boundary percentages) what I see is DCPS essentially offering their own version of a charter school -- it's not serving neighborhood students. Why? If we really think that even the lowest performing neighborhood schools can do better with more funding, then why not close DCPS charter-like schools that aren't serving the neighborhood, and redirect that money to the neighborhood schools that people think aren't funded well enough?

There's no reason for Watkins to exist when there's plenty of room to serve in-bounds kids in that neighborhood at the other Capitol Hill elementary schools.

Ludlow Taylor is 40% out of bounds, including virtually 100% inbound PK3 and 4 which Watkins doesnt have. Even overcrowded Bent has 30% out of bounds students with the same ECE qualifier.

What is it about Watkins and the persistent trolls here? I have a few theories but DCUM is already such an ugly space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

I'm the one who posted that and you couldn't be more wrong. But with Watkins (and other DCPS schools with low in-boundary percentages) what I see is DCPS essentially offering their own version of a charter school -- it's not serving neighborhood students. Why? If we really think that even the lowest performing neighborhood schools can do better with more funding, then why not close DCPS charter-like schools that aren't serving the neighborhood, and redirect that money to the neighborhood schools that people think aren't funded well enough?


There's no reason for Watkins to exist when there's plenty of room to serve in-bounds kids in that neighborhood at the other Capitol Hill elementary schools.

Ludlow Taylor is 40% out of bounds, including virtually 100% inbound PK3 and 4 which Watkins doesnt have. Even overcrowded Bent has 30% out of bounds students with the same ECE qualifier.

What is it about Watkins and the persistent trolls here? I have a few theories but DCUM is already such an ugly space.

^^ sorry - that's 40% in bounds at LT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

I'm the one who posted that and you couldn't be more wrong. But with Watkins (and other DCPS schools with low in-boundary percentages) what I see is DCPS essentially offering their own version of a charter school -- it's not serving neighborhood students. Why? If we really think that even the lowest performing neighborhood schools can do better with more funding, then why not close DCPS charter-like schools that aren't serving the neighborhood, and redirect that money to the neighborhood schools that people think aren't funded well enough?

There's no reason for Watkins to exist when there's plenty of room to serve in-bounds kids in that neighborhood at the other Capitol Hill elementary schools.

Ludlow Taylor is 40% out of bounds, including virtually 100% inbound PK3 and 4 which Watkins doesnt have. Even overcrowded Bent has 30% out of bounds students with the same ECE qualifier.

What is it about Watkins and the persistent trolls here? I have a few theories but DCUM is already such an ugly space.

Huh? Peabody is Watkins' ECE program. A really high percentage of Peabody students are in-boundary.

[Anonymous]

Me again -- the Watkins middle school poster. I hear the concerns about racism, and the invitations to come visit and see how great the school is, etc. None of these address my point: Watkins doesn't need to be there. It's a gigantic school (physically) that can easily be converted into a middle school. It serves relatively few in-bounds students. The in-bounds students (whether at Watkins or elsewhere) can easily be accommodated at the other Cap Hill elementary schools. I'm not picking on Watkins because of race or because I'm a troll. It's just that it's the biggest and newest of all the options. Same argument could be made for Payne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

I'm the one who posted that and you couldn't be more wrong. But with Watkins (and other DCPS schools with low in-boundary percentages) what I see is DCPS essentially offering their own version of a charter school -- it's not serving neighborhood students. Why? If we really think that even the lowest performing neighborhood schools can do better with more funding, then why not close DCPS charter-like schools that aren't serving the neighborhood, and redirect that money to the neighborhood schools that people think aren't funded well enough?

There's no reason for Watkins to exist when there's plenty of room to serve in-bounds kids in that neighborhood at the other Capitol Hill elementary schools.

Ludlow Taylor is 40% out of bounds, including virtually 100% inbound PK3 and 4 which Watkins doesnt have. Even overcrowded Bent has 30% out of bounds students with the same ECE qualifier.

What is it about Watkins and the persistent trolls here? I have a few theories but DCUM is already such an ugly space.

Huh? Peabody is Watkins' ECE program. A really high percentage of Peabody students are in-boundary.

Point being if you included Watkins ECE it would bump up its inbound % closer other hill schools, whose averages include their 100% inbound ECE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at Watkins and there are still plenty of families from his Peabody days in the fourth grade with him. I volunteer regularly in the classroom, and I’d say it’s like many other schools with a large student body— some kids are doing exceptionally well, others struggle to learn. The good thing is that there still is a large enough group of kids that can push each other academically even in the fourth grade, so it’s not as dire as some of these others posters want to make it seem.

the usual s@#* stirring from charter stans who want to recruit insecure affluent families away from their neighborhood schools and into charters that benefit from more affluent families.

am I missing anything here?

I'm the one who posted that and you couldn't be more wrong. But with Watkins (and other DCPS schools with low in-boundary percentages) what I see is DCPS essentially offering their own version of a charter school -- it's not serving neighborhood students. Why? If we really think that even the lowest performing neighborhood schools can do better with more funding, then why not close DCPS charter-like schools that aren't serving the neighborhood, and redirect that money to the neighborhood schools that people think aren't funded well enough?

There's no reason for Watkins to exist when there's plenty of room to serve in-bounds kids in that neighborhood at the other Capitol Hill elementary schools.

Ludlow Taylor is 40% out of bounds, including virtually 100% inbound PK3 and 4 which Watkins doesnt have. Even overcrowded Bent has 30% out of bounds students with the same ECE qualifier.

What is it about Watkins and the persistent trolls here? I have a few theories but DCUM is already such an ugly space.

Huh? Peabody is Watkins' ECE program. A really high percentage of Peabody students are in-boundary.

Point being if you included Watkins ECE it would bump up its inbound % closer other hill schools, whose averages include their 100% inbound ECE.

The Cluster ECE and ES are 50% inbounds if you count Watkins and Peabody together. That's 10% higher IB and serving 50% more students than LT. Many OOB students also get sibling priority for Peabody from older siblings in the Cluster.

It's not Brent (70% IB) or Maury (86% IB) but it's hardly an OOB school

[Anonymous]

IB % has been steadily trending up for the past few years. Its still not hard to get into upper elementary grades in lottery but some of the 5th grade attrition is for the same charters in play for other Hill schools

[Anonymous]

Again, a lot of defensive posts. But why not close Watkins, reassign the boundary among Brent, Ludlow, Maury, and Payne? Then the in-bounds percentages at all of those schools will go up. Simple matter of optimizing resources.

This is assuming that people actually believe neighborhood schools (ie schools serving students in the neighborhood) are important -- that's another debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, a lot of defensive posts. But why not close Watkins, reassign the boundary among Brent, Ludlow, Maury, and Payne? Then the in-bounds percentages at all of those schools will go up. Simple matter of optimizing resources.

This is assuming that people actually believe neighborhood schools (ie schools serving students in the neighborhood) are important -- that's another debate.

Why not? Because it's a dumb idea that doesn't even deserve this response.