New Jackson-Reed HS (Wilson HS) School Principal - Sah Brown from Eastern High School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having lived in both places, yes, the families of school aged kids in ward 3 tend to be much wealthier than on the hill. That said, a much higher percentage of the kids also attend privates. And wilson has its fair share of kids who live out of bounds, although probably not as many as eastern, as a percentage of the population.

I agree that if the Higher SES hill population on the hill sent their kids to eastern at the same rate that the higher SES population in ward 3 send their kids to wilson, the demographics could be much more similar. I understand the hesitance of hill parents who aren’t receiving assurance that eastern would offer the same advanced coursework as wilson, even if kids capable of that work enroll at the school. I also understand the worry of ward 3 parents who hear that he did not try to attract hill parents to eastern, and think that he might also not seek to maintain the higher SES IB population at wilson. That said, ward 3 has status quo on its side.

I assume that the bolded is an effort to argue that the enrolled populations are not materially dissimilar when one considers OOB kid enrolled at Wilson and those who self-select out of Ward 3 to private schools. The data does not align with your hypothesis. 72+% of Eastern kids are "at-risk". That's 22% for Wilson.

But the larger point that you and others seem to be arguing is that the IB demographics of Eastern and Ward 3 are similar (if not identical). No matter how many times you repeat the claim and try to condescendingly dismiss away facts because, for instance, "you have lived in both places" the data is what it is. You all remind me of Trump supporters who say that they "know" the election was stolen and no data or facts anyone shows you will change your minds. But let's try an exercise in actual data, not your perceptions, shall we?

I am starting on the premise that what many of you are calling "the Hill" is the extended hill for purposes of this exercise. The Eastern HS IB population on CH can be approximated to zip codes 20002 and 20003. I am ignoring 20024 because it is very small and has even lower median income, etc. than 20002 and 20003. Trust me when I tell you including that does not help make your case. This is the actual data.

Population
Ward 3: 81,883
20002: 70,788
20003: 35,731

Median Income
Ward 3: $155,813
20002: $112,496
20003: $154,466

Families Below Poverty With Children
Ward 3: 0.7%
20002: 4.76%
20003: 4.27%

% with Bachelors Degree or Higher
Ward 3: 87%
20002: 64%
20003: 83%

Take a look at the % of families with kids below the poverty line. Those are the IB people sending kids to school. Even if we cherry pick just 20003, the data doesn't match Ward 3 and that's ignoring the fact that 20003 is much smaller than Ward 3 and that 20002 (IB for Eastern) is much larger and has even less favorable comparables to Ward 3.

I am not arguing that 20003 and 20002 UMC families don't have a right to send their kids to a school providing an excellent education. I am not arguing that sending your kids elsewhere is racist or that anyone should be condemned for doing so. My response here is a direct retort to those of you on this thread that think that just because everyone you know is UMC that must necessarily mean that the Hill's demographics are the same as your friends in Ward 3. They. Are. Not.

Good day, all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having lived in both places, yes, the families of school aged kids in ward 3 tend to be much wealthier than on the hill. That said, a much higher percentage of the kids also attend privates. And wilson has its fair share of kids who live out of bounds, although probably not as many as eastern, as a percentage of the population.

I agree that if the Higher SES hill population on the hill sent their kids to eastern at the same rate that the higher SES population in ward 3 send their kids to wilson, the demographics could be much more similar. I understand the hesitance of hill parents who aren’t receiving assurance that eastern would offer the same advanced coursework as wilson, even if kids capable of that work enroll at the school. I also understand the worry of ward 3 parents who hear that he did not try to attract hill parents to eastern, and think that he might also not seek to maintain the higher SES IB population at wilson. That said, ward 3 has status quo on its side.

I assume that the bolded is an effort to argue that the enrolled populations are not materially dissimilar when one considers OOB kid enrolled at Wilson and those who self-select out of Ward 3 to private schools. The data does not align with your hypothesis. 72+% of Eastern kids are "at-risk". That's 22% for Wilson.

But the larger point that you and others seem to be arguing is that the IB demographics of Eastern and Ward 3 are similar (if not identical). No matter how many times you repeat the claim and try to condescendingly dismiss away facts because, for instance, "you have lived in both places" the data is what it is. You all remind me of Trump supporters who say that they "know" the election was stolen and no data or facts anyone shows you will change your minds. But let's try an exercise in actual data, not your perceptions, shall we?

I am starting on the premise that what many of you are calling "the Hill" is the extended hill for purposes of this exercise. The Eastern HS IB population on CH can be approximated to zip codes 20002 and 20003. I am ignoring 20024 because it is very small and has even lower median income, etc. than 20002 and 20003. Trust me when I tell you including that does not help make your case. This is the actual data.

Population
Ward 3: 81,883
20002: 70,788
20003: 35,731

Median Income
Ward 3: $155,813
20002: $112,496
20003: $154,466

Families Below Poverty With Children
Ward 3: 0.7%
20002: 4.76%
20003: 4.27%

% with Bachelors Degree or Higher
Ward 3: 87%
20002: 64%
20003: 83%

Take a look at the % of families with kids below the poverty line. Those are the IB people sending kids to school. Even if we cherry pick just 20003, the data doesn't match Ward 3 and that's ignoring the fact that 20003 is much smaller than Ward 3 and that 20002 (IB for Eastern) is much larger and has even less favorable comparables to Ward 3.

I am not arguing that 20003 and 20002 UMC families don't have a right to send their kids to a school providing an excellent education. I am not arguing that sending your kids elsewhere is racist or that anyone should be condemned for doing so. My response here is a direct retort to those of you on this thread that think that just because everyone you know is UMC that must necessarily mean that the Hill's demographics are the same as your friends in Ward 3. They. Are. Not.

Good day, all.

You can’t compare 20002 and 20003 as an amorphous block when comparing Eastern to Wilson. Much of 20002 and 20003 are served by different much larger high schools. The Eastern catchment is small and much higher income.

[Anonymous]

72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having lived in both places, yes, the families of school aged kids in ward 3 tend to be much wealthier than on the hill. That said, a much higher percentage of the kids also attend privates. And wilson has its fair share of kids who live out of bounds, although probably not as many as eastern, as a percentage of the population.

I agree that if the Higher SES hill population on the hill sent their kids to eastern at the same rate that the higher SES population in ward 3 send their kids to wilson, the demographics could be much more similar. I understand the hesitance of hill parents who aren’t receiving assurance that eastern would offer the same advanced coursework as wilson, even if kids capable of that work enroll at the school. I also understand the worry of ward 3 parents who hear that he did not try to attract hill parents to eastern, and think that he might also not seek to maintain the higher SES IB population at wilson. That said, ward 3 has status quo on its side.

I assume that the bolded is an effort to argue that the enrolled populations are not materially dissimilar when one considers OOB kid enrolled at Wilson and those who self-select out of Ward 3 to private schools. The data does not align with your hypothesis. 72+% of Eastern kids are "at-risk". That's 22% for Wilson.

But the larger point that you and others seem to be arguing is that the IB demographics of Eastern and Ward 3 are similar (if not identical). No matter how many times you repeat the claim and try to condescendingly dismiss away facts because, for instance, "you have lived in both places" the data is what it is. You all remind me of Trump supporters who say that they "know" the election was stolen and no data or facts anyone shows you will change your minds. But let's try an exercise in actual data, not your perceptions, shall we?

I am starting on the premise that what many of you are calling "the Hill" is the extended hill for purposes of this exercise. The Eastern HS IB population on CH can be approximated to zip codes 20002 and 20003. I am ignoring 20024 because it is very small and has even lower median income, etc. than 20002 and 20003. Trust me when I tell you including that does not help make your case. This is the actual data.

Population
Ward 3: 81,883
20002: 70,788
20003: 35,731

Median Income
Ward 3: $155,813
20002: $112,496
20003: $154,466

Families Below Poverty With Children
Ward 3: 0.7%
20002: 4.76%
20003: 4.27%

% with Bachelors Degree or Higher
Ward 3: 87%
20002: 64%
20003: 83%

Take a look at the % of families with kids below the poverty line. Those are the IB people sending kids to school. Even if we cherry pick just 20003, the data doesn't match Ward 3 and that's ignoring the fact that 20003 is much smaller than Ward 3 and that 20002 (IB for Eastern) is much larger and has even less favorable comparables to Ward 3.

I am not arguing that 20003 and 20002 UMC families don't have a right to send their kids to a school providing an excellent education. I am not arguing that sending your kids elsewhere is racist or that anyone should be condemned for doing so. My response here is a direct retort to those of you on this thread that think that just because everyone you know is UMC that must necessarily mean that the Hill's demographics are the same as your friends in Ward 3. They. Are. Not.

Good day, all.

You can’t compare 20002 and 20003 as an amorphous block when comparing Eastern to Wilson. Much of 20002 and 20003 are served by different much larger high schools. The Eastern catchment is small and much higher income.

Plus, Wilson =\= Ward 3. Wilson’s IB area includes parts of Ward 1 and Ward 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I’m very surprised that a parent wouldn’t expect the principal of a schools to focus on the students AT THE SCHOOL rather than trying to replace those students with different ones. What a bizarre expectation.


A principal should do both! If the IB students avoid the school, then the system—DCPS in this case—is not serving those students well. Same for all the schools that the OOB come from. It’s great that the system lets people lottery for different schools, but IB should be the default, or else the system has given up trying to make it’s schools not suck.

THIS. DCPS could put the effort in to create a high performing gen ed MS/HS in Capitol Hill but it hasn't. And it is always DCPS circular logic: Why should DCPS care about what IB families want when it's not the IB families at the school. Well, the IB families aren't at the school because the school doesn't care about what IB families want . . . .

I wish NPR or the NYT would do a series about this catch-22 and be able to source actual data and experiences and results. I mean, I guess it is possible that it is just this easy, but, hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh wait. Never mind. Nice White Parents. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

Could you say more about how you think the lessons of NWP applies in this circumstance?

I know there is the basic idea of a UMC parent wanting something more from the school, but beyond that I don’t see similarities. Eastern is not under-resourced. OP is not white, is neither attracted nor put-off by Eastern’s racial composition, is not wanting new programs. OP was concerned about the lack of achievement in a program the school already has and wanted reassurance that her kid could get a good education and successfully qualify for an IB diploma. She found the principal underwhelming and unable to give her that reassurance.

So what’s the answer? OP deciding not to worry about whether her child would actually end up with an IB diploma?

The answer the NWP poster alludes to is OP not having the gall to ask questions relating to the performance of Eastern's IB Diploma program of Mr. Brown in the first place. Subsequently, she should have avoided briefly reporting on the nature of her interaction with, and professional impressions of, him so as not to open herself up to attack.

Let's say she'd stuck to a script governed by avoidance, a failure to engage. In that case, what would have been achieved?

meh. Nice White Parents *actually attend* the school and annoy people with their anti-bologna sandwich campaigns. That is much different (and better) than OP, who just wants to publicly criticize a black principal at a school she doesn’t attend, based on a single conversation.

So higher income parents get bashed if they attend their low performing school and they get bashed if they decide not to attend. What exactly would make you happy. Would you prefer they just leave DCPS and go private? It does seem like no one here has an issue with private school parents but watch out if you are high income and highly educated and want to attend your local DCPS high school.

PP here. I think the parents attending schools have every right to organize however they want.

LOL. That was the main problem in “Nice White Parents” — new families showing up and the leading change according to their interests.

I guess you are not very familiar with the series you referenced?

Just because I can summarize the argument doesn’t mean I agree with it. I think “NWP” is an illegitimate and bad-faith racialized attack on parents sending their kids to the local schools. OP deciding to put a principal on blast (when she never went to the school) due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation is annoying and exhausting.

I guess you’re kinda hoping that no one listened to the series so you can try to get away with your absurd characterization of Nice White Parents, huh? Of course, those of us who actually listened to the show know that it had absolutely nothing to do with an attack on parents sending their kids to local schools, but was rather a critique of generations of white parents whose kids didn’t attend the school organizing to push for changes to a local school that the people actually attending the school didn’t need or want, changes which the school board prioritized over the actual well being of the kids attending the school. Repeatedly.

DP here. I did not agree with the NWP podcast. The changes they documented are most likely real but it is divisive and disingenuous to blame the parents. Parents will always do what is best for their own kids. That is why it is stupid and ineffective for posters on here railing that wealthy parents should just enroll at Eastern for the greater good. The school board and central administration should be focused on trying to provide what all students need including upper income students. If new parents were advocating for changes that did not serve the majority of students well, then the school board should push back. I don’t blame the parents in this case. If a parent wants French at the school, they should advocate for it. However the principal and school district should be firm about not granting the request if it is not beneficial to the school as a whole or if it takes resources away from a more popular offering like Spanish

I agree. Except my specific issue here is that Hill parents need to show some agency and *organize themselves* if they want to make Eastern and Eliot Hine viable. I think it's absurd to think the principal will do it for you.

Yeah we have tried that before and we got called racists.

well who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

I'm not sure if its been messaged earlier on this thread but 24% of Jackson Reed students are considered economically disadvantaged compared to 100% of Eastern students per DCPS web site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

Nobody said they enrolled populations are similar. The IB populations are similar! That’s the whole point! DCPS, and by extension Mr. Brown, didn’t/don’t care that so many people on the Hill find their IB HS so subpar as to not attend it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

I'm not sure if its been messaged earlier on this thread but 24% of Jackson Reed students are considered economically disadvantaged compared to 100% of Eastern students per DCPS web site.

It’s not 100% at Eastern. It’s over some lower threshold level.

https://ggwash.org/view/34337/why-are-so-many-dcps-schools-listed-as-99-low-income-its-not-necessarily-because-they-are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

Nobody said they enrolled populations are similar. The IB populations are similar! That’s the whole point! DCPS, and by extension Mr. Brown, didn’t/don’t care that so many people on the Hill find their IB HS so subpar as to not attend it.

Except the long PPP proved that the IB populations are not similar. With real numbers. Repeatedly asserting a false thing doesn't make it true, and deciding that the principal at Eastern (1) doesn't care about improving the school, and (2) is personally the reason recent transplants to an area won't attend the local high school is a bad faith argument. The IB-questioning PP wanted him to disparage his current enrolled students simply so that she didn't have to run a google search. The fact he wouldn't do that doesn't mean he doesn't care about IB scores, it means he's not going to throw his actual students under the bus so a random person can turn her nose up at them. It probably also means he's seen this discussion play out before and isn't willing to dance to her tune.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

Nobody said they enrolled populations are similar. The IB populations are similar! That’s the whole point! DCPS, and by extension Mr. Brown, didn’t/don’t care that so many people on the Hill find their IB HS so subpar as to not attend it.

Except the long PPP proved that the IB populations are not similar. With real numbers. Repeatedly asserting a false thing doesn't make it true, and deciding that the principal at Eastern (1) doesn't care about improving the school, and (2) is personally the reason recent transplants to an area won't attend the local high school is a bad faith argument. The IB-questioning PP wanted him to disparage his current enrolled students simply so that she didn't have to run a google search. The fact he wouldn't do that doesn't mean he doesn't care about IB scores, it means he's not going to throw his actual students under the bus so a random person can turn her nose up at them. It probably also means he's seen this discussion play out before and isn't willing to dance to her tune.

Except long PPP didn’t prove it. She had an area too large on one side and too small on the other, with affects in both cases that go against PPP’s point.

But, while possibly illustrative, the issue is not arise from one anecdote, but from the hundreds of families that have lotteries out or gone private rather than attending Eastern IB, while Hill families have been clamoring for a reliable HS option for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

I'm not sure if its been messaged earlier on this thread but 24% of Jackson Reed students are considered economically disadvantaged compared to 100% of Eastern students per DCPS web site.

It’s not 100% at Eastern. It’s over some lower threshold level.

https://ggwash.org/view/34337/why-are-so-many-dcps-schools-listed-as-99-low-income-its-not-necessarily-because-they-are

These are DCPS own numbers.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Eastern+High+School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

I'm not sure if its been messaged earlier on this thread but 24% of Jackson Reed students are considered economically disadvantaged compared to 100% of Eastern students per DCPS web site.

It’s not 100% at Eastern. It’s over some lower threshold level.

https://ggwash.org/view/34337/why-are-so-many-dcps-schools-listed-as-99-low-income-its-not-necessarily-because-they-are

These are DCPS own numbers.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Eastern+High+School

I gave you the answer in the link. You don’t understand what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having lived in both places, yes, the families of school aged kids in ward 3 tend to be much wealthier than on the hill. That said, a much higher percentage of the kids also attend privates. And wilson has its fair share of kids who live out of bounds, although probably not as many as eastern, as a percentage of the population.

I agree that if the Higher SES hill population on the hill sent their kids to eastern at the same rate that the higher SES population in ward 3 send their kids to wilson, the demographics could be much more similar. I understand the hesitance of hill parents who aren’t receiving assurance that eastern would offer the same advanced coursework as wilson, even if kids capable of that work enroll at the school. I also understand the worry of ward 3 parents who hear that he did not try to attract hill parents to eastern, and think that he might also not seek to maintain the higher SES IB population at wilson. That said, ward 3 has status quo on its side.

Very well stated. While I'm not ecstatic to hear the Principal selection, we do have status quo on our side and I think our kids will continue to be just fine at Wilson.

I would be careful. The status quo at Wilson is actually weakening academics, implementing programs like honors for all and generally moving in the wrong direction.

PP here. Hmmm, I think you might be right. What do you think we parents should do? (I mean this with all sincerity.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:72% of eastern kids are at risk but only 37% of them actually live in boundary.

DP but now you want to carve out the Wilson IB kids that go private, and also carve out the at-risk Eastern kids that aren't IB? You have to realize every time you make a stretch like this you're proving PP's point, right? The enrolled populations are not similar.

Nobody said they enrolled populations are similar. The IB populations are similar! That’s the whole point! DCPS, and by extension Mr. Brown, didn’t/don’t care that so many people on the Hill find their IB HS so subpar as to not attend it.

No, they are not! Repeating the same information does not make it true.