Well, one major reason for disaggregating results by race is to uncover patterns of inequality within schools and school districts, relating to both achievement and resources. So if you have a diverse school but there's a lot of tracking that aligns racially (for lots of reasons besides malice) and those kids are sitting in classrooms with new or bad (less expensive) teachers and they're just wasting time while the beloved AP teacher who is excellent is only teaching white kids, disaggregating is a way to see that. As for measuring growth and not just "success," the point of caring about growth or other metrics beyond proficiency is to recognize teachers, students and schools who make progress even though kids don't all have the same starting line. This isn't just about schools that serve low income kids who might start school behind - in many cases (not all! the tests have gotten harder) "proficiency" is not that high a bar. By and large, if you get a bucket of rich white kids or really just rich kids from this area in your classroom, they're going to be "proficient" even if they peel potatoes all year. A growth score can expose those pockets of stagnation. Also, a valid growth metric is a better test-based incentive/accountability measure for educators than proficiency because it rewards moving all kids forward. Proficiency can create a perverse incentive to focus on kids right under the bar, let kids above the bar stagnate and write off kids who are too far behind. Not that teachers would think that was good, but if you are going to use these metrics to evaluate people you have to be realistic about how they work. A lot depends on what you really want a "good" school to do for your specific kid and what your goals are for their education and character development. More data is usually better. |
It probably doesn't know it was renovated, but also, it's just an algorithm. A realtor could give you a better estimate. |
Redfin tells me my 3/3.5 with finished attic SP home is up in value almost $200K from when we bought 5 years ago in the 700-800K range. However, I don't buy it. Even with a few improvements we've made. If we were to list, we'd probably do so for about $100-120K over what we paid. |
It sold for 815k....we live nearby and peeked in. It definitely needs a lot of work |
Crice. over 100k over list. Insanity. |
|
Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.
So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood. |
Wealthy people aren't lively? |
+1. A realtor's comment said there's a lot of water damage and mold in the house. Surprised at what it sold for considering. |
There are still homes listed here under a mil. We bought recently and find the neighborhood to be quite warm and friendly! |
more time than not they aren't black |
PP gets it. Historically the residents of SP have been middle and upper middle class of various races in nearly equal amounts. Truly a DC Unicorn. I hope SPs demographic fate doesnt end up mirroring WOTP. |
This isn't entirely true. SP was all white until the court struck down the covenants. It stayed mostly white until the early 60s when white flight left openings for the black middle and upper middle class fleeing the urban blight of the city's core saw the better housing stock and area. It turned mostly black with some jewish for the next 30-40 years before the recent trends started. Most people moving in now are white or mixed race couples. |
If SP has been diverse since the sixties--so five or so decades--then by this measure, PP was indeed correct to say that historically SP has been mixed. |
Or you could say it as transitional that started as X transitioned to Y and is now reverting back to X. Like much of the city as the urban comes back into vogue. |
Depends on how up market it goes, those wishes for continued price appreciation and basically hoping to whiten the neighborhood. |