Can anyone tell me the story of Stuart-Hobson?

[Anonymous]

Also Asian and in the neighborhood for a long time. You see the change in school demographics. At our Hill DCPs, our older child has 1 or 2 Asian classmates in his grade, while the younger sibling (3 years younger) has half a dozen.

We're IB for Watkins but use another DCPS (got lucky in K lottery) partly because Watkins still attracts very few Asian parents. Some years, the percentage of Asian kids at Wakins is still 0%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has no agreed on boundaries.

If we use Ward 6 as a rough proxy -- the 2015 census data tell us that the demographics are 51% white, 35% black, 4% Asian, 6% Latino, 2% mixed.

https://censusreporter.org/profiles/61000US11006-ward-6-dc/

Ward 6 is not a rough proxy for the Hill. For someone who keeps shrieking about “data” you sure do like to play fast and loose with it.

Not to mention that the demographics of an area as a whole can be quite different than the demographics of the school-age population.

DC as a whole is 45% white, 48% black, 4% Asian, 11% Latinx (which overlaps because it's an ethnicity not a race).

the child race data is broken down a little differently but for 0-4: 28% non-hispanic white, 47% non-hispanic black, 3% Asian, 17% Latinx

for 5-11 20% non-hispanic white, 57% non-hispanic black, 3% Asian, 17% Latinx

for 12-17 16% non-hispanic white, 65% non-hispanic black, 2% Asian, 14% Latinx

You can break it down by ward and neighborhood cluster at http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#DC/3/0/char/0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an Asian person living on the Hill for the past 20 years, there is a marked increase in presence. In the past, I could go months without seeing another Asian person walking around. Some days, I see three or four Asians. It may not mean anything to you, but for those paying attention, there has been a noticeable increase.

That's great but it's still not statistically significant. Good anecdote if it works for you

[Anonymous]

Since this thread notes the increase in Asians on the Hill, I'll also note that the Jewish population has increased too.

A middle school child I know was one of two Jews in her elementary school grade not too long ago. In contrast, at least 25% of my child's classmates are Jewish in her DCPS elementary. This may not be reflective of all Hill schools but it still suggests a change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since this thread notes the increase in Asians on the Hill, I'll also note that the Jewish population has increased too.

A middle school child I know was one of two Jews in her elementary school grade not too long ago. In contrast, at least 25% of my child's classmates are Jewish in her DCPS elementary. This may not be reflective of all Hill schools but it still suggests a change.

My lawyer is also a jew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seriously don't know the basics after perusing SH threads?

During the 2013-2014 school boundaries and feeders review, school system leaders refused to allow most of the nine DCPS elementary schools on Cap Hill to feed into an enlarged SH, creating a pan-Ward 6 DCPS middle school. DCPS intransigence on the issue was supported by the politically powerful leadership of the Capitol Cluster, both admins and parents (mostly residents Wards 5, 7 and 8), and their allies at the the pro-Cluster Capitol Hill Public School Parents Organization (CHPSPO). Sadly, most Cap Hill parents of little kids would have cheered the change.

Without the strongest Hill DCPS elementary schools--Maury, SWS and Brent--feeding into SH, the school can't improve quickly, catching up to Hardy and possibly Deal in this generation. Ensuring that SH become a predominantly in-boundary and high SES school is now a 10-20 year project, when it could have been a 3-5 year project. Not much more to say.

Agreed. The Cluster PTA president at the time Vince Morris was not helpful at all and inhibited any progess for growing the neighborhood. School safety and school management administrative culture was not his concern. He seems buddy-buddy with Grosso, so that says it all and now here we are with dysfunctional feeder patterns.

The pan-Hill MS concept was never concrete and not favored by DCPS to begin with. DCPS was not going to give any room for an argument to close either Jefferson or Eliot Hine by making SH the central MS.
Look at the proposals that from 2014 that are linked in the sticky at the top of this forum. The DCPS idea was and remains to strengthen each of the Ward 6 MS by reinforcing feeder patterns with a single or pair of "stronger" anchors.

On top of that, the numbers for the feeders in the pan-Hill MS wouldn't work for using SH. That is what CHPSPO argued, if I remember correctly. I'm not Vince but he expressed his position openly - as did the CHCS PTA that the Watkins/LT/JOW feed to SH is the most logical and sustainable.

What about a multi-campus Hill MS with all Hill ES feeding into a modernized Jefferson for 6th grade and a modernized E-H for 7th and 8th grades? With all current Stuart-Hobson feeder ES going to the pan-hill multi-campus MS, the Stuart-Hobson building could be turned into a citywide performing arts MS that feeds into Duke Ellington.

Nice ideas bandied about on DCUM in recent years that are going absolutely nowhere because DCPS leaders, the current mayor, and the DC City Council members aren't on board. Not a one.

The useless Charles Allen claimed to be for a Hill Middle School, but that was just another lie.

I wouldn't be so fast to accuse Charles Allen. The person in charge of the Edu. Comm. at the city Council is yours truly David Grosso. Why don't you call Grosso's office up and try to get a meeting to get your point across and see what kind of reception you get. Do you really think Grosso cares about Capitol Hill families? NOT!

Grosso does care about Hill families but is rightly concerned about equity and isn't going to favor white Hill families at the expense of the broader system. I'm a Hill parent who supports that.

OK, perfect. So how do poor kids benefit when most of the high SES families on the Hill bail from DCPS somewhere between K and 9th grade? What does the "system" get out of the age-old exodus?

I'm a longtime Hill parent who doesn't support bone-headed ed policies that spur the families of the great majority of our strongest students to flee our by-right traditional public schools after 4th grade. Grosso might indeed care, but he isn't nearly logical, pragmatic or competent enough to provide effective leadership of the Edu. Comm. No, he's too busy running down those racist high SES Brent families for avoiding Jefferson Academy. Spare us all his bleeding heart.

Exactly. You want to start fixing DCPS so families stay, then vote out Grosso. His "policies" are not your friend.

The success/failure of the school system isn't predicated on white students enrolling. Get over yourself

No seriously, vote out Grosso if you want safe, neighborhood schools. He's not a friend of the Hill.

[Anonymous]

The success/failure of an urban neighborhood school system IS predicated on neighbors enrolling in their buy-right schools.

When I moved to Capitol Hill in 2000, the percentage of in-bounds students at Brent was 0%. Yes, 0%. I remember checking the statistic on the DCPS web site before visiting with a friend, wondering if that could possibly be right. She's a USG employee who was tutoring a kid there weekly with a volunteer program run by the State Dept. I remember the school being dark and dingy inside, seeing many windows that had been boarded up with wood so long that the wood was falling apart, and broken glass on a banged-up playground.

Now Brent's student body is around 2/3 IB. Yet, a mile north, in a catchment area where the demographics aren't all that different from those in the Brent District, Stuart Hobson remains almost 80% OOB. This is true although the SH building is a lot nicer than Brent's has ever been.

That's the story of Stuart Hobson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The success/failure of an urban neighborhood school system IS predicated on neighbors enrolling in their buy-right schools.

When I moved to Capitol Hill in 2000, the percentage of in-bounds students at Brent was 0%. Yes, 0%. I remember checking the statistic on the DCPS web site before visiting with a friend, wondering if that could possibly be right. She's a USG employee who was tutoring a kid there weekly with a volunteer program run by the State Dept. I remember the school being dark and dingy inside, seeing many windows that had been boarded up with wood so long that the wood was falling apart, and broken glass on a banged-up playground.

Now Brent's student body is around 2/3 IB. Yet, a mile north, in a catchment area where the demographics aren't all that different from those in the Brent District, Stuart Hobson remains almost 80% OOB. This is true although the SH building is a lot nicer than Brent's has ever been.

That's the story of Stuart Hobson.

You're comparing elementary apples to middle school oranges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The success/failure of an urban neighborhood school system IS predicated on neighbors enrolling in their buy-right schools.

When I moved to Capitol Hill in 2000, the percentage of in-bounds students at Brent was 0%. Yes, 0%. I remember checking the statistic on the DCPS web site before visiting with a friend, wondering if that could possibly be right. She's a USG employee who was tutoring a kid there weekly with a volunteer program run by the State Dept. I remember the school being dark and dingy inside, seeing many windows that had been boarded up with wood so long that the wood was falling apart, and broken glass on a banged-up playground.

Now Brent's student body is around 2/3 IB. Yet, a mile north, in a catchment area where the demographics aren't all that different from those in the Brent District, Stuart Hobson remains almost 80% OOB. This is true although the SH building is a lot nicer than Brent's has ever been.

That's the story of Stuart Hobson.

You're comparing elementary apples to middle school oranges

And you are making the case for those of us who argue that SH feeders are changing, but it isn't happening overnight. As you point out, Brent came from 0% to where it is in a matter of a decade or so. That didn't happen overnight.

Also, the catchment for Brent is one of the most affluent on the Hill. Not sure where you are getting this idea that a mile away is basically the same. It isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The success/failure of an urban neighborhood school system IS predicated on neighbors enrolling in their buy-right schools.

When I moved to Capitol Hill in 2000, the percentage of in-bounds students at Brent was 0%. Yes, 0%. I remember checking the statistic on the DCPS web site before visiting with a friend, wondering if that could possibly be right. She's a USG employee who was tutoring a kid there weekly with a volunteer program run by the State Dept. I remember the school being dark and dingy inside, seeing many windows that had been boarded up with wood so long that the wood was falling apart, and broken glass on a banged-up playground.

Now Brent's student body is around 2/3 IB. Yet, a mile north, in a catchment area where the demographics aren't all that different from those in the Brent District, Stuart Hobson remains almost 80% OOB. This is true although the SH building is a lot nicer than Brent's has ever been.

That's the story of Stuart Hobson.

You're comparing elementary apples to middle school oranges

Not really. There's validity to side-by-side comparisons between Brent, and Maury, and the deeply troubled Watkins-SH nexus.

The real difference hasn't been catchment area demographics, location, curricula or ages served. The difference is found in the type of parental involvement/leadership we've seen in the last 15 years.

The pioneering Brent and Maury parents set out to primarily serve their neighborhoods and have achieved this overarching goal over time. The Cluster parents set the much more idealistic goal of supporting a school with a wide EotP draw. They've never really strived to create a neighborhood school collectively, so they mostly serve families from Ward 5, 7 and 8. Ward 6 deserves better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The success/failure of an urban neighborhood school system IS predicated on neighbors enrolling in their buy-right schools.

When I moved to Capitol Hill in 2000, the percentage of in-bounds students at Brent was 0%. Yes, 0%. I remember checking the statistic on the DCPS web site before visiting with a friend, wondering if that could possibly be right. She's a USG employee who was tutoring a kid there weekly with a volunteer program run by the State Dept. I remember the school being dark and dingy inside, seeing many windows that had been boarded up with wood so long that the wood was falling apart, and broken glass on a banged-up playground.

Now Brent's student body is around 2/3 IB. Yet, a mile north, in a catchment area where the demographics aren't all that different from those in the Brent District, Stuart Hobson remains almost 80% OOB. This is true although the SH building is a lot nicer than Brent's has ever been.

That's the story of Stuart Hobson.

You're comparing elementary apples to middle school oranges

Not really. There's validity to side-by-side comparisons between Brent, and Maury, and the deeply troubled Watkins-SH nexus.

The real difference hasn't been catchment area demographics, location, curricula or ages served. The difference is found in the type of parental involvement/leadership we've seen in the last 15 years.

The pioneering Brent and Maury parents set out to primarily serve their neighborhoods and have achieved this overarching goal over time. The Cluster parents set the much more idealistic goal of supporting a school with a wide EotP draw. They've never really strived to create a neighborhood school collectively, so they mostly serve families from Ward 5, 7 and 8. Ward 6 deserves better.

primarily serve their neighborhoods? its just more white and higher SES but mainly white parents inbound for the schools finally decided to attend them. Same thing could happen with the cluster parents if they actually went to the school they are inbound for. The main holdup now is that the charters start at grade 5 and are poaching the higher SES and yes more white people out of the inbound middle school again. Again if people would just go to their inbound neighborhood school the "problems" would be solved just like they were "solved" at Brent/Maury

[Anonymous]

Watkins is too large of a school. It used to have 5 classes per grade. Now it's 4. How many classes per grade for Brent or Maury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The success/failure of an urban neighborhood school system IS predicated on neighbors enrolling in their buy-right schools.

When I moved to Capitol Hill in 2000, the percentage of in-bounds students at Brent was 0%. Yes, 0%. I remember checking the statistic on the DCPS web site before visiting with a friend, wondering if that could possibly be right. She's a USG employee who was tutoring a kid there weekly with a volunteer program run by the State Dept. I remember the school being dark and dingy inside, seeing many windows that had been boarded up with wood so long that the wood was falling apart, and broken glass on a banged-up playground.

Now Brent's student body is around 2/3 IB. Yet, a mile north, in a catchment area where the demographics aren't all that different from those in the Brent District, Stuart Hobson remains almost 80% OOB. This is true although the SH building is a lot nicer than Brent's has ever been.

That's the story of Stuart Hobson.

You're comparing elementary apples to middle school oranges

Not really. There's validity to side-by-side comparisons between Brent, and Maury, and the deeply troubled Watkins-SH nexus.

The real difference hasn't been catchment area demographics, location, curricula or ages served. The difference is found in the type of parental involvement/leadership we've seen in the last 15 years.

The pioneering Brent and Maury parents set out to primarily serve their neighborhoods and have achieved this overarching goal over time. The Cluster parents set the much more idealistic goal of supporting a school with a wide EotP draw. They've never really strived to create a neighborhood school collectively, so they mostly serve families from Ward 5, 7 and 8. Ward 6 deserves better.

This is definitely not true. A group of parents that met at Turtle Park were among the "pioneers" but there were many out-of-boundary families included. The mantra was not to improve the school for the neighbors but to make the school better for all students and inside of Brent that same spirit generally pervades.

[Anonymous]

Please, the Turtle Park group (mostly comprised of in-boundary parents of babies and toddlers) was trying to make the school work for its catchment area for the first time since the 1970s. They were also trying to make the school work for families who lotteried in and the existing school population. No point in splitting hairs over what the hierarchy of contributing factors was. Better just to applaud them.

They did such a fine job that now Brent finally has an entire K class of IB kids, 15 years in from the group members rolling their sleeves up.

Watkins has been a much tougher nut to crack (if you believe in DCPS neighborhood schools serving neighbors first and foremost). It was far too big, and characterized by vice-like OOB ownership. The pre-turnaround OOB group at Maury and Brent weren't nearly as invested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, the Turtle Park group (mostly comprised of in-boundary parents of babies and toddlers) was trying to make the school work for its catchment area for the first time since the 1970s. They were also trying to make the school work for families who lotteried in and the existing school population. No point in splitting hairs over what the hierarchy of contributing factors was. Better just to applaud them.

They did such a fine job that now Brent finally has an entire K class of IB kids, 15 years in from the group members rolling their sleeves up.

Watkins has been a much tougher nut to crack (if you believe in DCPS neighborhood schools serving neighbors first and foremost). It was far too big, and characterized by vice-like OOB ownership. The pre-turnaround OOB group at Maury and Brent weren't nearly as invested.

I'm not going to quibble with this statement but it is illuminating. One of the reasons that the OOB population have this sway at Watkins is because they have been invested in the school for years, decades even. Certainly for longer than many IB who chose to bypass Watkins. The OOB cohort includes parents who themselves went to Watkins and many of whom lived IB when they did. Watkins also has a bit of a Ward 9 problem some of whom are also second-generation Watkins students. So it isn't that Watkins lacked commitment from families trying to make it work it is just that there has always been a mix of OOB and IB Cluster diehards (like our family) present. The big nut is the achievement gap at Watkins and if that were solved I don't think anyone would be questioning the commitment to make it work.