Two Rivers/Two Rivers Young: How Are Things Going Under New Leadership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird to read this thread. It has been several years, but back when we were looking into schools for the PK lottery, TR got a ton of hype, including from people we knew on the Hill. I even toured it, though after doing so, I put it very low on the lottery list. Not because of concerns about academics or leadership but because I thought that the playground area at TR4 was very sad. I couldn't imagine having to play in that small little space right off Florida Ave. Didn't seem healthy to me.

PK3 parents are adorable.

Note that I am not a PK parent, and even when I was, I found a problem with the place. Also, why are people so obsessed with finding someone to flex on? It's sort of sad.

[Anonymous]

We have been at Two Rivers Young Elementary for several years. The community is lovely. I love the weekly tradition of community meetings and think that the school does a solid job in school-wide level and classroom level communications - especially compared to our experience at another charter. Our best years at the school have been when our kids have had strong, experienced teachers. We are fortunate to be in one of those years - especially in upper elementary. We are seeing progress in areas where my kids have been struggling and opportunities to stretch when they needed a challenge. I am optimistic that some of the changes the administration is making to curriculum will retain teachers for the longer term.

While we have had a good experience at the elementary school, we will look at all of our options for middle school.

[Anonymous]

So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

[Anonymous]

Most people responding here are not at the school anymore, so I am not sure that your assumption is based in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

Well, it takes a long time to make enough change that it'll show up in the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

Well, it takes a long time to make enough change that it'll show up in the data.

Fair point, but I was hoping to glean anecdotal insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

Well, it takes a long time to make enough change that it'll show up in the data.

Fair point, but I was hoping to glean anecdotal insight.

Look, TR had a catastrophic decline between 2020-2023. The mass exodus of leadership is a related thing. From what I can tell, this year has been a majorly stabilizing year but it will take time to rebuild what was lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

Well, it takes a long time to make enough change that it'll show up in the data.

Fair point, but I was hoping to glean anecdotal insight.

Look, TR had a catastrophic decline between 2020-2023. The mass exodus of leadership is a related thing. From what I can tell, this year has been a majorly stabilizing year but it will take time to rebuild what was lost.

You can dig up multiple threads with lots of thoughts/opinions of TR the past few years, and I do think there are some valid reasons families were leaving. But what I also see happening has nothing to do with TR. There are more families who are feeling comfortable sending their kids to SH, EH, and now there are two Latin campuses, and Basis, DCI, etc. Again, I am speaking from the outside, as somebody who has worked in and had kids in DC schools for 9+ years now. Both looking at data and enrollment trends at other elementary and middle schools, and also anecdotal observations of families opting out of their TR spot to return to DCPS for upper elementary or middle, or turning down their lottery placement there b/c they are happier than they thought they'd be at their original school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

Well, it takes a long time to make enough change that it'll show up in the data.

Fair point, but I was hoping to glean anecdotal insight.

Look, TR had a catastrophic decline between 2020-2023. The mass exodus of leadership is a related thing. From what I can tell, this year has been a majorly stabilizing year but it will take time to rebuild what was lost.

You can dig up multiple threads with lots of thoughts/opinions of TR the past few years, and I do think there are some valid reasons families were leaving. But what I also see happening has nothing to do with TR. There are more families who are feeling comfortable sending their kids to SH, EH, and now there are two Latin campuses, and Basis, DCI, etc. Again, I am speaking from the outside, as somebody who has worked in and had kids in DC schools for 9+ years now. Both looking at data and enrollment trends at other elementary and middle schools, and also anecdotal observations of families opting out of their TR spot to return to DCPS for upper elementary or middle, or turning down their lottery placement there b/c they are happier than they thought they'd be at their original school.

Agreed re: other MSes improving. Also, as someone pointed out upthread, I think the improvement of L-T has played a role in TR4 losing some of its luster and I think the same is true for Payne and TRY. Realistically speaking, even a well-run school replacing departing UMC kids with kids much more likely to be not UMC is going to face some issues. If you do that with a struggling leadership while expanding and facing a pandemic... you get what happened to TR.

[Anonymous]

Definitely the opening of Latin Cooper took a huge bite out of Two Rivers. As has the strengthening of Stuart-Hobson and Eliot-Hine, and ITDS continues to chug a long attracting a few kids away from Two Rivers middle school every year.

To get TR middle to a good place, it's going to have to be better than it was before COVID. Because before COVID, it wasn't that great, it's just that people were cutting it some slack because it was new and felt fresh and full of possibility, and people are naive and really love to believe that their wishes will come true.

[Anonymous]

Oh and the Mundo Verde expansion diverted some of the kids who might have accepted a seat at TR4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

Well, it takes a long time to make enough change that it'll show up in the data.

Fair point, but I was hoping to glean anecdotal insight.

Look, TR had a catastrophic decline between 2020-2023. The mass exodus of leadership is a related thing. From what I can tell, this year has been a majorly stabilizing year but it will take time to rebuild what was lost.

You can dig up multiple threads with lots of thoughts/opinions of TR the past few years, and I do think there are some valid reasons families were leaving. But what I also see happening has nothing to do with TR. There are more families who are feeling comfortable sending their kids to SH, EH, and now there are two Latin campuses, and Basis, DCI, etc. Again, I am speaking from the outside, as somebody who has worked in and had kids in DC schools for 9+ years now. Both looking at data and enrollment trends at other elementary and middle schools, and also anecdotal observations of families opting out of their TR spot to return to DCPS for upper elementary or middle, or turning down their lottery placement there b/c they are happier than they thought they'd be at their original school.

I’ll submit that this is because the entire TR model of inquiry/project based learning is ineffective, and especially so when the kids get to upper elementary and MS. It just doesn’t work, especially for kids who need more academic support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to the OP's original question, it doesn't appear that the new leadership has driven much overall improvement in the school.

Well, it takes a long time to make enough change that it'll show up in the data.

Fair point, but I was hoping to glean anecdotal insight.

Look, TR had a catastrophic decline between 2020-2023. The mass exodus of leadership is a related thing. From what I can tell, this year has been a majorly stabilizing year but it will take time to rebuild what was lost.

You can dig up multiple threads with lots of thoughts/opinions of TR the past few years, and I do think there are some valid reasons families were leaving. But what I also see happening has nothing to do with TR. There are more families who are feeling comfortable sending their kids to SH, EH, and now there are two Latin campuses, and Basis, DCI, etc. Again, I am speaking from the outside, as somebody who has worked in and had kids in DC schools for 9+ years now. Both looking at data and enrollment trends at other elementary and middle schools, and also anecdotal observations of families opting out of their TR spot to return to DCPS for upper elementary or middle, or turning down their lottery placement there b/c they are happier than they thought they'd be at their original school.

I’ll submit that this is because the entire TR model of inquiry/project based learning is ineffective, and especially so when the kids get to upper elementary and MS. It just doesn’t work, especially for kids who need more academic support.

Dumb take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird to read this thread. It has been several years, but back when we were looking into schools for the PK lottery, TR got a ton of hype, including from people we knew on the Hill. I even toured it, though after doing so, I put it very low on the lottery list. Not because of concerns about academics or leadership but because I thought that the playground area at TR4 was very sad. I couldn't imagine having to play in that small little space right off Florida Ave. Didn't seem healthy to me.

PK3 parents are adorable.

I'm laughing at this. I also shake my head at mention of playgrounds being the reason you select a school (or not). The irony is the kids don't even care. What matters most in the end is quality of education, which you will start seeing the fruit of sooner than later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird to read this thread. It has been several years, but back when we were looking into schools for the PK lottery, TR got a ton of hype, including from people we knew on the Hill. I even toured it, though after doing so, I put it very low on the lottery list. Not because of concerns about academics or leadership but because I thought that the playground area at TR4 was very sad. I couldn't imagine having to play in that small little space right off Florida Ave. Didn't seem healthy to me.

PK3 parents are adorable.

I'm laughing at this. I also shake my head at mention of playgrounds being the reason you select a school (or not). The irony is the kids don't even care. What matters most in the end is quality of education, which you will start seeing the fruit of sooner than later.

You know what, I'm not a PK parent and I don't have a kid at TR, but I'm going to stick up for this PP.

Yes, caring about a small playground, in the grand scheme of things, is not a great reason to pick or not pick a school. However, the TR 4th playground is not merely small (I mean, the school is small, so the size of the playground is not that big of a deal). As the PP notes, it's right on Florida Avenue. Which means it's also loud and right next to a busy street with a lot of pollutants. Also, because of the tire place on the same block, cars often line up in the right lane on Florida Avenue to wait their turn at the tire place, so you have vehicles idling next to the playground frequently. Not great.

I live in the neighborhood, so I also know a little secret, which is that sometimes teachers at TR take kids to a public playground at the corner of 5th and K as a "treat." I learned this because when my kid was small, we loved that playground because it's very small scale and generally attracts fewer big kids, making it an ideal place to take a kid under age 3, especially during school hours. But sometimes TR classes would come in with 2nd and 3rd graders and take it over. Now, it's a public playground so that's their prerogative -- I generally didn't care that much. But I also wonder if the reason they do this is because the playground facilities at TR 4th are so paltry, so going to a tiny playground designed for toddlers is a "treat."

The truth is that the 4th street campus is not very appealing, and not just for PK families. We've toured it, and I dislike how little natural light is in the building, and how cramped it feels with the multiple floors of classrooms all clustered around that center gathering space in the middle.

Academically, the school seemed fine, but the space was not very appealing to me and that turned me off it. Yes, teaching and culture matter more than environment. But environment still matters, and the limited play space at TR, and its location on a very busy and loud street, are reasonable concerns for any grade parent, not just PK. My kid is now in middle elementary, and I'd have the same concerns about TR's physical space now as I did back then.