Ranking Ludlow-Taylor vs SWS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just for the record, SWS is not in that boat. The waitlist remains super long and neighborhood people choose it over other highly sought after schools.

Not really. In-boundary Cap Hill parents almost always choose Brent (at least before this school year/the demolition), Maury and, increasingly, Ludlow and Payne, over SWS. Cluster parents tend to go with SWS over Peabody if they get a spot, true, mainly because Watkins continues to struggle. Same with Miner and JO Wilson parents.

Looking at the enrollments by boundary data doesn't give you a full picture because they don't report when fewer than 10 students attend a given school, but it's still pretty interesting for SWS. For SY19-20 through SY24-25:

Brent never had 10 or more students at SWS.

At its highest, Maury had 17 in SY20-21, but dropped below 10 in SY24-25.

LT has consistently had between 41-44 at SWS. 35 in SY21-22.

Payne had 29 in SY19-20. That number has slowly but steadily dropped to 22 in SY24-25.

Peabody has consistently had between 40-42. Much lower numbers in SY19-20 and SY24-25 but from another thread I'm fairly confident it's a data issue related to how the Peabody/Watkins boundary is defined.

JO has consistently had between 21-28 at SWS. SY24-25 had 32 but thinking that's just a blip related to renovation.

Miner has consistently had between 26-32 at SWS. 23 in SY21-22.

Wheatley has climbed steadily from 11 in SY21-22 to 18 in SY24-25.

Other schools that have had up to 10-12 students over multiple years: Amidon-Bowen, Bunker Hill, Borroughs, Langdon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a preference here, but was following the discussion and looked at school profiles and wow SWS has made great strides in diversifying their student population in the last 5 years ago! I remember when we were doing the lottery,the one thing about SWS that gave me pause was that it was like 80% white. That is really strange for a DCPS school that fills all seats via lottery, as it means that very few black families were choosing to lottery for SWS despite the good test scores. We still ranked it, but way lower than I would have otherwise because I saw this as a potential red flag that it wasn't a very welcoming community.

Well that's really different now. Less than 50% white and nearly 30% black. I assume there are some geographic reasons for it to still be more white than most charters and all city schools (it's not super accessible by public transit) but this is still a big improvement and indicates the school is working to be inclusive. Good for them.

I think you're misremembering. Farthest back I can find is 2018-2019 at 68% white. By 2020-2021 that was down to 59%. And 47% last year.

I think driven by 1) more apartments built up around that area, so more accessible to people who don't live in expensive Capitol Hill row houses, 2) more people in the Capitol Hill row houses opting into their IB school.

PP here and yes, I guess I misremembered the exact number. Still -- 68% white for an all-city school where admission is entirely based on the lottery is crazy high. Also I disagree that the increase in apartments in the neighborhood has led to greater socioeconomic variety -- it's the opposite. All the new apartments in Capitol Hill are higher end, and housing costs have only increased in the time period your are talking about. $4000/mo 2 bedroom apartments along H street are not helping to diversify SWS. Agree that more people on the Hill are choosing IB schools, but I would assume the school has also made a concerted effort to do outreach to non-white parents. I see they started doing equitable access a few years ago as well, resulting in 10 or so PK seats a year going to EA applicants. That likely helps a lot, especially at a school as small as SWS.

As a black family, seeing a lottery-based DCPS with more than 60% white students in a fairly diverse neighborhood was really jarring. We live in Ward 5 with a really weak IB school, but with an easy commute through the Hill so we were looking at lots of Hill and Hill-adjacent schools in the lottery. SWS was the only school where the percentage of white students was that high and it didn't make sense to me given the demographics of the city and the lottery. I'm glad to see it's more balanced now.

The "luxury" apartments in my neighborhood have a bunch of families on Section 8 vouchers.

They offered 6 equitable access seats in SY23-24, 8 in SY24-25, and 10 in SY25-26. That's ~6% of the total school population, not enough to be the sole source of the demographic shifts you're seeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think TR4 is a good analog to SWS because both schools have very nurturing ECE programs and the culture of the school is very geared toward ECE parents, but neither school is known for upper grade academics.

Whereas L-T, while it still has a loved ECE program, feels culturally more geared to 2nd-5th grade, especially with their after school clubs and the amount of family programming they have.

For this reason I would lean towards L-T because it's much harder to find good programming for older kids in DC and in the long run that will be more meaningful for your kids. Plus it's not like ECE is bad and L-T -- it's a good program.

Huh? SWS has higher scores above the board than LT.

Depends on how you break them down. If you don't consider demographics, then yes. If you do, then no. LT is more socioeconomically diverse than SWS with a higher at risk percentage (particularly in the testing grades) and a high needs classroom testing (10 student CES classroom of 3rd-5th graders). I don't think the exact percentage of students getting 4s+ or 5s tells you all that much about your kid's experience as long as the number is high enough. Both of these schools have solid populations getting 4s & 5s and getting 5s. When I dig into the numbers to look apples to apples, it looks to me like SWS is doing better at math and L-T is doing better at ELA relative to their student populations. But I don't think the difference in test scores is enough to be relevant to a decision.

I do think L-T has the best extracurricular and after school offerings that I have ever seen in a DCPS and from my perspective, that is way more likely to make my kid love school than most other factors out there. Also, it does seem to have a particularly active and tight knit school community that is rooted in the neighborhood. As SWS' Hill-based population has decreased, I think some of that has been lost. Of course, this is only a pro-L-T factor if you actually live close to the school. If you're commuting from a different neighborhood, you might be better off at a citywide school that caters to that where folks are more likely to be driving to playdates, etc.

The at risk percentage at LT is only 3% more, however SWS also has 5% more students with disabilities and also has self-contained classrooms…

So no, I still think SWS is better academically. Especially I think for pre-k -as their Reggio program has a stronger but LT also seems great. I’m not sure about extracurriculars so maybe LT shines though that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think TR4 is a good analog to SWS because both schools have very nurturing ECE programs and the culture of the school is very geared toward ECE parents, but neither school is known for upper grade academics.

Whereas L-T, while it still has a loved ECE program, feels culturally more geared to 2nd-5th grade, especially with their after school clubs and the amount of family programming they have.

For this reason I would lean towards L-T because it's much harder to find good programming for older kids in DC and in the long run that will be more meaningful for your kids. Plus it's not like ECE is bad and L-T -- it's a good program.

Huh? SWS has higher scores above the board than LT.

Depends on how you break them down. If you don't consider demographics, then yes. If you do, then no. LT is more socioeconomically diverse than SWS with a higher at risk percentage (particularly in the testing grades) and a high needs classroom testing (10 student CES classroom of 3rd-5th graders). I don't think the exact percentage of students getting 4s+ or 5s tells you all that much about your kid's experience as long as the number is high enough. Both of these schools have solid populations getting 4s & 5s and getting 5s. When I dig into the numbers to look apples to apples, it looks to me like SWS is doing better at math and L-T is doing better at ELA relative to their student populations. But I don't think the difference in test scores is enough to be relevant to a decision.

I do think L-T has the best extracurricular and after school offerings that I have ever seen in a DCPS and from my perspective, that is way more likely to make my kid love school than most other factors out there. Also, it does seem to have a particularly active and tight knit school community that is rooted in the neighborhood. As SWS' Hill-based population has decreased, I think some of that has been lost. Of course, this is only a pro-L-T factor if you actually live close to the school. If you're commuting from a different neighborhood, you might be better off at a citywide school that caters to that where folks are more likely to be driving to playdates, etc.

The at risk percentage at LT is only 3% more, however SWS also has 5% more students with disabilities and also has self-contained classrooms…

So no, I still think SWS is better academically. Especially I think for pre-k -as their Reggio program has a stronger but LT also seems great. I’m not sure about extracurriculars so maybe LT shines though that.

Pp
*through that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For early childhood both are great. However, long term academics are weak. Our youngest got a spot at sws and we are inbound for Ludlow. We decided against both and went for an immersion school with a dci feed. Even if the academics weren’t super strong at the immersion school it had a great path through high school and the ability to learn another language. I doubt this helps but I figured I would share since I had this choice. I would rank SWS above ludlow because we always had the right to enroll at ludlow.

Mundo Verde or Yu Ying? What kind of commute are you doing? I am OOB for LT but very nearby and considering both MVs and YY but commute is a big concern.

MV P st. Commute is fine.

In case this PP is still around… could you say more about what you mean by academics at MV not being “super strong”? We’re going to rank both campuses and also trying our luck on a mix of immersion and non-immersion.

Our child is in 6th now and her particular cohort really struggled with teacher retention. You can look back in the archives but third and fourth were bad years for our kiddo. We just started supplementing with tutors because we understood that DCI does have advanced classes. I can’t speak to current families but they seem happier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just for the record, SWS is not in that boat. The waitlist remains super long and neighborhood people choose it over other highly sought after schools.

Not really. In-boundary Cap Hill parents almost always choose Brent (at least before this school year/the demolition), Maury and, increasingly, Ludlow and Payne, over SWS. Cluster parents tend to go with SWS over Peabody if they get a spot, true, mainly because Watkins continues to struggle. Same with Miner and JO Wilson parents.

Looking at the enrollments by boundary data doesn't give you a full picture because they don't report when fewer than 10 students attend a given school, but it's still pretty interesting for SWS. For SY19-20 through SY24-25:

Brent never had 10 or more students at SWS.

At its highest, Maury had 17 in SY20-21, but dropped below 10 in SY24-25.

LT has consistently had between 41-44 at SWS. 35 in SY21-22.

Payne had 29 in SY19-20. That number has slowly but steadily dropped to 22 in SY24-25.

Peabody has consistently had between 40-42. Much lower numbers in SY19-20 and SY24-25 but from another thread I'm fairly confident it's a data issue related to how the Peabody/Watkins boundary is defined.

JO has consistently had between 21-28 at SWS. SY24-25 had 32 but thinking that's just a blip related to renovation.

Miner has consistently had between 26-32 at SWS. 23 in SY21-22.

Wheatley has climbed steadily from 11 in SY21-22 to 18 in SY24-25.

Other schools that have had up to 10-12 students over multiple years: Amidon-Bowen, Bunker Hill, Borroughs, Langdon.

It makes sense that the Ludlow IB has a bunch of kids at SWS, because SWS is literally in the Ludlow IB. There's probably 1/3 of the zone who live closer to SWS than Ludlow Same issue at CHML, on the other side of Ludlow's zone. As a complete aside, it has always struck me as crazy that DCPS set up TWO DIFFERENT citywide lottery schools in a zone as small as Ludlow. The conspiracy theorist in me has always wondered if it was intentional, because Ludlow had a history of being an academically rigorous majority AA school that attracted many MC AA families through the lottery (teacher's kids, city employees' kids, etc) and the principal at the time those schools were set up liked it that way. She was actively hostile to white IB families at the open houses and told our neighbors back in 2014 that the school was "not for them." The rapid swing toward IB participation at Ludlow is basically only within the last 10 years and is a true testament to the Ludlow principal from 2015-2020 and just how good the Ludlow teachers are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think TR4 is a good analog to SWS because both schools have very nurturing ECE programs and the culture of the school is very geared toward ECE parents, but neither school is known for upper grade academics.

Whereas L-T, while it still has a loved ECE program, feels culturally more geared to 2nd-5th grade, especially with their after school clubs and the amount of family programming they have.

For this reason I would lean towards L-T because it's much harder to find good programming for older kids in DC and in the long run that will be more meaningful for your kids. Plus it's not like ECE is bad and L-T -- it's a good program.

Huh? SWS has higher scores above the board than LT.

Depends on how you break them down. If you don't consider demographics, then yes. If you do, then no. LT is more socioeconomically diverse than SWS with a higher at risk percentage (particularly in the testing grades) and a high needs classroom testing (10 student CES classroom of 3rd-5th graders). I don't think the exact percentage of students getting 4s+ or 5s tells you all that much about your kid's experience as long as the number is high enough. Both of these schools have solid populations getting 4s & 5s and getting 5s. When I dig into the numbers to look apples to apples, it looks to me like SWS is doing better at math and L-T is doing better at ELA relative to their student populations. But I don't think the difference in test scores is enough to be relevant to a decision.

I do think L-T has the best extracurricular and after school offerings that I have ever seen in a DCPS and from my perspective, that is way more likely to make my kid love school than most other factors out there. Also, it does seem to have a particularly active and tight knit school community that is rooted in the neighborhood. As SWS' Hill-based population has decreased, I think some of that has been lost. Of course, this is only a pro-L-T factor if you actually live close to the school. If you're commuting from a different neighborhood, you might be better off at a citywide school that caters to that where folks are more likely to be driving to playdates, etc.

The at risk percentage at LT is only 3% more, however SWS also has 5% more students with disabilities and also has self-contained classrooms…

So no, I still think SWS is better academically. Especially I think for pre-k -as their Reggio program has a stronger but LT also seems great. I’m not sure about extracurriculars so maybe LT shines though that.

L-T has 3 self-contained classrooms and they are for extremely high needs students (CES). SWS's program is for kids with high-functioning autism (essentially the classic Asperger's), who tend to test very well as a general matter. This is not an equivalent comparison at all. Also, the at risk difference in the testing grades is much higher because Ludlow has been gentrifying (and fills 3 5th grade classes); SWS, on the other hand, has been essentially un-gentrifying and just allows attrition down to one 5th grade classroom. It means the testing grades demographics don't mirror the school's; this is verifiable looking at the raw numbers of at risk test takers at both schools.

[Anonymous]

EmpowerK12 shows the difference in the testing grades at-risk percentage as 11% (SWS) vs 22% (Ludlow), so Ludlow has fully double the percentage of at-risk students in the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a preference here, but was following the discussion and looked at school profiles and wow SWS has made great strides in diversifying their student population in the last 5 years ago! I remember when we were doing the lottery,the one thing about SWS that gave me pause was that it was like 80% white. That is really strange for a DCPS school that fills all seats via lottery, as it means that very few black families were choosing to lottery for SWS despite the good test scores. We still ranked it, but way lower than I would have otherwise because I saw this as a potential red flag that it wasn't a very welcoming community.

Well that's really different now. Less than 50% white and nearly 30% black. I assume there are some geographic reasons for it to still be more white than most charters and all city schools (it's not super accessible by public transit) but this is still a big improvement and indicates the school is working to be inclusive. Good for them.

I think you're misremembering. Farthest back I can find is 2018-2019 at 68% white. By 2020-2021 that was down to 59%. And 47% last year.

I think driven by 1) more apartments built up around that area, so more accessible to people who don't live in expensive Capitol Hill row houses, 2) more people in the Capitol Hill row houses opting into their IB school.

PP here and yes, I guess I misremembered the exact number. Still -- 68% white for an all-city school where admission is entirely based on the lottery is crazy high. Also I disagree that the increase in apartments in the neighborhood has led to greater socioeconomic variety -- it's the opposite. All the new apartments in Capitol Hill are higher end, and housing costs have only increased in the time period your are talking about. $4000/mo 2 bedroom apartments along H street are not helping to diversify SWS. Agree that more people on the Hill are choosing IB schools, but I would assume the school has also made a concerted effort to do outreach to non-white parents. I see they started doing equitable access a few years ago as well, resulting in 10 or so PK seats a year going to EA applicants. That likely helps a lot, especially at a school as small as SWS.

As a black family, seeing a lottery-based DCPS with more than 60% white students in a fairly diverse neighborhood was really jarring. We live in Ward 5 with a really weak IB school, but with an easy commute through the Hill so we were looking at lots of Hill and Hill-adjacent schools in the lottery. SWS was the only school where the percentage of white students was that high and it didn't make sense to me given the demographics of the city and the lottery. I'm glad to see it's more balanced now.

The "luxury" apartments in my neighborhood have a bunch of families on Section 8 vouchers.

They offered 6 equitable access seats in SY23-24, 8 in SY24-25, and 10 in SY25-26. That's ~6% of the total school population, not enough to be the sole source of the demographic shifts you're seeing.

Well I live near Capitol Hill and I don't think the luxury apartment buildings near SWS have a lot of people on Section 8 vouchers. The neighborhood has gentrified over the last 20 years and is more expensive to live in, not less. In addition to luxury building going up, you also see a lot of older row houses that used to be owned by middle class families getting bought by developers and turned into high end condos. I should also note that if apartment projects in Capitol Hill were bring in a large influx of lower income families, you'd be seeing more diversity at other schools as well. That's not the case. Schools like Payne, JOW, Chisolm, Van Ness, are all getting whiter over this time period. I think L-T is over 50% white this year for the first time ever (SWS is in L-T's boundary). The neighborhood is not getting more diverse -- it's getting whiter and wealthier with each passing year.

Agree it's not just EA families changing the numbers. But that's definitely helping. I would also assume that the school has just done a better job reaching out to middle class black families like mine, and perhaps making them feel more welcome within the community. A drop from 68% to under 50% indicates that a lot more black families are ranking SWS and choosing it over other lottery options. That indicates a shift in culture rather than a shift in demographics, especially for a school that is 100% lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:EmpowerK12 shows the difference in the testing grades at-risk percentage as 11% (SWS) vs 22% (Ludlow), so Ludlow has fully double the percentage of at-risk students in the data.

Yes and when you break out 5th grade at L-T, I would expect it's higher than 22%. L-T loses IB kids in 5th to charters and private schools, plus it is an attractive option for families looking to get their kids into S-H for middle school. This results in an above average number of students new to the school in 5th grade, many of whom are below grade level, while some of the school's academically strongest kids spent that year at BASIS, Latin, or private school. Testing results for 5th therefore don't reflect the school's academics, as many of the students taking CAPE in 5th at L-T did not do PK-4th there.

I'm just speaking to L-T, where I have personal experience. I have no idea if you see a similar situation at SWS. Where do SWS families sent their kids to middle? Do they retain kids into 5th? I have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EmpowerK12 shows the difference in the testing grades at-risk percentage as 11% (SWS) vs 22% (Ludlow), so Ludlow has fully double the percentage of at-risk students in the data.

Yes and when you break out 5th grade at L-T, I would expect it's higher than 22%. L-T loses IB kids in 5th to charters and private schools, plus it is an attractive option for families looking to get their kids into S-H for middle school. This results in an above average number of students new to the school in 5th grade, many of whom are below grade level, while some of the school's academically strongest kids spent that year at BASIS, Latin, or private school. Testing results for 5th therefore don't reflect the school's academics, as many of the students taking CAPE in 5th at L-T did not do PK-4th there.

I'm just speaking to L-T, where I have personal experience. I have no idea if you see a similar situation at SWS. Where do SWS families sent their kids to middle? Do they retain kids into 5th? I have no idea.

They do not retain kids. They actually lose a much higher percentage of their kids than Ludlow. The difference is that most recently Ludlow fills 3 classrooms for 5th by taking kids via the lottery as needed. SWS just drops from 2 classrooms to 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think TR4 is a good analog to SWS because both schools have very nurturing ECE programs and the culture of the school is very geared toward ECE parents, but neither school is known for upper grade academics.

Whereas L-T, while it still has a loved ECE program, feels culturally more geared to 2nd-5th grade, especially with their after school clubs and the amount of family programming they have.

For this reason I would lean towards L-T because it's much harder to find good programming for older kids in DC and in the long run that will be more meaningful for your kids. Plus it's not like ECE is bad and L-T -- it's a good program.

Huh? SWS has higher scores above the board than LT.

Depends on how you break them down. If you don't consider demographics, then yes. If you do, then no. LT is more socioeconomically diverse than SWS with a higher at risk percentage (particularly in the testing grades) and a high needs classroom testing (10 student CES classroom of 3rd-5th graders). I don't think the exact percentage of students getting 4s+ or 5s tells you all that much about your kid's experience as long as the number is high enough. Both of these schools have solid populations getting 4s & 5s and getting 5s. When I dig into the numbers to look apples to apples, it looks to me like SWS is doing better at math and L-T is doing better at ELA relative to their student populations. But I don't think the difference in test scores is enough to be relevant to a decision.

I do think L-T has the best extracurricular and after school offerings that I have ever seen in a DCPS and from my perspective, that is way more likely to make my kid love school than most other factors out there. Also, it does seem to have a particularly active and tight knit school community that is rooted in the neighborhood. As SWS' Hill-based population has decreased, I think some of that has been lost. Of course, this is only a pro-L-T factor if you actually live close to the school. If you're commuting from a different neighborhood, you might be better off at a citywide school that caters to that where folks are more likely to be driving to playdates, etc.

The at risk percentage at LT is only 3% more, however SWS also has 5% more students with disabilities and also has self-contained classrooms…

So no, I still think SWS is better academically. Especially I think for pre-k -as their Reggio program has a stronger but LT also seems great. I’m not sure about extracurriculars so maybe LT shines though that.

I have some experience with the IEP programs at both schools and one thing those numbers don't show is severity of disability. It's impossible to quantify this via the data we have, but anyone who works with kids in both programs knows that SWS has more kids with milder disabilities (mostly ADHD) while L-T's self-contained classrooms have more kids with greater impairment and higher needs. Both schools do a good job (not perfect) with meeting the needs of kids with IEPs, but the populations aren't really the same even though just looking at the numbers makes it look that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EmpowerK12 shows the difference in the testing grades at-risk percentage as 11% (SWS) vs 22% (Ludlow), so Ludlow has fully double the percentage of at-risk students in the data.

Yes and when you break out 5th grade at L-T, I would expect it's higher than 22%. L-T loses IB kids in 5th to charters and private schools, plus it is an attractive option for families looking to get their kids into S-H for middle school. This results in an above average number of students new to the school in 5th grade, many of whom are below grade level, while some of the school's academically strongest kids spent that year at BASIS, Latin, or private school. Testing results for 5th therefore don't reflect the school's academics, as many of the students taking CAPE in 5th at L-T did not do PK-4th there.

I'm just speaking to L-T, where I have personal experience. I have no idea if you see a similar situation at SWS. Where do SWS families sent their kids to middle? Do they retain kids into 5th? I have no idea.

They do not retain kids. They actually lose a much higher percentage of their kids than Ludlow. The difference is that most recently Ludlow fills 3 classrooms for 5th by taking kids via the lottery as needed. SWS just drops from 2 classrooms to 1.

Ah, that makes sense. I do think that accounts for a lot of the difference in scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a preference here, but was following the discussion and looked at school profiles and wow SWS has made great strides in diversifying their student population in the last 5 years ago! I remember when we were doing the lottery,the one thing about SWS that gave me pause was that it was like 80% white. That is really strange for a DCPS school that fills all seats via lottery, as it means that very few black families were choosing to lottery for SWS despite the good test scores. We still ranked it, but way lower than I would have otherwise because I saw this as a potential red flag that it wasn't a very welcoming community.

Well that's really different now. Less than 50% white and nearly 30% black. I assume there are some geographic reasons for it to still be more white than most charters and all city schools (it's not super accessible by public transit) but this is still a big improvement and indicates the school is working to be inclusive. Good for them.

I think you're misremembering. Farthest back I can find is 2018-2019 at 68% white. By 2020-2021 that was down to 59%. And 47% last year.

I think driven by 1) more apartments built up around that area, so more accessible to people who don't live in expensive Capitol Hill row houses, 2) more people in the Capitol Hill row houses opting into their IB school.

PP here and yes, I guess I misremembered the exact number. Still -- 68% white for an all-city school where admission is entirely based on the lottery is crazy high. Also I disagree that the increase in apartments in the neighborhood has led to greater socioeconomic variety -- it's the opposite. All the new apartments in Capitol Hill are higher end, and housing costs have only increased in the time period your are talking about. $4000/mo 2 bedroom apartments along H street are not helping to diversify SWS. Agree that more people on the Hill are choosing IB schools, but I would assume the school has also made a concerted effort to do outreach to non-white parents. I see they started doing equitable access a few years ago as well, resulting in 10 or so PK seats a year going to EA applicants. That likely helps a lot, especially at a school as small as SWS.

As a black family, seeing a lottery-based DCPS with more than 60% white students in a fairly diverse neighborhood was really jarring. We live in Ward 5 with a really weak IB school, but with an easy commute through the Hill so we were looking at lots of Hill and Hill-adjacent schools in the lottery. SWS was the only school where the percentage of white students was that high and it didn't make sense to me given the demographics of the city and the lottery. I'm glad to see it's more balanced now.

The "luxury" apartments in my neighborhood have a bunch of families on Section 8 vouchers.

They offered 6 equitable access seats in SY23-24, 8 in SY24-25, and 10 in SY25-26. That's ~6% of the total school population, not enough to be the sole source of the demographic shifts you're seeing.

Well I live near Capitol Hill and I don't think the luxury apartment buildings near SWS have a lot of people on Section 8 vouchers. The neighborhood has gentrified over the last 20 years and is more expensive to live in, not less. In addition to luxury building going up, you also see a lot of older row houses that used to be owned by middle class families getting bought by developers and turned into high end condos. I should also note that if apartment projects in Capitol Hill were bring in a large influx of lower income families, you'd be seeing more diversity at other schools as well. That's not the case. Schools like Payne, JOW, Chisolm, Van Ness, are all getting whiter over this time period. I think L-T is over 50% white this year for the first time ever (SWS is in L-T's boundary). The neighborhood is not getting more diverse -- it's getting whiter and wealthier with each passing year.

Agree it's not just EA families changing the numbers. But that's definitely helping. I would also assume that the school has just done a better job reaching out to middle class black families like mine, and perhaps making them feel more welcome within the community. A drop from 68% to under 50% indicates that a lot more black families are ranking SWS and choosing it over other lottery options. That indicates a shift in culture rather than a shift in demographics, especially for a school that is 100% lottery.

PP. I also live near Capitol Hill. You're making some sweeping generalizations about a bunch of schools without actually looking at the actual demographic changes or factors driving those changes.

Everything I hear about SWS seems very geared toward to the ethos of a certain subset of UMC families who have a stay-at-home parent or a lot of job flexibility. It's possible they're doing things differently these days, but if so, news of that hasn't reached this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a preference here, but was following the discussion and looked at school profiles and wow SWS has made great strides in diversifying their student population in the last 5 years ago! I remember when we were doing the lottery,the one thing about SWS that gave me pause was that it was like 80% white. That is really strange for a DCPS school that fills all seats via lottery, as it means that very few black families were choosing to lottery for SWS despite the good test scores. We still ranked it, but way lower than I would have otherwise because I saw this as a potential red flag that it wasn't a very welcoming community.

Well that's really different now. Less than 50% white and nearly 30% black. I assume there are some geographic reasons for it to still be more white than most charters and all city schools (it's not super accessible by public transit) but this is still a big improvement and indicates the school is working to be inclusive. Good for them.

I think you're misremembering. Farthest back I can find is 2018-2019 at 68% white. By 2020-2021 that was down to 59%. And 47% last year.

I think driven by 1) more apartments built up around that area, so more accessible to people who don't live in expensive Capitol Hill row houses, 2) more people in the Capitol Hill row houses opting into their IB school.

PP here and yes, I guess I misremembered the exact number. Still -- 68% white for an all-city school where admission is entirely based on the lottery is crazy high. Also I disagree that the increase in apartments in the neighborhood has led to greater socioeconomic variety -- it's the opposite. All the new apartments in Capitol Hill are higher end, and housing costs have only increased in the time period your are talking about. $4000/mo 2 bedroom apartments along H street are not helping to diversify SWS. Agree that more people on the Hill are choosing IB schools, but I would assume the school has also made a concerted effort to do outreach to non-white parents. I see they started doing equitable access a few years ago as well, resulting in 10 or so PK seats a year going to EA applicants. That likely helps a lot, especially at a school as small as SWS.

As a black family, seeing a lottery-based DCPS with more than 60% white students in a fairly diverse neighborhood was really jarring. We live in Ward 5 with a really weak IB school, but with an easy commute through the Hill so we were looking at lots of Hill and Hill-adjacent schools in the lottery. SWS was the only school where the percentage of white students was that high and it didn't make sense to me given the demographics of the city and the lottery. I'm glad to see it's more balanced now.

The "luxury" apartments in my neighborhood have a bunch of families on Section 8 vouchers.

They offered 6 equitable access seats in SY23-24, 8 in SY24-25, and 10 in SY25-26. That's ~6% of the total school population, not enough to be the sole source of the demographic shifts you're seeing.

Well I live near Capitol Hill and I don't think the luxury apartment buildings near SWS have a lot of people on Section 8 vouchers. The neighborhood has gentrified over the last 20 years and is more expensive to live in, not less. In addition to luxury building going up, you also see a lot of older row houses that used to be owned by middle class families getting bought by developers and turned into high end condos. I should also note that if apartment projects in Capitol Hill were bring in a large influx of lower income families, you'd be seeing more diversity at other schools as well. That's not the case. Schools like Payne, JOW, Chisolm, Van Ness, are all getting whiter over this time period. I think L-T is over 50% white this year for the first time ever (SWS is in L-T's boundary). The neighborhood is not getting more diverse -- it's getting whiter and wealthier with each passing year.

Agree it's not just EA families changing the numbers. But that's definitely helping. I would also assume that the school has just done a better job reaching out to middle class black families like mine, and perhaps making them feel more welcome within the community. A drop from 68% to under 50% indicates that a lot more black families are ranking SWS and choosing it over other lottery options. That indicates a shift in culture rather than a shift in demographics, especially for a school that is 100% lottery.

PP. I also live near Capitol Hill. You're making some sweeping generalizations about a bunch of schools without actually looking at the actual demographic changes or factors driving those changes.

Everything I hear about SWS seems very geared toward to the ethos of a certain subset of UMC families who have a stay-at-home parent or a lot of job flexibility. It's possible they're doing things differently these days, but if so, news of that hasn't reached this forum.

My point was that SWS isn't becoming more diverse due to an influx of apartment buildings on Capitol Hill populated by Section 8 residents. This is just a bizarre perception of the housing situation on the Hill right now. A major reason why my family lives "Hill adjacent" rather than on the Hill is that it only gets more expensive to live there. And we'd happily live in an apartment (we live in a condo now). You simply cannot explain the increased diversity at SWS based on a shift in demographics of the surrounding neighborhood.

Also my kids attend a DCPS on the Hill and I can assure that school is not getting more diverse. The opposite.

You came in here asserting something completely false about neighborhood demographics and, after it has been explained why you are incorrect, are digging your heels in for some reason.