Moving to Capitol Hill/2017 PARCC scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No demographic or in-boundary-out of boundary info on the DCPS school profiles right now, which must mean that they're updating the site. Look again in a week or two. It's common knowledge on the Hill that the SH student body is around 80% OOB. The % may have dropped a tad this year, to the high 70s or even 75% - too early to tell.

You can also go on the School Digger.com site and click Stuart Hobson and Students to track demographic changes at the school in the last 20 years. Changes are a slow moving train. There were more in-boundary kids at Hobson when I moved to the Hill 15 years ago than now (partly because 5th grade was moved out of SH to Watkins, also because of increasingly untenable leadership challenges brought by the one principal for three Cap Cluster schools arrangement, which ended last year).

Funny how lots of people forget that OOB can mean people who are on the Hill. If your kid, for example, lives within the Brent or Maury boundaries and goes to S-H, your kid is OOB.

Students living inbound for Brent and Maury aren't getting into SH. Fail.

+1 - the OOB kids are coming from Watkins, JO and Ludlow. And nobody IB for Brent and Maury are sending their kids there.

That's not quite true. There are longtime IB Brent and Maury families with kids attending SH. There are families that moved in-boundary for SH (to bigger houses) along the way, killing two birds with one stone. Residency on the Hill is more fluid that relative newcomers tend to understand.

[Anonymous]

I love how people on here think they know everything ABOUT who goes to what school and what neighborhood they are from and that there are NO families from B and M at SH.

[Anonymous]

I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

At some point it might help you to drop the pretense and just use "white kids" and "black kids." As to the person who was horrified that a PP called her/him out as being prejudiced/privileged in re: Charlottesville, this story is illuminating:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-farmer-calls-out-liberal-racism-in-powerful-facebook-message_us_5925a027e4b0650cc020eb4d

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

What does this even mean? What are "Brent families" as opposed to Brent families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks, this is all super helpful! I wasn't aware of the demographic distinctions a couple people mentioned. It's extra impressive that Maury and Ludlow have improved so much and reached the Brent levels given those factors.

Ludlow and Maury haven't reached Brent level demographics. Brent is around 70% white and in-boundary, with a FARMs percentage that's dropped into the single digits this year (after nearly 15 years of steady change). Maury is more than half white with around 30% FARMs. Ludlow is still majority FARMs and around 25% white this year.

You can look at test scores all you want, but changing demographics and FARMs rates probably tell you more about the viability of a school for neighborhood newcomers. You can find high test scores at schools you wouldn't touch, like KIPP, SEED and DC Prep. The real difference between Brent and Maury and Ludlow is PTA bucks. The former have the dough to pay for teachers aides past K, which can make all the difference to parents seeking adequate differentiation in the classroom. Ludlow's PTA will raise six figures eventually, enough to start paying for classroom aides, but not for a few years. Ludlow is still a Title 1 school (40%+ FARMs) getting around 100K a year from the federal government to cover costs.

so what makes a school "viable" for "newcomers" in your opinion?

You're being cute or want an honest answer? Answer: two instructors in the classroom (the second paid for by the PTA) most of the time in all classes, along with strong art, music, performing arts, PE and a designated science teacher (paid for by the PTA for the first couple of years, now by DCPS). Also advanced math from 3rd grade up, one-two years above grade level. DC is probably math gifted (did Johns Hopkins CTY math camp this summer). Yes, we're at Brent. I'd also use Maury if in-boundary.

First of all, can we please strike the phrase "use a school"? YOU don't "use" a school. It's a public good. Your CHILD attends a school -- the school of the community in which you've chosen to live.

Second of all, it's clear you think race and income are the metric by which a school is "viable" for a white person, and likely the primary factor is race (since you concede you'd never "use" KIPP). That's just gross and I sure hope you weren't emoting all over facebook about how terrible Charlottesville was.

not PP but eww . . . You genuinely had me agreeing until that line. I'm not sure I see the connection with being disgusting by overt racist/anti-semitic demonstration, including violence and intimidation, is in any way equatable to choosing or not choosing a given school for whatever reason.

the point is that is easy to be "horrified" by open displays of racism, while not examining what you're doing yourself in your own life.

I get the point but it's a clumsy comparison relying on hyperbole. I too wouldn't use the term "use" for a school either as a school is a community and I'd no sooner "use" a school than I would "use" my neighborhood, religious congregation, work, etc. Schools shouldn't be transactional. PP also assumes race is the ONLY factor when it may or may not be one of multiple factors.

Personally I think the above PP statement reeks of classism more than racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

+1. I know OOB Brent families who live in Cluster boundary, lotteried to Brent for ES, and enrolled at SH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

+1. I know OOB Brent families who live in Cluster boundary, lotteried to Brent for ES, and enrolled at SH.

^^ though admittedly I know more who enrolled at BASIS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks, this is all super helpful! I wasn't aware of the demographic distinctions a couple people mentioned. It's extra impressive that Maury and Ludlow have improved so much and reached the Brent levels given those factors.

Ludlow and Maury haven't reached Brent level demographics. Brent is around 70% white and in-boundary, with a FARMs percentage that's dropped into the single digits this year (after nearly 15 years of steady change). Maury is more than half white with around 30% FARMs. Ludlow is still majority FARMs and around 25% white this year.

You can look at test scores all you want, but changing demographics and FARMs rates probably tell you more about the viability of a school for neighborhood newcomers. You can find high test scores at schools you wouldn't touch, like KIPP, SEED and DC Prep. The real difference between Brent and Maury and Ludlow is PTA bucks. The former have the dough to pay for teachers aides past K, which can make all the difference to parents seeking adequate differentiation in the classroom. Ludlow's PTA will raise six figures eventually, enough to start paying for classroom aides, but not for a few years. Ludlow is still a Title 1 school (40%+ FARMs) getting around 100K a year from the federal government to cover costs.

so what makes a school "viable" for "newcomers" in your opinion?

You're being cute or want an honest answer? Answer: two instructors in the classroom (the second paid for by the PTA) most of the time in all classes, along with strong art, music, performing arts, PE and a designated science teacher (paid for by the PTA for the first couple of years, now by DCPS). Also advanced math from 3rd grade up, one-two years above grade level. DC is probably math gifted (did Johns Hopkins CTY math camp this summer). Yes, we're at Brent. I'd also use Maury if in-boundary.

First of all, can we please strike the phrase "use a school"? YOU don't "use" a school. It's a public good. Your CHILD attends a school -- the school of the community in which you've chosen to live.

Second of all, it's clear you think race and income are the metric by which a school is "viable" for a white person, and likely the primary factor is race (since you concede you'd never "use" KIPP). That's just gross and I sure hope you weren't emoting all over facebook about how terrible Charlottesville was.

not PP but eww . . . You genuinely had me agreeing until that line. I'm not sure I see the connection with being disgusting by overt racist/anti-semitic demonstration, including violence and intimidation, is in any way equatable to choosing or not choosing a given school for whatever reason.

the point is that is easy to be "horrified" by open displays of racism, while not examining what you're doing yourself in your own life.

I get the point but it's a clumsy comparison relying on hyperbole. I too wouldn't use the term "use" for a school either as a school is a community and I'd no sooner "use" a school than I would "use" my neighborhood, religious congregation, work, etc. Schools shouldn't be transactional. PP also assumes race is the ONLY factor when it may or may not be one of multiple factors.

Personally I think the above PP statement reeks of classism more than racism.

I think it's being pretty willfully blind to claim that race and "class" don't almost fully intersect on the Hill. I understand that most parents only have their own child's best interests at heart, but I truly wish that they'd stop and think a minute about what their words and additudes suggest about "those kids" they deem "unviable" as schoolmates for their own children. No, you are not obliged to enroll your child in any school that you don't want to, but you are obliged to examine where your beliefs come from and the impact of your words.

[Anonymous]

Right, but plenty of Hill parents get tired of political and social pressure to participate in social experiments where schools go, and the strong PC strain to the conversation about ed reform in this city. Some of us just want to quietly buy the real estate that's a ticket to a decent public school, send our kids there from K-5th, then move on. I've been living in the Brent District long enough to see the school population double, and the FARMs rate plummet. Fine by us, though we keep that thought to ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right, but plenty of Hill parents get tired of political and social pressure to participate in social experiments where schools go, and the strong PC strain to the conversation about ed reform in this city. Some of us just want to quietly buy the real estate that's a ticket to a decent public school, send our kids there from K-5th, then move on. I've been living in the Brent District long enough to see the school population double, and the FARMs rate plummet. Fine by us, though we keep that thought to ourselves.

Yeah, fine by you and keep that thought to yourself. I just hope you don't emote about racial equality in other contexts or consider yourself a liberal/progressive at all. That's my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are Ludlow Taylor (PK3 and 1st grade) and very happy. Planning to stay till 4th/5th grade unless something dramatically changes for the worst.

It's true that there are more poor children there, but I *want* my kids to be exposed to different SES, especially given the current political situation, I feel like it's the right thing to do.

The parents, teachers and the new principal (from last year) are doing a great job with the new website, check it out: http://www.ludlowtaylor.org
(I personally know all the kids in the home picture =) )

+1 We have two kids at Ludlow this year, with our older child beginning 5th year at the school. The changes have been dramatic, all for the better. We love the new principal (in his second year) and this year he has a vice principal. Communication with parents is excellent and the school hires only the best educators. I doubt LT will be Title 1 much longer, as demographics continue to shift. However, the school now is in a sweet spot -- Title 1 funds mean low-cost aftercare ($85 per month) and free lunches for all. But at the same time, the community is warm and very engaged, and the PTA is starting to raise real money. Social capital at the school has really shot up since we've been there. Plus we have the largest FoodPrints garden in DCPS, and a brand new playground. Yes, PARCC scores continue to move up, but we're not ones to put much emphasis on test scores. Our kids are bright and will do fine wherever. Plus, it's nice to have feeder rights to SH, which we are definitely considering for middle school. Good luck, OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, but plenty of Hill parents get tired of political and social pressure to participate in social experiments where schools go, and the strong PC strain to the conversation about ed reform in this city. Some of us just want to quietly buy the real estate that's a ticket to a decent public school, send our kids there from K-5th, then move on. I've been living in the Brent District long enough to see the school population double, and the FARMs rate plummet. Fine by us, though we keep that thought to ourselves.

Yeah, fine by you and keep that thought to yourself. I just hope you don't emote about racial equality in other contexts or consider yourself a liberal/progressive at all. That's my point.

Where do you find the time and energy to concern yourself with who emotes about racial quality, who chooses a school based on demographic trends, or how PP's identify politically? So glad I come from New England, where a live and let live culture is deep-rooted.

See post above - LT parent satisfied with recent progress of the school, recognizing that a demographic shifts present new opportunities. That's more like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, but plenty of Hill parents get tired of political and social pressure to participate in social experiments where schools go, and the strong PC strain to the conversation about ed reform in this city. Some of us just want to quietly buy the real estate that's a ticket to a decent public school, send our kids there from K-5th, then move on. I've been living in the Brent District long enough to see the school population double, and the FARMs rate plummet. Fine by us, though we keep that thought to ourselves.

Yeah, fine by you and keep that thought to yourself. I just hope you don't emote about racial equality in other contexts or consider yourself a liberal/progressive at all. That's my point.

Where do you find the time and energy to concern yourself with who emotes about racial quality, who chooses a school based on demographic trends, or how PP's identify politically? So glad I come from New England, where a live and let live culture is deep-rooted.

See post above - LT parent satisfied with recent progress of the school, recognizing that a demographic shifts present new opportunities[b]. That's more like it.

Yeah, you just can't stop it with that stuff, can you?

PS - Boston is super racist. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/yankees-sabathia-black-players-expect-racism-when-they-play-red-sox-in-boston/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks, this is all super helpful! I wasn't aware of the demographic distinctions a couple people mentioned. It's extra impressive that Maury and Ludlow have improved so much and reached the Brent levels given those factors.

Ludlow and Maury haven't reached Brent level demographics. Brent is around 70% white and in-boundary, with a FARMs percentage that's dropped into the single digits this year (after nearly 15 years of steady change). Maury is more than half white with around 30% FARMs. Ludlow is still majority FARMs and around 25% white this year.

You can look at test scores all you want, but changing demographics and FARMs rates probably tell you more about the viability of a school for neighborhood newcomers. You can find high test scores at schools you wouldn't touch, like KIPP, SEED and DC Prep. The real difference between Brent and Maury and Ludlow is PTA bucks. The former have the dough to pay for teachers aides past K, which can make all the difference to parents seeking adequate differentiation in the classroom. Ludlow's PTA will raise six figures eventually, enough to start paying for classroom aides, but not for a few years. Ludlow is still a Title 1 school (40%+ FARMs) getting around 100K a year from the federal government to cover costs.

so what makes a school "viable" for "newcomers" in your opinion?

You're being cute or want an honest answer? Answer: two instructors in the classroom (the second paid for by the PTA) most of the time in all classes, along with strong art, music, performing arts, PE and a designated science teacher (paid for by the PTA for the first couple of years, now by DCPS). Also advanced math from 3rd grade up, one-two years above grade level. DC is probably math gifted (did Johns Hopkins CTY math camp this summer). Yes, we're at Brent. I'd also use Maury if in-boundary.

First of all, can we please strike the phrase "use a school"? YOU don't "use" a school. It's a public good. Your CHILD attends a school -- the school of the community in which you've chosen to live.

Second of all, it's clear you think race and income are the metric by which a school is "viable" for a white person, and likely the primary factor is race (since you concede you'd never "use" KIPP). That's just gross and I sure hope you weren't emoting all over facebook about how terrible Charlottesville was.

not PP but eww . . . You genuinely had me agreeing until that line. I'm not sure I see the connection with being disgusting by overt racist/anti-semitic demonstration, including violence and intimidation, is in any way equatable to choosing or not choosing a given school for whatever reason.

the point is that is easy to be "horrified" by open displays of racism, while not examining what you're doing yourself in your own life.

I get the point but it's a clumsy comparison relying on hyperbole. I too wouldn't use the term "use" for a school either as a school is a community and I'd no sooner "use" a school than I would "use" my neighborhood, religious congregation, work, etc. Schools shouldn't be transactional. PP also assumes race is the ONLY factor when it may or may not be one of multiple factors.

Personally I think the above PP statement reeks of classism more than racism.

I think it's being pretty willfully blind to claim that race and "class" don't almost fully intersect on the Hill. I understand that most parents only have their own child's best interests at heart, but I truly wish that they'd stop and think a minute about what their words and additudes suggest about "those kids" they deem "unviable" as schoolmates for their own children. No, you are not obliged to enroll your child in any school that you don't want to, but you are obliged to examine where your beliefs come from and the impact of your words.

I don't use or support that language either, but you're taking liberty with both my words and OP's words. OP never said anything about schoolmates being "unviable" or any reference to "those kids". I find the public school fundraising snobbery offensive and it inherently touches on inequality, including race and class, and I said nothing to suggest the two are mutually exclusive.