Looking on the Hill - curious for reviews of area elementary schools

[Anonymous]

Honestly, if you have a little kid or baby and you're overwhelming focus is already that they must have a "high performing peer group," that's a pretty stressful way to live. You have no idea what kind of kid you'll have. You may have a kid who blossoms being a leader if they truly are "high performing." You may find that (gasp) your child actually is not "high performing" and your kid is a solid 3 or 4. You may find that it's more important for you to have a small, nurturing school than your kid being part of a huge cohort of a "high performing peer group." You may find that your little 5 actually gets more "differentiation" as an outlier. You may even find that those 3s are nice and good friends to your "high performer" and that is more important than anything else. There may be many non-academic factors that are more important, like access to a good aftercare program, a shorter commute, a tight school community with friends in the neighborhood, and of course, housing costs. At the end of the day, this is *elementary school." There are a lot of things much, much more important than your kid being surrounded by 5s, and you actually have no idea how your kid's social, emotional, and academic trajectories are going to work out. Advanced learning and "high performing peer groups" can come later.

PP: As the mom of two kids with IEPs, I absolutely agree with many of your sentiments, since I've certainly had to adjust my expectations for my kids based on their own social, emotional and academic trajectories. That said, your post fails to take into account the huge discipline challenges that often plague lower-performing schools, due no doubt to the high numbers of broken families, economic challenges, homelessness, etc. If you want a "small, nurturing school" that values "your kid's social, emotional and academic trajectories," you're far more likely to find that at a high-performing school.

Signed,
Capitol Hill mom who learned the hard-way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you have a little kid or baby and you're overwhelming focus is already that they must have a "high performing peer group," that's a pretty stressful way to live. You have no idea what kind of kid you'll have. You may have a kid who blossoms being a leader if they truly are "high performing." You may find that (gasp) your child actually is not "high performing" and your kid is a solid 3 or 4. You may find that it's more important for you to have a small, nurturing school than your kid being part of a huge cohort of a "high performing peer group." You may find that your little 5 actually gets more "differentiation" as an outlier. You may even find that those 3s are nice and good friends to your "high performer" and that is more important than anything else. There may be many non-academic factors that are more important, like access to a good aftercare program, a shorter commute, a tight school community with friends in the neighborhood, and of course, housing costs. At the end of the day, this is *elementary school." There are a lot of things much, much more important than your kid being surrounded by 5s, and you actually have no idea how your kid's social, emotional, and academic trajectories are going to work out. Advanced learning and "high performing peer groups" can come later.

PP: As the mom of two kids with IEPs, I absolutely agree with many of your sentiments, since I've certainly had to adjust my expectations for my kids based on their own social, emotional and academic trajectories. That said, your post fails to take into account the huge discipline challenges that often plague lower-performing schools, due no doubt to the high numbers of broken families, economic challenges, homelessness, etc. If you want a "small, nurturing school" that values "your kid's social, emotional and academic trajectories," you're far more likely to find that at a high-performing school.

Signed,
Capitol Hill mom who learned the hard-way

Another Cap Hill mom and I have to agree. The sad truth is that it can be very hard to form a tight knit school community at a school that is facing challenges as simple as having high numbers of kids who do not get proper nutrition or are housing insecure. It's hard for any kid to feel nurtured in an environment where many kids are experiencing poverty.

I think the choice between a "high-performing school" and a "nurturing school" makes more sense if you are looking at private schools or are in a district with a lot of socio-economic homogeneity (and little poverty). I even see this discussion among folks who are focused solely on charters within the District. But at DCPS schools, the dynamics are different. I hate the idea of dividing schools into "good" versus "weak" but on the East side at least, that does seem to be what happens. The schools with higher test scores also tend to have higher overall attendance, more parent involvement, better teacher retention, etc. -- all the stuff that helps contribute to a better, more nurturing school environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you have a little kid or baby and you're overwhelming focus is already that they must have a "high performing peer group," that's a pretty stressful way to live. You have no idea what kind of kid you'll have. You may have a kid who blossoms being a leader if they truly are "high performing." You may find that (gasp) your child actually is not "high performing" and your kid is a solid 3 or 4. You may find that it's more important for you to have a small, nurturing school than your kid being part of a huge cohort of a "high performing peer group." You may find that your little 5 actually gets more "differentiation" as an outlier. You may even find that those 3s are nice and good friends to your "high performer" and that is more important than anything else. There may be many non-academic factors that are more important, like access to a good aftercare program, a shorter commute, a tight school community with friends in the neighborhood, and of course, housing costs. At the end of the day, this is *elementary school." There are a lot of things much, much more important than your kid being surrounded by 5s, and you actually have no idea how your kid's social, emotional, and academic trajectories are going to work out. Advanced learning and "high performing peer groups" can come later.

PP: As the mom of two kids with IEPs, I absolutely agree with many of your sentiments, since I've certainly had to adjust my expectations for my kids based on their own social, emotional and academic trajectories. That said, your post fails to take into account the huge discipline challenges that often plague lower-performing schools, due no doubt to the high numbers of broken families, economic challenges, homelessness, etc. If you want a "small, nurturing school" that values "your kid's social, emotional and academic trajectories," you're far more likely to find that at a high-performing school.

Signed,
Capitol Hill mom who learned the hard-way

Another Cap Hill mom and I have to agree. The sad truth is that it can be very hard to form a tight knit school community at a school that is facing challenges as simple as having high numbers of kids who do not get proper nutrition or are housing insecure. It's hard for any kid to feel nurtured in an environment where many kids are experiencing poverty.

I think the choice between a "high-performing school" and a "nurturing school" makes more sense if you are looking at private schools or are in a district with a lot of socio-economic homogeneity (and little poverty). I even see this discussion among folks who are focused solely on charters within the District. But at DCPS schools, the dynamics are different. I hate the idea of dividing schools into "good" versus "weak" but on the East side at least, that does seem to be what happens. The schools with higher test scores also tend to have higher overall attendance, more parent involvement, better teacher retention, etc. -- all the stuff that helps contribute to a better, more nurturing school environment.

but look at the numbers - Payne is solid. I don’t see any indication that it is a “low performing” school; it just has a higher percentage of at-risk kids. My personal experience has been that my own kid with an IEP does much better in a setting where the school is trying to serve needs of a variety of kids as opposed to catering to the expectations of the parents who demand everything for their “high performing peer group.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you have a little kid or baby and you're overwhelming focus is already that they must have a "high performing peer group," that's a pretty stressful way to live. You have no idea what kind of kid you'll have. You may have a kid who blossoms being a leader if they truly are "high performing." You may find that (gasp) your child actually is not "high performing" and your kid is a solid 3 or 4. You may find that it's more important for you to have a small, nurturing school than your kid being part of a huge cohort of a "high performing peer group." You may find that your little 5 actually gets more "differentiation" as an outlier. You may even find that those 3s are nice and good friends to your "high performer" and that is more important than anything else. There may be many non-academic factors that are more important, like access to a good aftercare program, a shorter commute, a tight school community with friends in the neighborhood, and of course, housing costs. At the end of the day, this is *elementary school." There are a lot of things much, much more important than your kid being surrounded by 5s, and you actually have no idea how your kid's social, emotional, and academic trajectories are going to work out. Advanced learning and "high performing peer groups" can come later.

PP: As the mom of two kids with IEPs, I absolutely agree with many of your sentiments, since I've certainly had to adjust my expectations for my kids based on their own social, emotional and academic trajectories. That said, your post fails to take into account the huge discipline challenges that often plague lower-performing schools, due no doubt to the high numbers of broken families, economic challenges, homelessness, etc. If you want a "small, nurturing school" that values "your kid's social, emotional and academic trajectories," you're far more likely to find that at a high-performing school.

Signed,
Capitol Hill mom who learned the hard-way

Another Cap Hill mom and I have to agree. The sad truth is that it can be very hard to form a tight knit school community at a school that is facing challenges as simple as having high numbers of kids who do not get proper nutrition or are housing insecure. It's hard for any kid to feel nurtured in an environment where many kids are experiencing poverty.

I think the choice between a "high-performing school" and a "nurturing school" makes more sense if you are looking at private schools or are in a district with a lot of socio-economic homogeneity (and little poverty). I even see this discussion among folks who are focused solely on charters within the District. But at DCPS schools, the dynamics are different. I hate the idea of dividing schools into "good" versus "weak" but on the East side at least, that does seem to be what happens. The schools with higher test scores also tend to have higher overall attendance, more parent involvement, better teacher retention, etc. -- all the stuff that helps contribute to a better, more nurturing school environment.

but look at the numbers - Payne is solid. I don’t see any indication that it is a “low performing” school; it just has a higher percentage of at-risk kids. My personal experience has been that my own kid with an IEP does much better in a setting where the school is trying to serve needs of a variety of kids as opposed to catering to the expectations of the parents who demand everything for their “high performing peer group.”

to be clear ... what I am saying is that the nurturing comes from teachers, staff, and admins with expertise and sensitivity. Not from moms who have a ton of time to volunteer for the PTA and making the auction as lucrative as possible to fund pet projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if you have a little kid or baby and you're overwhelming focus is already that they must have a "high performing peer group," that's a pretty stressful way to live. You have no idea what kind of kid you'll have. You may have a kid who blossoms being a leader if they truly are "high performing." You may find that (gasp) your child actually is not "high performing" and your kid is a solid 3 or 4. You may find that it's more important for you to have a small, nurturing school than your kid being part of a huge cohort of a "high performing peer group." You may find that your little 5 actually gets more "differentiation" as an outlier. You may even find that those 3s are nice and good friends to your "high performer" and that is more important than anything else. There may be many non-academic factors that are more important, like access to a good aftercare program, a shorter commute, a tight school community with friends in the neighborhood, and of course, housing costs. At the end of the day, this is *elementary school." There are a lot of things much, much more important than your kid being surrounded by 5s, and you actually have no idea how your kid's social, emotional, and academic trajectories are going to work out. Advanced learning and "high performing peer groups" can come later.

PP: As the mom of two kids with IEPs, I absolutely agree with many of your sentiments, since I've certainly had to adjust my expectations for my kids based on their own social, emotional and academic trajectories. That said, your post fails to take into account the huge discipline challenges that often plague lower-performing schools, due no doubt to the high numbers of broken families, economic challenges, homelessness, etc. If you want a "small, nurturing school" that values "your kid's social, emotional and academic trajectories," you're far more likely to find that at a high-performing school.

Signed,
Capitol Hill mom who learned the hard-way

Another Cap Hill mom and I have to agree. The sad truth is that it can be very hard to form a tight knit school community at a school that is facing challenges as simple as having high numbers of kids who do not get proper nutrition or are housing insecure. It's hard for any kid to feel nurtured in an environment where many kids are experiencing poverty.

I think the choice between a "high-performing school" and a "nurturing school" makes more sense if you are looking at private schools or are in a district with a lot of socio-economic homogeneity (and little poverty). I even see this discussion among folks who are focused solely on charters within the District. But at DCPS schools, the dynamics are different. I hate the idea of dividing schools into "good" versus "weak" but on the East side at least, that does seem to be what happens. The schools with higher test scores also tend to have higher overall attendance, more parent involvement, better teacher retention, etc. -- all the stuff that helps contribute to a better, more nurturing school environment.

but look at the numbers - Payne is solid. I don’t see any indication that it is a “low performing” school; it just has a higher percentage of at-risk kids. My personal experience has been that my own kid with an IEP does much better in a setting where the school is trying to serve needs of a variety of kids as opposed to catering to the expectations of the parents who demand everything for their “high performing peer group.”

to be clear ... what I am saying is that the nurturing comes from teachers, staff, and admins with expertise and sensitivity. Not from moms who have a ton of time to volunteer for the PTA and making the auction as lucrative as possible to fund pet projects.

I am the PP who originally pointed to Payne's test scores. As I noted, I wouldn't have any hesitation sending my kids to Payne in the younger grades, but a 30% on grade level cohort is simply not sufficient from my perspective in the older grades. If less than 50% of the kids are on grade level, then the teaching will be pitched to under grade level and the extreme focus will be on pulling kids up to grade level. I understand that. My snowflake is not their biggest problem. But my snowflake will not be well-served in a school pitching 3rd grade and up content to below grade level. (Also, as PPs have indicated, schools with more kids getting 1s & 2s than 4s & 5s are very different schools than the reverse in lots of ways that have nothing to do with academics per se. They understandably have bigger fish to fry than worrying about my kid much at all.)

FWIW, my kids go to our truly diverse IB that I am very happy with. I totally take the points about a neighborhood school, an involved school community & excellent teachers -- we moved within the Hill (not from/to Payne) in order to have all of those things.

All of that said, it sounds like Payne is a great school that's only getting better and I'm happy to hear that so many folks (including a few friends) are so happy there.

[Anonymous]

So, the perspective you are missing is that bc it's such a small community the teachers in the upper grades have plenty of bandwidth to differentiate. So the higher performing kids get personalized attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, the perspective you are missing is that bc it's such a small community the teachers in the upper grades have plenty of bandwidth to differentiate. So the higher performing kids get personalized attention.

Well, you have failed to disclose your kid’s grade. Until and unless your child is in a testing grade I give zero credence to your rosy-colored view.

Signed, former Cluster mom who used to be you until five years in....

[Anonymous]

^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

[Anonymous]

And to the grammar police, I meant “Its trajectory”....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, the perspective you are missing is that bc it's such a small community the teachers in the upper grades have plenty of bandwidth to differentiate. So the higher performing kids get personalized attention.

I’m unclear why a small community helps. Usually DCPS underfunds small communities, though as a T1 Payne likely has some nice additional resources. How big are class sizes at Payne?

[Anonymous]

Another Cap Hill mom and I have to agree. The sad truth is that it can be very hard to form a tight knit school community at a school that is facing challenges as simple as having high numbers of kids who do not get proper nutrition or are housing insecure. It's hard for any kid to feel nurtured in an environment where many kids are experiencing poverty.

I think the choice between a "high-performing school" and a "nurturing school" makes more sense if you are looking at private schools or are in a district with a lot of socio-economic homogeneity (and little poverty). I even see this discussion among folks who are focused solely on charters within the District. But at DCPS schools, the dynamics are different. I hate the idea of dividing schools into "good" versus "weak" but on the East side at least, that does seem to be what happens. The schools with higher test scores also tend to have higher overall attendance, more parent involvement, better teacher retention, etc. -- all the stuff that helps contribute to a better, more nurturing school environment.

That is straight up bonkers. It is literally our job as parents to raise humans that feel nurtured despite the poverty around them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

[Anonymous]

Class sizes are small. I don't know the numbers off hand but I think in the upper grades it's like 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

Space us the sanctimonious crap, PP. Brent, Maury, SWS and Peabody are all pretty thoroughly gentrified/majority UMC and white these days, and Ludlow's getting there.

Brent's at-risk rate is something like 5% and Maury's is in the teens. There are schools in upper NW, e.g. Stoddert, Hearst and Eaton, with higher percentages of poor minority kids.

Come on, nobody's buys in-boundary specifically for Payne. Payne is desirable for ECE (early childhood), OK for K-2nd, maybe 3rd, but on nobody's list for the upper grades. IB Payne parents still try to lottery out en masse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Class sizes are small. I don't know the numbers off hand but I think in the upper grades it's like 15.

The fact that you don’t know a typical upper grade class size at Payne underscores my prior conclusion that your child is still in the lower grades. Please report back to us in a few years and let us know how things are going.