MacArthur

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say it’s mostly Hardy students. Lots of former Burke kids and some other privates. Kids complaining that it feels like Hardy all over again. No varsity sports or extracurriculars no clubs—no theatre. Lots of rules, little freedom, admin overzealous about all manor of weird things but especially about girls dress codes. Backpacks not allowed in hallways. A lot of Hardy vibes.

I thought they were upfront that it will take several years for sports to ramp.

I mean…how well will any team perform if the entire varsity lineup is freshmen.

And that would be fine if people were choosing to go to this school, but IB kids will be forced to attend a school with seriously limited academic and sports offerings. That's just not fair.

I understand it is not convenient, but I understand you can play on JR teams if you want. Are you suggesting they should have just launched with all 4 grades? They will offer many sports, but just waiting for the numbers to ramp.

I’m curious to see if this actually happens. This seems like an easy way to dismiss these concerns but when push comes to shove is Jackson Reed really going to give MacArthur kids a spot on the baseball or football team considering they’d have to bus up there after school and based on the current bus commute that will take approx 45 min at a minimum.

Well...if you are a good enough player the answer is always yes. The coaches care more about winning than which HS they attend. Many coaches are not teachers at the school, so they are just trying to field the most competitive team possible.

With respect to football...the answer is a definitive Yes because JR can barely field a team (and quite honestly, it is terrible).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are 9th graders taking AP classes? The recent WaPo article implied freshmen could take several. This is certainly not the case at JR.

Not that I know of. All core classes seem to be called Pre-AP.

[Anonymous]

are they going to change the name or keep it named after General Douglas MacArthur? Western High, a connection to the old bland geographic names like Eastern High would be easy, without the controversy of a person, living or dead with or without any connection to DC.


The road was originally named Conduit Road,[1] as it was built atop the Washington Aqueduct. The aqueduct delivers water from the Potomac River to the Dalecarlia Reservoir, which is the primary source of drinking water in the District of Columbia.

The road was renamed for General Douglas MacArthur on March 5, 1942, when a local resident living off the road proposed the name change to his friend, Texas representative Luther Alexander Johnson, who sponsored the bill in Congress.[1]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:are they going to change the name or keep it named after General Douglas MacArthur? Western High, a connection to the old bland geographic names like Eastern High would be easy, without the controversy of a person, living or dead with or without any connection to DC.


The road was originally named Conduit Road,[1] as it was built atop the Washington Aqueduct. The aqueduct delivers water from the Potomac River to the Dalecarlia Reservoir, which is the primary source of drinking water in the District of Columbia.

The road was renamed for General Douglas MacArthur on March 5, 1942, when a local resident living off the road proposed the name change to his friend, Texas representative Luther Alexander Johnson, who sponsored the bill in Congress.[1]

Who cares. The name is low priority.

[Anonymous]

When I went to Deal years ago, Principal Moss (Mr. Moss) implemented a dress code where all boys had to have their shirts tucked in and wear a belt. Lots of tucked in t-shirts. If you didn’t have a belt, you went to the principal’s office and they tied a rope around your waist.

Being teenagers, we were annoyed by it. But we didn’t go into theatrics about people policing our bodies. It was a minor annoyance, and maybe something that actually contributed to the order in the school. People need to stop acting as if every attempt at standards is some sort of human rights violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say it’s mostly Hardy students. Lots of former Burke kids and some other privates. Kids complaining that it feels like Hardy all over again. No varsity sports or extracurriculars no clubs—no theatre. Lots of rules, little freedom, admin overzealous about all manor of weird things but especially about girls dress codes. Backpacks not allowed in hallways. A lot of Hardy vibes.

I thought they were upfront that it will take several years for sports to ramp.

I mean…how well will any team perform if the entire varsity lineup is freshmen.

And that would be fine if people were choosing to go to this school, but IB kids will be forced to attend a school with seriously limited academic and sports offerings. That's just not fair.

I understand it is not convenient, but I understand you can play on JR teams if you want. Are you suggesting they should have just launched with all 4 grades? They will offer many sports, but just waiting for the numbers to ramp.

You only go to high school once. It seems like at least 2-3 of these years will be "ramping up" for current 9th graders. And yes, I think the school should have been launched with a full offering of arts/theatre and sports opportunities, as well as academic classes. You can't really do sports at JR because there is no transportation provided to get to practice. A second rate experience all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say it’s mostly Hardy students. Lots of former Burke kids and some other privates. Kids complaining that it feels like Hardy all over again. No varsity sports or extracurriculars no clubs—no theatre. Lots of rules, little freedom, admin overzealous about all manor of weird things but especially about girls dress codes. Backpacks not allowed in hallways. A lot of Hardy vibes.

I thought they were upfront that it will take several years for sports to ramp.

I mean…how well will any team perform if the entire varsity lineup is freshmen.

And that would be fine if people were choosing to go to this school, but IB kids will be forced to attend a school with seriously limited academic and sports offerings. That's just not fair.

I understand it is not convenient, but I understand you can play on JR teams if you want. Are you suggesting they should have just launched with all 4 grades? They will offer many sports, but just waiting for the numbers to ramp.

You only go to high school once. It seems like at least 2-3 of these years will be "ramping up" for current 9th graders. And yes, I think the school should have been launched with a full offering of arts/theatre and sports opportunities, as well as academic classes. You can't really do sports at JR because there is no transportation provided to get to practice. A second rate experience all around.

I, too, think commuting to sports at JR is unrealistic and believe that DCPS needs to provide extra budget in the early years for classes that may be needed but not yet full.

Nonetheless, there will be limitations, which is why the first couple of years have a choice. By the time the current 7th graders have no choice in feed, all four grades will have students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:are they going to change the name or keep it named after General Douglas MacArthur? Western High, a connection to the old bland geographic names like Eastern High would be easy, without the controversy of a person, living or dead with or without any connection to DC.


The road was originally named Conduit Road,[1] as it was built atop the Washington Aqueduct. The aqueduct delivers water from the Potomac River to the Dalecarlia Reservoir, which is the primary source of drinking water in the District of Columbia.

The road was renamed for General Douglas MacArthur on March 5, 1942, when a local resident living off the road proposed the name change to his friend, Texas representative Luther Alexander Johnson, who sponsored the bill in Congress.[1]

Technically the school is named for the road, not the man.

Although I could get behind Conduit High School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say it’s mostly Hardy students. Lots of former Burke kids and some other privates. Kids complaining that it feels like Hardy all over again. No varsity sports or extracurriculars no clubs—no theatre. Lots of rules, little freedom, admin overzealous about all manor of weird things but especially about girls dress codes. Backpacks not allowed in hallways. A lot of Hardy vibes.

I thought they were upfront that it will take several years for sports to ramp.

I mean…how well will any team perform if the entire varsity lineup is freshmen.

And that would be fine if people were choosing to go to this school, but IB kids will be forced to attend a school with seriously limited academic and sports offerings. That's just not fair.

I understand it is not convenient, but I understand you can play on JR teams if you want. Are you suggesting they should have just launched with all 4 grades? They will offer many sports, but just waiting for the numbers to ramp.

This is true, but even after those couple years, the school will still lack for sports. Why not continue the choice so kids with no interest in sports can go to Macarthur and those who do can go to JR? Sports are really important to some high school students, and it can even help them get into college.

You only go to high school once. It seems like at least 2-3 of these years will be "ramping up" for current 9th graders. And yes, I think the school should have been launched with a full offering of arts/theatre and sports opportunities, as well as academic classes. You can't really do sports at JR because there is no transportation provided to get to practice. A second rate experience all around.

I, too, think commuting to sports at JR is unrealistic and believe that DCPS needs to provide extra budget in the early years for classes that may be needed but not yet full.

Nonetheless, there will be limitations, which is why the first couple of years have a choice. By the time the current 7th graders have no choice in feed, all four grades will have students.

[Anonymous]

DCPS needs to get an activities bus for students to travel to JR; a cheese bus will do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say it’s mostly Hardy students. Lots of former Burke kids and some other privates. Kids complaining that it feels like Hardy all over again. No varsity sports or extracurriculars no clubs—no theatre. Lots of rules, little freedom, admin overzealous about all manor of weird things but especially about girls dress codes. Backpacks not allowed in hallways. A lot of Hardy vibes.

I thought they were upfront that it will take several years for sports to ramp.

I mean…how well will any team perform if the entire varsity lineup is freshmen.

And that would be fine if people were choosing to go to this school, but IB kids will be forced to attend a school with seriously limited academic and sports offerings. That's just not fair.

I understand it is not convenient, but I understand you can play on JR teams if you want. Are you suggesting they should have just launched with all 4 grades? They will offer many sports, but just waiting for the numbers to ramp.

There will continue to be limitations with sports even after two years given the limitations of the facility. Why not continue to give kids a choice so non-athletic kids can go to Macarthur and kids who are into sports can go to JR. Sports are important for some kids and can help them secure admission/scholarships to college. Why deprive a random group of high school students of that opportunity?

You only go to high school once. It seems like at least 2-3 of these years will be "ramping up" for current 9th graders. And yes, I think the school should have been launched with a full offering of arts/theatre and sports opportunities, as well as academic classes. You can't really do sports at JR because there is no transportation provided to get to practice. A second rate experience all around.

I, too, think commuting to sports at JR is unrealistic and believe that DCPS needs to provide extra budget in the early years for classes that may be needed but not yet full.

Nonetheless, there will be limitations, which is why the first couple of years have a choice. By the time the current 7th graders have no choice in feed, all four grades will have students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does being OOB/IB matter for determining how the school is going? The question is really troubling.

Because in DC in ward 3, it tends to correlate with academic performance. People are really asking what is the peer group like? Is there buy in from IB families.

We get it, relax, most of the OOB kids are going to be white kids from Wards 1,4,5 - they are the most likely to have the resources to commute to that part of the city, just like you and the mayor wanted.

Ugh, you are feeding my conspiracy-theory-focused brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I went to Deal years ago, Principal Moss (Mr. Moss) implemented a dress code where all boys had to have their shirts tucked in and wear a belt. Lots of tucked in t-shirts. If you didn’t have a belt, you went to the principal’s office and they tied a rope around your waist.

Being teenagers, we were annoyed by it. But we didn’t go into theatrics about people policing our bodies. It was a minor annoyance, and maybe something that actually contributed to the order in the school. People need to stop acting as if every attempt at standards is some sort of human rights violation.

Or it had no impact on order in the school because whether or not a kid is wearing a belt or has their shirt tucked in is absolutely meaningless.

And since we’re sharing anecdotes, here’s mine: when I was in high school 30+ years ago, I was sent home one day because I wore a tank top with a sports bra underneath, and the armholes on the tank top were low enough that you could see the sports bra. I was forced to miss class time to drive myself home and change. Multiple (girl) friends were dresscoded for having blouses that were slightly sheer. I never heard about a boy getting dress-coded. The lesson I took from that is that dress codes disproportionately target girls and waste everyone’s time. I’ve always pushed the limits of dress codes in my places of work (wearing sandals when they were prohibited, not wearing panty hose, etc.) and have managed to have a very successful career. Now that I’m an executive, I’ve used my influence to challenge/eliminate/loosen dress codes wherever possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people okay with banning tank tops? The "dress code" is used to police girls' clothing and bodies. Boys are not wearing "muscle shirts". Girls wear tank tops. It's August in DC and some of the classrooms are very hot. I'm not even talking about crop tops but tank tops that show a girl's shoulder. It's sad to see people on this thread being comfortable with this policy. What is wrong with a 14-year-old girl showing her shoulders? These dress code policies send girls terrible messages about their bodies.

Three inches above the knee for short or skirt length? You can't possibly believe that this is a policy meant for boys and girls too? If the shorts cover the person's butt entirely and don't show off their underwear, there should be no length requirements. What is so terrible about girls having their LEGS exposed? Tall girls and girls with long legs will not find shorts of this length.

This school has had a year to start working on its identity along with getting itself off the ground. That dress code messaging takes up a good chunk of their emails to parents and students is disheartening and, in my opinion, shows a lack of focus on more important things.

Here is the problem. Go talk to the source, like I did. The principal is outside in the morning and we had a brief conversation about it. The school is very responsive. I support it! On day one you literally had students who had their undergarments exposed. I saw it with my own eyes. No one is policing the children or bothering them about their clothes from what the school admin explained to me. One announcement was made as a reminder and the policy was located in two of the updates I received from the school. I DO NOT want my child going to school where being close to naked is acceptable. News Flash if you go to Jackson Reed's website they have the same EXACT policy. Why? Because schools are trying to provide students with some type of standards when it comes to appropriate dress b/c some parents allow their children to run their household and think that the same freedom exists in society. No, the policy is not just for the girls either! The overall message was that undergarments could not be exposed. If there was no dress code, people would have a problem. If there was a uniform people would have a problem. The school did not have a year to get its identity when most of the staff did not start until July and August per their contracts. The district did.

How about you get off the computer and get involved? You would have accurate information instead of spewing misinformation for people to believe. See you at the next parent meeting since you are so concerned! I will sure be there to shut this down.

I'm sorry, but how do you know I'm not involved? I am not spreading misinformation. I am reporting what I have seen and read myself. Furthermore, who put you in charge to "shut this down"? We are all entitled to our opinion. I think focusing on the dress code is a low priority--you don't. But you don't get to decide what others have issues with or what we discuss in PTO meetings. You are not the boss. You say no one is policing students' bodies or clothing yet here you are, ranting about naked teenagers and their UNDERGARMENTS.

I am going "to the source". Announcements were made at school, a newsletter before school discussed the dress code at length, and the first-day round-up email from the Principal was 3/4 about the dress code. On our tour of the school, the dress code was talked about at length including the number of inches one's shorts should be above the knee. That's a lot of focus on clothing. Too much in my opinion. If they really have only been on staff since July or August all the more reason for their communications to focus on more important things--like academics, clubs, sports, support for kids, etc.

The dress code may not be just for girls but who do you think they apply no tank tops and no short shorts to? Do you think boys are trying to show up in spaghetti-strap tanks and short shorts to school?

No one is "close to naked" as you say wearing a tank top, spaghetti straps, or short shorts. Stop being hysterical. I don't want to see your butt cheeks but apart from that, shorts are short these days. Seeing legs and a bra strap under a tank top is hardly controversial. They are teenagers going to school not adults going to the office or church. I wear tank tops and I'm a slightly matronly 50-something-ish-year-old lady. Geez...

Have you ever seen JR students at dismissal or before school? No one is enforcing these antiquated dress codes over there and I hope MacArthur quits going on about it too and finds something better to discuss in their emails to parents. I look forward to those emails.

[Anonymous]

I think DCPS should continue to give students a choice between Macarthur and JR. Non-athetic kids might prefer a small school like Macarthur, while kids who like sports might opt for Wilson. Like it or not, sports can help kids secure college admissions/scholarships, and it seems unfair that some DC kids would not have those opportunities simply because they live in the wrong high school boundary.