Advice on Two River PCS
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Upper grades you should run.
Middle does suck everywhere but the suburban school districts tend to get it right. There is perhaps more structure. |
Anonymous
Agree with this, and would also note that behavioral issues can also involve widespread minor stuff the at the school and other parents do not view as an issue but isn't okay with you. We left a school (not TR) because the behaviors that were tolerated or even encouraged starting in 2nd or 3rd grade were, IMO, problematic or too mature. These included a ton of phone use (the school technically opposed this and tried to keep phones out of the classroom and the school but the phones were being provided by parents and kids were not being given any limits -- there were kids getting on tik Tok during class, showing each other YouTube videos on the playground, etc., without any parental controls on content), kids discussing pornography and sex and other adult topics in hallways and on the playground, and what I viewed as a problematic level of "mean girl" style bullying, the kind of passive aggressive bullying that can seem like kids are just teasing their friends but in reality they are targeting outsider kids and making fun of them in backhanded ways in order to ostracize them (and yes my kid was one of the outsider kids but there were several, including a kid who was excluded in this way for his weight and who got relentlessly teased for it, even in front of teachers, and nothing was done). Is this the same as someone bringing a knife to school or physical altercations in the classroom? No. And if this were a middle school, I would accept that a lot of this behavior is inevitable (though regarding phones I do have higher expectations for how the school combats it). But it bothered me how young these kids were while engaging in this behavior. To me it reflected a group of parents (not all, but too many) who were either modeling this behavior for their kids or weren't doing anything to address it, and a school that had just accepted that kids as young as 7 were going to be discussing graphic sex acts or watching violent videos at recess, or that a kid who maybe didn't fit in perfectly is just going to be harassed daily over their appearance or their parents finances or even what to me looked like signs of special needs, and that's just how kids are. I found that so disturbing. This is what I mean when I say "behavioral problems." It's just kids engaging in behaviors that I think are negative or harmful (even if not violent) and none of the adults involved are doing much if anything to address it. And in some cases even encouraging the behavior because the adults engage in the same problematic behaviors. I have no idea if this sort of thing is present at TR, but just offering this as an example of what "behavioral problems" can look like that isn't just severe issues like kids getting violent with other kids or teachers (though obviously that's also a major problem and I agree with the PP that you have to look at how the school handles it and what the do to protect other kids and their staff). |
Anonymous
Yes, I agree with all of this. It all matters and sets a tone. Clearly different parents have different ideas about what behavior is acceptable and/or how hard the school should try to control it. Some parents are unrealistic, especially if they aren't used to older kids at all. And some kids are upset or intimidated by behavior that another child might not even notice. And some people are really just not well-informed. We were at a school that had a BES program, so of course we did see certain behaviors or kids getting upset. Obviously-- that's why they're in BES. It stands for Behavior and Education Support. Their aides were right with them, responding as needed, and that's how that goes. Saying "oh no, these awful behaviors" just makes parents look uninformed. |
Anonymous
|
We’ve come to the (somewhat sobering) realization that the best environment for our kids is one with a very narrow range of academic abilities, minimal exposure to trauma, and few—if any—single-parent households. For us, that also means avoiding situations where teachers and classmates are frequently managing unresolved behavioral or social-emotional challenges, including some of the more difficult or disruptive neurodivergences.
I fully respect that the public system must educate and support every child, and I believe in that mission. But we also had to be honest about what works best for our own children’s learning and well-being. For us, that meant finding a school where those kinds of distractions are almost nonexistent, so the focus stays on rigorous academics and a calm, orderly classroom environment. |
Anonymous
|
And then you have the people who hop from school to school or go private seeking a place with no behavior issues, not understanding that any school can have an incident and that it's really luck of the draw who's in your kid's classroom. Yes, some schools handle it better (or more aggressively push for kids to be placed elsewhere, which isn't the same thing as managing it better). But there's no school with zero behavior. Especially in high school, the behavior of high income
kids can be terrifying, cruel, dangerous, etc. I've also seen people go private expecting better behavior but what they actually get is more ND kids and more ND kids whose parents are in denial and/or think a small class size will solve it so the kid isn't getting the services they actually need. Or children of donors whose behavior is tolerated for that reason. Or a cohort with a bad reputation so people who have options start leaving so it gets worse. I do think it's better in privates, but not always, and like in public, it only takes one kid to have a tremendous impact. |
Anonymous
YIKES |
Anonymous
I wouldn’t have admitted as much a few years back, but yeah… |
Anonymous
It seems like there aren't that many kids who meet that criteria. So how many such schools could there be? |
Anonymous
Doubt hardly any with none - but there are certainly schools where it’s less than 10 percent — and many more where it isn’t a normal thing. Well over 50 percent and plenty of DC schools!!!!! |
Anonymous
I am unclear why the PP's preference for two-parent households is any more "yikes" than their preference for kids who are neurotypical, have not been exposed to trauma, and who have are mostly at or above grade level academically. And I'm not judging. I totally get where this person is coming from and there are days when I feel this way too. The thing for me is that I grew up with a lot of trauma and definitely had unresolved social emotional issues as a kid, and maybe neurodivergence as well. So I'm never going to to choose my kids school to avoid people like that, because that's me -- I will never not have a place in my heart for those kids even as I'm raising my kid to not have to BE one of those kids. But I also understand why other parents seek to avoid kids like this, even as it breaks my heart because it makes me think about how often I was rejected by other family's growing up and didn't really even understand why. I didn't know that I was problematic because it was all I knew. I didn't get that until I was adult and then retrospectively understood why sometimes I never got invited back to a classmates house, or why I was excluded from certain communities. But the idea that wanting to avoid kids from single-parent households is over the line, but wanting to avoid kids with other kinds of problems is understandable ignores the fact that no kid chooses any of that. It just happens to you. You're a child. |
Anonymous
It is true that a school where over half of the families are single parent or divorced families will have a significant impact on the school and your child's experience. Not because the kids are bad or the families are bad but just because it's logistically harder. Single parents who don't have an involved co-parent often have less time to dedicate to the school or their kids. Kids who are shuttling between homes are harder to build and maintain friendships with, especially if the parents don't get along with each other (we've been in this situation and it's really awful -- we really liked the family and the kids but the parents were not on speaking terms which meant we had to be so delicate in all our interactions with them and even just scheduling a single playdate was stressful unless we knew in advance what the custody situation was so that we could just reach out to one parent). I have nothing against single parents but from a practical standpoint, schools are better off when the majority of families are intact. |
Anonymous
The real problem isn’t the kids themselves — it’s that so many public schools have been turned into all-purpose social welfare centers, special-ed admin hubs, and accommodation machines for every conceivable circumstance, often at the expense of academic rigor and sound pedagogy. “Equity” becomes the justification for lowering expectations instead of lifting everyone up. If you’re a parent looking at this landscape, you perhaps — and not always quickly — come to realize you can’t expect the system to transform or get better resourced within the time frame your own children will be in school. So, if you have the means, you look for schools that don’t face the same intense social, demographic, and accommodation pressures. That might mean moving into a well-resourced, insulated district — though those aren’t perfect either, and some of the most privileged parents are also the most aggressive about demanding special treatment for their children. If you don’t have the “look” or social capital to pull the same strings, you may find yourself shut out. The other route is private school — especially those that are candid about what they can’t accommodate. Some parochial schools are upfront: they don’t have the resources for certain high-needs populations, and direct those families to specialized schools instead. This often results in an environment where the basic business of teaching can proceed without constant disruption. What many of us really want is simply a school that functions normally — the way many did in the 1980s. In too many classrooms today, instructional time is dominated by managing “bold” needs: Did Eddie get his accommodations? Did Susan take her medication? Does Parker need a separate room for his test? How do we handle Lily’s emotional blow-up? Each situation may be valid in isolation, but taken together they consume enormous time and attention. We don’t get a second chance to give our kids a strong education. That’s why many of us remove them from environments where these dynamics prevail — not because those kids are the problem, but because the system’s response to their needs has made it nearly impossible for everyone else to get the education they deserve. And yes — if you were one of those kids, and you still remember the sting of isolation, exclusion, or even outright mistreatment, then this reality lands differently. It can feel personal in a way that’s hard to separate from your own history. But as a parent, you also understand the urgency — you can hold compassion for those kids and still know you have to protect your own child’s one shot at a solid education. |
Anonymous
Because it's racist and classist. They don't mean ANY single parents, they mean poor black ones. |
Anonymous
I’m Black. And yes — by any reasonable definition, saying you’d prefer not to be around concentrations of at-risk populations, especially where their needs dominate a school’s approach and create entrenched “path dependencies,” is in many ways racist and classist. I’m not going to deny that. It’s problematic. But as a parent — and a Black parent — that label is almost beside the point when you’re making decisions for your own children. Many of us who are Black are more vulnerable in situations where there’s a high concentration of at-risk Black children in the building. In those settings, a school’s expectations, policies, and focus can be hard to disentangle from the race of the child. Put your Black kids in that environment and you can get all sorts of toxic, complicated dynamics: Where do they “fit”? How are they treated? And let’s be honest — in some schools, a high-performing Black child is so rare it’s treated like a unicorn, and not always in a good way. If you’re white, upper-middle-class, and present that way, you get some insulation. Expectations shift in your favor, even in a school geared toward serving a lower-SES, more burdened population. If you’re not, you don’t get that buffer. That’s why many Black families with means are often more concerned about these environments than their white counterparts. And as a practical matter, there’s a strong tradition in the D.C. area — particularly in parochial schools, especially Catholic ones — of doing an excellent job serving high-performing Black children, even those from more modest economic means. In those schools, such kids aren’t unicorns or special cases; they’re just students who get a good education in an environment that isn’t consumed by other dynamics. I’d much rather have my child in a school where educating high-performing — or even simply on-grade-level — Black students is routine and has been for decades, than in one where the system struggles to imagine what that even looks like. And for what it’s worth, I think the “single-parent household” metric is a crude one. There are plenty of single mothers — single parents — who care deeply about their children’s education and have navigated their way into the kinds of parochial schools I’ve just described. Yes, in those institutions you’ll still find a greater preponderance of dual-parent households, and that no doubt contributes to the environment and outcomes they’re able to sustain. But that stability matters — it simply does. So yes — call it racist and classist in the broad sense, but for many of us it’s a reaction to the mix of race, class, and outcomes we’ve seen firsthand. No parent is going to knowingly leave their kid in a school where their education is being materially undermined just to avoid the charge of being “racist” or “classist.” That helps no one. |
Anonymous
But not all divorced parents are poor and black. And not all black families are single parent homes. I'm sorry, I don't get this. Also this is an anonymous board, I think if the PP meant they didn't want their kids going to school with poor kids (which in DC means poor and black because of the city's demographics) they would just say that. Also in DC if someone is sending their kids to a charter, I assume they are partly motivated by wanting to send their kids to a school where the population of poor black kids is at least smaller than it is at their IB DCPS. Two Rivers is the poster child for this because it's not offering some specialized program like Montessori or immersion, and for a long time its family population was drawn from the JOW and L-T boundaries, both (at the time) Title I schools with large at risk populations. Then L-T lost it's Title I status and now you rarely see families IB for L-T choosing Two Rivers. Not saying it's good, but I'd rather people be honest about it than pretend it's not what is happening. A parent who is willing to admit they are trying to avoid poor families, single parent homes, kids with severe disabilities, and other at risk factors is at least telling you the truth. |