Ranking Ludlow-Taylor vs SWS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. I'm not digging in my heels. I'm describing what has happened at our IB school, which happens to be one of the schools you falsely listed as "getting whiter."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mmm no, they do not always ‘test well’ - the program at SWS is still self contained with some inclusion. Typical CES is a mixed bag,some students in grade level and some 1-5 grades behind.
Ludlow’s testing CES grades are 1 classroom, not 3.

Just wanted to add this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mmm no, they do not always ‘test well’ - the program at SWS is still self contained with some inclusion. Typical CES is a mixed bag,some students in grade level and some 1-5 grades behind.
Ludlow’s testing CES grades are 1 classroom, not 3.

Just wanted to add this.

The program at SWS is actually oriented at inclusion with a goal being that kids will be in mainstream classrooms in middle school. To equate it with a CES program, which does not cover grade-level educational content at all, is really a stretch. And, agreed, Ludlow has 3 total CES classrooms (covering 3 grade bands), one of which is an up-to 10 student 3rd-5th classroom. Definitely did not mean to suggest otherwise.

[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.

This is good insight and explanation, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What does this mean? Examples?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What does this mean? Examples?

The school expects a lot of parent involvement during school hours. Most recent example I can recall of people talking about this: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/165/1310357.page#31581535

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mmm no, they do not always ‘test well’ - the program at SWS is still self contained with some inclusion. Typical CES is a mixed bag,some students in grade level and some 1-5 grades behind.
Ludlow’s testing CES grades are 1 classroom, not 3.

Just wanted to add this.

The program at SWS is actually oriented at inclusion with a goal being that kids will be in mainstream classrooms in middle school. To equate it with a CES program, which does not cover grade-level educational content at all, is really a stretch. And, agreed, Ludlow has 3 total CES classrooms (covering 3 grade bands), one of which is an up-to 10 student 3rd-5th classroom. Definitely did not mean to suggest otherwise.

This is not true, they cover grade level content (exposure) and receive report cards.
I’m not implying that the self-contained at SWS wouldn’t have more children closer to grade level. I just want to be clear that being in CES doesn’t automatically mean that one isn’t close to or on grade level. Sometimes their behavior, communication, and/or social skills need too much support to be in Gen Ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You have strong opinions but might want to consider

It’s not the city wide race percentages that matter. It’s the percentages within ES commuting range, which for little kids isn’t that far (esp for lower SES and without great proximity to public transit). So, there are different populations in the school and a non neighborhood kid who lotteries in may not stay as many years, which can skew overall percentages.

It hasn’t been that long since the administration rules changed. Probably long enough to cover the current population but sib preference may still cast a shadow that influences numbers

SH was much preferred to EH until pretty recently and that skewed 5th grades at both.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Admission rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. I'm not digging in my heels. I'm describing what has happened at our IB school, which happens to be one of the schools you falsely listed as "getting whiter."

The schools mentioned were Payne, JOW, Chisolm, and Van Ness. Payne and JOW are definitely getting "whiter". Chisolm has a large Hispanic contingent due to the immersion program, though the surrounding neighborhood is definitely getting whiter and people really seem to like the school, so my guess is that it's also moving that direction as IB percentage increases. I have no first hand knowledge of Van Ness -- Navy Yard is kind of a weird neighborhood demographically and definitely has a ton of apartment buildings, but also many if not most of them are high end luxury buildings that I doubt have a lot of Section 8 residents.

Overall the Hill, and definitely Hill DCPS schools, have gentrified a lot over the last 20 years and continue to do so. The housing situation does not facilitate socioeconomic diversity at all, and most of the socioeconomic diversity at schools on the Hill comes from OOB students, not IB or nearby families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You have strong opinions but might want to consider

It’s not the city wide race percentages that matter. It’s the percentages within ES commuting range, which for little kids isn’t that far (esp for lower SES and without great proximity to public transit). So, there are different populations in the school and a non neighborhood kid who lotteries in may not stay as many years, which can skew overall percentages.

It hasn’t been that long since the administration rules changed. Probably long enough to cover the current population but sib preference may still cast a shadow that influences numbers

SH was much preferred to EH until pretty recently and that skewed 5th grades at both.

I have no idea what you are arguing with me about.

Do you think the reason SWS has more black students in recent years is because there are more Section 8 housing units in the neighborhood near SWS now than there used to be? I don't think that because it's not true and is a weird thing to assert.

Some of y'all are acting really weird about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. I'm not digging in my heels. I'm describing what has happened at our IB school, which happens to be one of the schools you falsely listed as "getting whiter."

The schools mentioned were Payne, JOW, Chisolm, and Van Ness. Payne and JOW are definitely getting "whiter". Chisolm has a large Hispanic contingent due to the immersion program, though the surrounding neighborhood is definitely getting whiter and people really seem to like the school, so my guess is that it's also moving that direction as IB percentage increases. I have no first hand knowledge of Van Ness -- Navy Yard is kind of a weird neighborhood demographically and definitely has a ton of apartment buildings, but also many if not most of them are high end luxury buildings that I doubt have a lot of Section 8 residents.

Overall the Hill, and definitely Hill DCPS schools, have gentrified a lot over the last 20 years and continue to do so. The housing situation does not facilitate socioeconomic diversity at all, and most of the socioeconomic diversity at schools on the Hill comes from OOB students, not IB or nearby families.

This is a lot of guesswork for someone who is so sure they're right.

You can see number of housing vouchers by census tract here: https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/HUD::housing-choice-vouchers-by-tract/about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You have strong opinions but might want to consider

It’s not the city wide race percentages that matter. It’s the percentages within ES commuting range, which for little kids isn’t that far (esp for lower SES and without great proximity to public transit). So, there are different populations in the school and a non neighborhood kid who lotteries in may not stay as many years, which can skew overall percentages.

It hasn’t been that long since the administration rules changed. Probably long enough to cover the current population but sib preference may still cast a shadow that influences numbers

SH was much preferred to EH until pretty recently and that skewed 5th grades at both.

SWS sends more kids to SH than EH. A couple years ago, SWS sent ZERO to EH. Last year, I think it was 2. In general, SH is still more preferred. Brent (IB for Jefferson) sent kids to SH... not to EH. L-T (IB for SH) sent no kids to EH. Watkins (IB for SH) sent no kids to EH. Maury (IB for EH) still sent kids to SH. Payne (IB for EH) still sent kids to SH. In short, UMC kids on the Hill don't choose EH unless zoned for there; whereas even kids zoned for EH choose SH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You have strong opinions but might want to consider

It’s not the city wide race percentages that matter. It’s the percentages within ES commuting range, which for little kids isn’t that far (esp for lower SES and without great proximity to public transit). So, there are different populations in the school and a non neighborhood kid who lotteries in may not stay as many years, which can skew overall percentages.

It hasn’t been that long since the administration rules changed. Probably long enough to cover the current population but sib preference may still cast a shadow that influences numbers

SH was much preferred to EH until pretty recently and that skewed 5th grades at both.

I have no idea what you are arguing with me about.

Do you think the reason SWS has more black students in recent years is because there are more Section 8 housing units in the neighborhood near SWS now than there used to be? I don't think that because it's not true and is a weird thing to assert.

Some of y'all are acting really weird about this.

My guess would be that SWS has more Black kids because they implemented an EA preference and because sibling preference stopped bringing in sibs who got preference because they were IB for the Cluster back in the day. As that has happened, and every new class gets more diverse, probably more Black kids lotteried for it because they were no longer creeped out by it's super whiteness.

It is 1000% not because the neighborhood it's in got more Black. L-T is now majority white for the first time ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP. I'm not digging in my heels. I'm describing what has happened at our IB school, which happens to be one of the schools you falsely listed as "getting whiter."

The schools mentioned were Payne, JOW, Chisolm, and Van Ness. Payne and JOW are definitely getting "whiter". Chisolm has a large Hispanic contingent due to the immersion program, though the surrounding neighborhood is definitely getting whiter and people really seem to like the school, so my guess is that it's also moving that direction as IB percentage increases. I have no first hand knowledge of Van Ness -- Navy Yard is kind of a weird neighborhood demographically and definitely has a ton of apartment buildings, but also many if not most of them are high end luxury buildings that I doubt have a lot of Section 8 residents.

Overall the Hill, and definitely Hill DCPS schools, have gentrified a lot over the last 20 years and continue to do so. The housing situation does not facilitate socioeconomic diversity at all, and most of the socioeconomic diversity at schools on the Hill comes from OOB students, not IB or nearby families.

This is a lot of guesswork for someone who is so sure they're right.

You can see number of housing vouchers by census tract here: https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/HUD::housing-choice-vouchers-by-tract/about

By school, from SY20-21 to SY24-25:

Payne: 102 white students (32%) to 144 white students (36%). Note the number of black and latino students also increased over this time, though not as quickly as the white students.

JO: 48 white students (11%) to 41 white students (9%).

Chisholm: 87 white students (16%) to 122 white students (23%). The percent of latino students also increased over this time.

Van Ness: 96 white students (26%) to 71 white students (18%).