DCPS Elementary Schools Question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you suggesting that the comparisons of Janney to Hearst and Janney to Savoy are similar?

Well, I am saying OP is judging this family's preference based on some line in the sand - it's ok to not want your kid to go to a very low-performing school, but not ok to not want them to go to a good-but-not-top performing school. What "level"school is it morally acceptable to reject?

Yes, but you are comparing a good-but-not-top performing school in a great neighborhood to a very low-performing school in a high crime neighborhood. These are not at all comparable situations.

I personally can't wait until the test scores at Hearst go up (which they will) so that we can see what excuses the "non-racist" people in the neighborhood use then.

[Anonymous]

Why would the test scores go up? Put another way, please spell out what will happen in the next few years at Hearst to improve scores that ***has not been happening*** so far.

What is changing? Why didn't it happen before?

Different teachers? Different curriculum? New assistant principal? Different test prep approach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would the test scores go up? Put another way, please spell out what will happen in the next few years at Hearst to improve scores that ***has not been happening*** so far.

What is changing? Why didn't it happen before?

Different teachers? Different curriculum? New assistant principal? Different test prep approach?

New construction will bring neighborhood folks into the fold. I don't live in the neighborhood and my kids are too old anyway but I would be willing to put money on a spike in in-boundary enrollments following the renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you suggesting that the comparisons of Janney to Hearst and Janney to Savoy are similar?

Well, I am saying OP is judging this family's preference based on some line in the sand - it's ok to not want your kid to go to a very low-performing school, but not ok to not want them to go to a good-but-not-top performing school. What "level"school is it morally acceptable to reject?

Yes, but you are comparing a good-but-not-top performing school in a great neighborhood to a very low-performing school in a high crime neighborhood. These are not at all comparable situations.

I personally can't wait until the test scores at Hearst go up (which they will) so that we can see what excuses the "non-racist" people in the neighborhood use then.

Yeah, but its scores still aren't as good as Janney's -- why is that not a valid reason to chose one over the other? Why is she racist for choosing Janney over Hearst and not for choosing Janney over Savoy?

Simply because Hearst is good "enough" in your opinion doesn't mean she's a racist for choosing Janney - which is demonstrably better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would the test scores go up? Put another way, please spell out what will happen in the next few years at Hearst to improve scores that ***has not been happening*** so far.

What is changing? Why didn't it happen before?

Different teachers? Different curriculum? New assistant principal? Different test prep approach?

The principal is only in her second year, it takes time to put new processes in place. She has made a lot of positive changes (different curricula, responsive classroom philosophy, test prep strategies) but you aren't going to see a 20 point jump in test scores overnight. Also, the upper grades now have many students that were new to the school when they added additional fourth and fifth grade classes. Good kids, but they didn't have the same strong academics in the early grades as those who had been at Hearst since pre-k. As the classes stabilize and the younger classes move up, they will perform better on the tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you suggesting that the comparisons of Janney to Hearst and Janney to Savoy are similar?

Well, I am saying OP is judging this family's preference based on some line in the sand - it's ok to not want your kid to go to a very low-performing school, but not ok to not want them to go to a good-but-not-top performing school. What "level"school is it morally acceptable to reject?

Yes, but you are comparing a good-but-not-top performing school in a great neighborhood to a very low-performing school in a high crime neighborhood. These are not at all comparable situations.

I personally can't wait until the test scores at Hearst go up (which they will) so that we can see what excuses the "non-racist" people in the neighborhood use then.

Yeah, but its scores still aren't as good as Janney's -- why is that not a valid reason to chose one over the other? Why is she racist for choosing Janney over Hearst and not for choosing Janney over Savoy?

Simply because Hearst is good "enough" in your opinion doesn't mean she's a racist for choosing Janney - which is demonstrably better.

But she doesn't actually have a "choice." She is inbound for Hearst and will never get into Janney. So she is simply choosing not to go to Hearst.

I'm sure that many people, if they had an actual choice, would choose the higher performing school, and this doesn't make them racist. However, I will add that we actually do have a few families who are in-bound for JKLMMO schools and have chosen to go to Hearst. Some prefer the the economic and racial diversity at Hearst, some prefer the small class size, some just like a smaller school. Not everyone chooses simply based on test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of differences, so it depends on how you define "unacceptable."

--Janney is mostly in-bound and thus pretty heterogeneous. Hearst has many out-of-bounds families and is more diverse.

--Janney has 600+ students and is busting at the seams. Some grade levels have 4 or more classes and each class packed. Hearst has about 275 students, 2 classes her grade, most classes capped at 20 kids.

--Janney gets better test scores. Lots of potential reasons for this that I don't have time to lay out right now.

It really depends on what you are looking for in a school. My kids happen to go to Hearst and we are very happy, so obviously I don't find it "unacceptable." I appreciate the close-knit community, the small class size, the committed faculty, and the diverse population of the school. Sure, I'd love the overall test scores to be better but my kids do very well academically. We have friends and family at other DCPS schools and I see no difference in their kids' academic abilities.

We welcome all families, in-bound and out-of-bound, to be part of our community, but honestly, if your friend deems our school "unacceptable" without knowing anything about it other than some statistics, then she'd probably be happier elsewhere (and probably shouldn't have bought a house in-bound for Hearst, since there is no chance she will get into Janney OOB).

Sorry, I wrote this. Obviously I meant homogeneous.

[Anonymous]

Given how much scores corelate with SES, that the scores are better at Janney only means those parents spend more on their kid's overall education, does not mean the teaching is better. It matters for a child to have successful peers, but I not seen anything that 75% versus 85% makes that much of difference.