Moving to Capitol Hill/2017 PARCC scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, but plenty of Hill parents get tired of political and social pressure to participate in social experiments where schools go, and the strong PC strain to the conversation about ed reform in this city. Some of us just want to quietly buy the real estate that's a ticket to a decent public school, send our kids there from K-5th, then move on. I've been living in the Brent District long enough to see the school population double, and the FARMs rate plummet. Fine by us, though we keep that thought to ourselves.

Yeah, fine by you and keep that thought to yourself. I just hope you don't emote about racial equality in other contexts or consider yourself a liberal/progressive at all. That's my point.

Where do you find the time and energy to concern yourself with who emotes about racial quality, who chooses a school based on demographic trends, or how PP's identify politically? So glad I come from New England, where a live and let live culture is deep-rooted.

See post above - LT parent satisfied with recent progress of the school, recognizing that a demographic shifts present new opportunities[b]. That's more like it.

Yeah, you just can't stop it with that stuff, can you?

PS - Boston is super racist. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/yankees-sabathia-black-players-expect-racism-when-they-play-red-sox-in-boston/

Boston is racist! Evidence: what one guy on the Yankees says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks, this is all super helpful! I wasn't aware of the demographic distinctions a couple people mentioned. It's extra impressive that Maury and Ludlow have improved so much and reached the Brent levels given those factors.

Ludlow and Maury haven't reached Brent level demographics. Brent is around 70% white and in-boundary, with a FARMs percentage that's dropped into the single digits this year (after nearly 15 years of steady change). Maury is more than half white with around 30% FARMs. Ludlow is still majority FARMs and around 25% white this year.

You can look at test scores all you want, but changing demographics and FARMs rates probably tell you more about the viability of a school for neighborhood newcomers. You can find high test scores at schools you wouldn't touch, like KIPP, SEED and DC Prep. The real difference between Brent and Maury and Ludlow is PTA bucks. The former have the dough to pay for teachers aides past K, which can make all the difference to parents seeking adequate differentiation in the classroom. Ludlow's PTA will raise six figures eventually, enough to start paying for classroom aides, but not for a few years. Ludlow is still a Title 1 school (40%+ FARMs) getting around 100K a year from the federal government to cover costs.

so what makes a school "viable" for "newcomers" in your opinion?

You're being cute or want an honest answer? Answer: two instructors in the classroom (the second paid for by the PTA) most of the time in all classes, along with strong art, music, performing arts, PE and a designated science teacher (paid for by the PTA for the first couple of years, now by DCPS). Also advanced math from 3rd grade up, one-two years above grade level. DC is probably math gifted (did Johns Hopkins CTY math camp this summer). Yes, we're at Brent. I'd also use Maury if in-boundary.

First of all, can we please strike the phrase "use a school"? YOU don't "use" a school. It's a public good. Your CHILD attends a school -- the school of the community in which you've chosen to live.

Second of all, it's clear you think race and income are the metric by which a school is "viable" for a white person, and likely the primary factor is race (since you concede you'd never "use" KIPP). That's just gross and I sure hope you weren't emoting all over facebook about how terrible Charlottesville was.

not PP but eww . . . You genuinely had me agreeing until that line. I'm not sure I see the connection with being disgusting by overt racist/anti-semitic demonstration, including violence and intimidation, is in any way equatable to choosing or not choosing a given school for whatever reason.

the point is that is easy to be "horrified" by open displays of racism, while not examining what you're doing yourself in your own life.

I get the point but it's a clumsy comparison relying on hyperbole. I too wouldn't use the term "use" for a school either as a school is a community and I'd no sooner "use" a school than I would "use" my neighborhood, religious congregation, work, etc. Schools shouldn't be transactional. PP also assumes race is the ONLY factor when it may or may not be one of multiple factors.

Personally I think the above PP statement reeks of classism more than racism.

I think it's being pretty willfully blind to claim that race and "class" don't almost fully intersect on the Hill. I understand that most parents only have their own child's best interests at heart, but I truly wish that they'd stop and think a minute about what their words and additudes suggest about "those kids" they deem "unviable" as schoolmates for their own children. No, you are not obliged to enroll your child in any school that you don't want to, but you are obliged to examine where your beliefs come from and the impact of your words.

I don't use or support that language either, but you're taking liberty with both my words and OP's words. OP never said anything about schoolmates being "unviable" or any reference to "those kids". I find the public school fundraising snobbery offensive and it inherently touches on inequality, including race and class, and I said nothing to suggest the two are mutually exclusive.

You're being disengenous. "those kids" (and their parents) know EXACTLY what you mean when you talk about a school being "viable" based on "demographic shifts."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right, but plenty of Hill parents get tired of political and social pressure to participate in social experiments where schools go, and the strong PC strain to the conversation about ed reform in this city. Some of us just want to quietly buy the real estate that's a ticket to a decent public school, send our kids there from K-5th, then move on. I've been living in the Brent District long enough to see the school population double, and the FARMs rate plummet. Fine by us, though we keep that thought to ourselves.

Yeah, fine by you and keep that thought to yourself. I just hope you don't emote about racial equality in other contexts or consider yourself a liberal/progressive at all. That's my point.

Where do you find the time and energy to concern yourself with who emotes about racial quality, who chooses a school based on demographic trends, or how PP's identify politically? So glad I come from New England, where a live and let live culture is deep-rooted.

See post above - LT parent satisfied with recent progress of the school, recognizing that a demographic shifts present new opportunities[b]. That's more like it.

Yeah, you just can't stop it with that stuff, can you?

PS - Boston is super racist. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/yankees-sabathia-black-players-expect-racism-when-they-play-red-sox-in-boston/

Boston is racist! Evidence: what one guy on the Yankees says.

Everyone knows Boston is very racist. It's extremely segregated. And actually, the prevalence of overt racial slurs to opposing teams isn't really a bad metric.

[Anonymous]

How do any of these silly accusations help OP make his or her choice? Why not take your petty salvos to a new thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do any of these silly accusations help OP make his or her choice? Why not take your petty salvos to a new thread.

Seriously -- that last made settled that this is someone simply trolling for attention

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are Ludlow Taylor (PK3 and 1st grade) and very happy. Planning to stay till 4th/5th grade unless something dramatically changes for the worst.

It's true that there are more poor children there, but I *want* my kids to be exposed to different SES, especially given the current political situation, I feel like it's the right thing to do.

The parents, teachers and the new principal (from last year) are doing a great job with the new website, check it out: http://www.ludlowtaylor.org
(I personally know all the kids in the home picture =) )

Forgot to add: the parents/kids in grade 3 to 5 especially liked the "departmentalization", so now it's going to be implemented for 2nd grade as well.
I think it really helps with instruction.

From website:

2nd Grade Departmentalization:
... we will be departmentalizing 2nd grade this year, as we have done with Grades 3-5 in years past. With that being said, all students in 2nd Grade will have Mr. Kerrigan for math instruction and Ms. Cooper for reading/writing instruction. Students will rotate with their homerooms to the opposite classroom for the 2nd block of the day.

+1

[Anonymous]

OP,
You should really think about buying in the Capitol Riverfront. Van Ness Elementary School is the next Brent in Ward 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

+1. I know OOB Brent families who live in Cluster boundary, lotteried to Brent for ES, and enrolled at SH.

But none of those families would count in the OOB percentage at SH anyway, so this conversation is pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are Ludlow Taylor (PK3 and 1st grade) and very happy. Planning to stay till 4th/5th grade unless something dramatically changes for the worst.

It's true that there are more poor children there, but I *want* my kids to be exposed to different SES, especially given the current political situation, I feel like it's the right thing to do.

The parents, teachers and the new principal (from last year) are doing a great job with the new website, check it out: http://www.ludlowtaylor.org
(I personally know all the kids in the home picture =) )

+1 We have two kids at Ludlow this year, with our older child beginning 5th year at the school. The changes have been dramatic, all for the better. We love the new principal (in his second year) and this year he has a vice principal. Communication with parents is excellent and the school hires only the best educators. I doubt LT will be Title 1 much longer, as demographics continue to shift. However, the school now is in a sweet spot -- Title 1 funds mean low-cost aftercare ($85 per month) and free lunches for all. But at the same time, the community is warm and very engaged, and the PTA is starting to raise real money. Social capital at the school has really shot up since we've been there. Plus we have the largest FoodPrints garden in DCPS, and a brand new playground. Yes, PARCC scores continue to move up, but we're not ones to put much emphasis on test scores. Our kids are bright and will do fine wherever. Plus, it's nice to have feeder rights to SH, which we are definitely considering for middle school. Good luck, OP!

I hope you keep your title 1 as long as you can. Watkins just lost it, and its making things harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP,
You should really think about buying in the Capitol Riverfront. Van Ness Elementary School is the next Brent in Ward 6.

LOLZ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are Ludlow Taylor (PK3 and 1st grade) and very happy. Planning to stay till 4th/5th grade unless something dramatically changes for the worst.

It's true that there are more poor children there, but I *want* my kids to be exposed to different SES, especially given the current political situation, I feel like it's the right thing to do.

The parents, teachers and the new principal (from last year) are doing a great job with the new website, check it out: http://www.ludlowtaylor.org
(I personally know all the kids in the home picture =) )

+1 We have two kids at Ludlow this year, with our older child beginning 5th year at the school. The changes have been dramatic, all for the better. We love the new principal (in his second year) and this year he has a vice principal. Communication with parents is excellent and the school hires only the best educators. I doubt LT will be Title 1 much longer, as demographics continue to shift. However, the school now is in a sweet spot -- Title 1 funds mean low-cost aftercare ($85 per month) and free lunches for all. But at the same time, the community is warm and very engaged, and the PTA is starting to raise real money. Social capital at the school has really shot up since we've been there. Plus we have the largest FoodPrints garden in DCPS, and a brand new playground. Yes, PARCC scores continue to move up, but we're not ones to put much emphasis on test scores. Our kids are bright and will do fine wherever. Plus, it's nice to have feeder rights to SH, which we are definitely considering for middle school. Good luck, OP!

I hope you keep your title 1 as long as you can. Watkins just lost it, and its making things harder.

Utterly myopic view of the state of affairs. When a DCPS Hill ES ceases to be Title 1, watch the gentrifiers roll in. Within two or three years of the "loss," the school has come out ahead, particularly the remaining poor kids. When Maury suffered the pain of losing Title 1 funds two years back, the PTA rallied impressively. Now Maury raises almost double the funds Title 1 status used to confer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP,
You should really think about buying in the Capitol Riverfront. Van Ness Elementary School is the next Brent in Ward 6.

VN = Harvard on the Anacostia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

+1. I know OOB Brent families who live in Cluster boundary, lotteried to Brent for ES, and enrolled at SH.

But none of those families would count in the OOB percentage at SH anyway, so this conversation is pointless.

Your logic is both baffling and pointless. How exactly does OOB/IB rate at SH have anything to do with this thread other than to be inflammatory about SH demographics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know of a couple of "Brent families" who have kids at SH, none of whom live IB for Brent. One of the families did in fact move a couple of blocks from the Brent district to the Cluster district. So can we stop pretending there are more than a few "Brent" kids at SH?

+1. I know OOB Brent families who live in Cluster boundary, lotteried to Brent for ES, and enrolled at SH.

But none of those families would count in the OOB percentage at SH anyway, so this conversation is pointless.

Why not? They're out of boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are Ludlow Taylor (PK3 and 1st grade) and very happy. Planning to stay till 4th/5th grade unless something dramatically changes for the worst.

It's true that there are more poor children there, but I *want* my kids to be exposed to different SES, especially given the current political situation, I feel like it's the right thing to do.

The parents, teachers and the new principal (from last year) are doing a great job with the new website, check it out: http://www.ludlowtaylor.org
(I personally know all the kids in the home picture =) )

+1 We have two kids at Ludlow this year, with our older child beginning 5th year at the school. The changes have been dramatic, all for the better. We love the new principal (in his second year) and this year he has a vice principal. Communication with parents is excellent and the school hires only the best educators. I doubt LT will be Title 1 much longer, as demographics continue to shift. However, the school now is in a sweet spot -- Title 1 funds mean low-cost aftercare ($85 per month) and free lunches for all. But at the same time, the community is warm and very engaged, and the PTA is starting to raise real money. Social capital at the school has really shot up since we've been there. Plus we have the largest FoodPrints garden in DCPS, and a brand new playground. Yes, PARCC scores continue to move up, but we're not ones to put much emphasis on test scores. Our kids are bright and will do fine wherever. Plus, it's nice to have feeder rights to SH, which we are definitely considering for middle school. Good luck, OP!

I hope you keep your title 1 as long as you can. Watkins just lost it, and its making things harder.

Utterly myopic view of the state of affairs. When a DCPS Hill ES ceases to be Title 1, watch the gentrifiers roll in. Within two or three years of the "loss," the school has come out ahead, particularly the remaining poor kids. When Maury suffered the pain of losing Title 1 funds two years back, the PTA rallied impressively. Now Maury raises almost double the funds Title 1 status used to confer.

Try talking to some of the remaining "poor kids" after the "gentrifiers roll in." They may have a different point of view.