question about deal middle school and 16th Street heights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s going to be great to have my kids at MacFarland. There are plenty of kids, the school is good size now, principal has his own kid there, teachers actually have good activist reputations, extracurriculars expanding. I think that for our kids next year it’s a bit of a negotiation to get all the programming to suit. But engagement over the next few years will bring a lot to the school. Frankly I don’t want a huge middle school for my kids. I think MacFarland becoming our middle school is a good thing.

Spanish Immersion side? Or not?

Our kids are in dual language Spanish classes, but people tend to exaggerate this. We're talking about 1-2 classes a day for students doing that, and most of the classes are in English with all students together. Talk to the principal or the other folks there, this isn't a separate cohort of students learning Spanish vs. other students. Our older kid is also pretty into the sports possibilities, so having soccer and track and cross country there sounds like it's happening (barring COVID, dammit) and while in some ways Deal might have more, some of these opportunities might be more accessible to students in a 600 student middle school than one with 1450.

So, seriously, I think MacFarland should have buzz. DCUM is like this collective Scrooge sometimes, but I think MacFarland's going to be great. I know we only look like a couple years out but does anybody remember how Deal had this negative reputation, what, 10 years ago? And what really changed? Add your views, but it mostly just seemed local kids went there in greater numbers and then it was well-regarded.

So all that said - our plan is to see you there. Don't want to deanonymize myself, but it won't be very long!

All the best.

The problem is where does MacFarland feed to? It’s not Wilson, so people will bail. Good luck getting the vast numbers of wealthy kids that Deal has. This puzzle has been an issue in many neighborhoods which are wealthy or gentrifying fast.

It feeds to Roosevelt, which US News rates #13,345 of the 17,792 public high schools they rank. Awesome!

Sadly, Wilson isn't great shakes either, at #5,173. Compare that to...

- TJ: #1
- SWW: #73
- Poolsville: #90
- Whitman: #105
- Langley: #126
- Wootton: #128
- Churchill: #133
- McLean: #236
- Marshall: #245
- Madison: #265
- Woodson: #280
- Walter Johnson: #344

Again:
- Roosevelt: #13,345
- Wilson: #5,173

We are literally surrounded by some of the best public high schools in the US, yet people think it's elitist to want better opportunities for their children than Roosevelt and it's little brother MacFarland can provide.

... based on standardized test scores only?

Is that the only thing that matters for your kids? Anything else?

Here is the rating criteria. Seems reasonable to me!

College Readiness 30%

The proportions of 12th graders who took and passed at least one AP or IB exam. Passing is worth three times more than just taking.

Math and Reading Proficiency 20%

Aggregated scores on state assessments that students may be required to pass for graduation.

Math and Reading Performance 20%

How aggregated scores on state assessments compare to U.S. News's expectations given the proportions of students who are black, Hispanic and from low-income households.

Underserved Student Performance 10%

Scores on state assessments aggregated just among students who are black, Hispanic and from low-income households. These scores are compared to what is typical in the state for non-undeserved students, with parity or higher being the goal.

College Curriculum Breadth 10%

The proportions of 12th graders who took and passed AP and IB exams in multiple areas. More exams are valued more than fewer exams up to a maximum of four. Passing an exam is worth three times more than taking.

Graduation Rate 10%

The proportion of entering 9th graders who graduated four academic years later.

Break that down:. Why do any of those metrics affect how my kid will thrive and learn? There are a lot of reasons why some kids don't perform well on tests.

And the vast majority of what you posted there is still related to standardized test scores.

[Anonymous]

Hell yes last poster.

As for my kids, I’m only focused on the availability of opportunities. If the classes or acceleration to meet them are possible within the system, I’m happy to have my kids (now in elementary) go up through MacFarland and Roosevelt. It’s possible that Walls or Banneker is right for them depending on how they do in class but I won’t worry about that before eighth grade, and my view is that’s dependent on their own aptitudes and interests. To me Roosevelt absolutely has a curriculum design I would want.

There is complexity and choice for many of us but I’d like for people to be a little less dismissive and look at our local schools as real possibilities. And engagement really helps.

Again, I don’t want to cut anybody down. Just think about what it means for you and for your neighbors and neighborhoods and all that too.

I understand there are other views but I expect

[Anonymous]

(Early submit)
I expect that good things are possible for your child and mine at these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s going to be great to have my kids at MacFarland. There are plenty of kids, the school is good size now, principal has his own kid there, teachers actually have good activist reputations, extracurriculars expanding. I think that for our kids next year it’s a bit of a negotiation to get all the programming to suit. But engagement over the next few years will bring a lot to the school. Frankly I don’t want a huge middle school for my kids. I think MacFarland becoming our middle school is a good thing.

Spanish Immersion side? Or not?

Our kids are in dual language Spanish classes, but people tend to exaggerate this. We're talking about 1-2 classes a day for students doing that, and most of the classes are in English with all students together. Talk to the principal or the other folks there, this isn't a separate cohort of students learning Spanish vs. other students. Our older kid is also pretty into the sports possibilities, so having soccer and track and cross country there sounds like it's happening (barring COVID, dammit) and while in some ways Deal might have more, some of these opportunities might be more accessible to students in a 600 student middle school than one with 1450.

So, seriously, I think MacFarland should have buzz. DCUM is like this collective Scrooge sometimes, but I think MacFarland's going to be great. I know we only look like a couple years out but does anybody remember how Deal had this negative reputation, what, 10 years ago? And what really changed? Add your views, but it mostly just seemed local kids went there in greater numbers and then it was well-regarded.

So all that said - our plan is to see you there. Don't want to deanonymize myself, but it won't be very long!

All the best.

The problem is where does MacFarland feed to? It’s not Wilson, so people will bail. Good luck getting the vast numbers of wealthy kids that Deal has. This puzzle has been an issue in many neighborhoods which are wealthy or gentrifying fast.

It feeds to Roosevelt, which US News rates #13,345 of the 17,792 public high schools they rank. Awesome!

Sadly, Wilson isn't great shakes either, at #5,173. Compare that to...

- TJ: #1
- SWW: #73
- Poolsville: #90
- Whitman: #105
- Langley: #126
- Wootton: #128
- Churchill: #133
- McLean: #236
- Marshall: #245
- Madison: #265
- Woodson: #280
- Walter Johnson: #344

Again:
- Roosevelt: #13,345
- Wilson: #5,173

We are literally surrounded by some of the best public high schools in the US, yet people think it's elitist to want better opportunities for their children than Roosevelt and it's little brother MacFarland can provide.

... based on standardized test scores only?

Is that the only thing that matters for your kids? Anything else?

Here is the rating criteria. Seems reasonable to me!

College Readiness 30%

The proportions of 12th graders who took and passed at least one AP or IB exam. Passing is worth three times more than just taking.

Math and Reading Proficiency 20%

Aggregated scores on state assessments that students may be required to pass for graduation.

Math and Reading Performance 20%

How aggregated scores on state assessments compare to U.S. News's expectations given the proportions of students who are black, Hispanic and from low-income households.

Underserved Student Performance 10%

Scores on state assessments aggregated just among students who are black, Hispanic and from low-income households. These scores are compared to what is typical in the state for non-undeserved students, with parity or higher being the goal.

College Curriculum Breadth 10%

The proportions of 12th graders who took and passed AP and IB exams in multiple areas. More exams are valued more than fewer exams up to a maximum of four. Passing an exam is worth three times more than taking.

Graduation Rate 10%

The proportion of entering 9th graders who graduated four academic years later.

But does the first 3 categories adjust for demographics? It’s not enough to just compare the underserved, one must also adjust the first three categories similar to DC OSSE Star methodology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where do these particular rich kids go to middle school now? Or where will they? Private?

Crestwood and 16th St Heights is far from "rich"...

+1. These are very nice neighborhoods, but they're generally not where the rich folks live.

If you are buying there today, you are spending $750K+. That’s rich. It’s just some parts of town are richer.

For a SFH in Crestwood, you'll need to spend closer to twice that these days.

https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/18636/DC/Washington-DC/Crestwood/housing-market

Was coming to say this. I haven’t seen a house there for under $1.2 in a while. Even one that needs work.

-Agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where do these particular rich kids go to middle school now? Or where will they? Private?

Crestwood and 16th St Heights is far from "rich"...

+1. These are very nice neighborhoods, but they're generally not where the rich folks live.

If you are buying there today, you are spending $750K+. That’s rich. It’s just some parts of town are richer.

For a SFH in Crestwood, you'll need to spend closer to twice that these days.

https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/18636/DC/Washington-DC/Crestwood/housing-market

Was coming to say this. I haven’t seen a house there for under $1.2 in a while. Even one that needs work.

-Agent

Sure, but lots of people buying in Crestwood are selling their condo or rowhouse for a large profit and putting that down to afford it. It's not a hub of independently wealthy people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where do these particular rich kids go to middle school now? Or where will they? Private?

Crestwood and 16th St Heights is far from "rich"...

+1. These are very nice neighborhoods, but they're generally not where the rich folks live.

If you are buying there today, you are spending $750K+. That’s rich. It’s just some parts of town are richer.

For a SFH in Crestwood, you'll need to spend closer to twice that these days.

https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/18636/DC/Washington-DC/Crestwood/housing-market

Was coming to say this. I haven’t seen a house there for under $1.2 in a while. Even one that needs work.

-Agent

Sure, but lots of people buying in Crestwood are selling their condo or rowhouse for a large profit and putting that down to afford it. It's not a hub of independently wealthy people.

This is honestly the stupidest take. If you buy a home for $1M+ you are objectively rich, no matter how you afforded it. Please try to step out of your bubble some times.

[Anonymous]

But Melissa I don't have a limo, yacht or valet so I can't be rich!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So where do these particular rich kids go to middle school now? Or where will they? Private?

Crestwood and 16th St Heights is far from "rich"...

+1. These are very nice neighborhoods, but they're generally not where the rich folks live.

If you are buying there today, you are spending $750K+. That’s rich. It’s just some parts of town are richer.

For a SFH in Crestwood, you'll need to spend closer to twice that these days.

https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/18636/DC/Washington-DC/Crestwood/housing-market

Was coming to say this. I haven’t seen a house there for under $1.2 in a while. Even one that needs work.

-Agent

Sure, but lots of people buying in Crestwood are selling their condo or rowhouse for a large profit and putting that down to afford it. It's not a hub of independently wealthy people.

This is honestly the stupidest take. If you buy a home for $1M+ you are objectively rich, no matter how you afforded it. Please try to step out of your bubble some times.

+1 I will add...I’m so tired of “west of park white people are racists, east of park white people are keeping it real” sentiment. Lots of people buying million dollar homes east of the park. But hearing a lot of “ I’m better than west of the park because the price per square foot for my much larger house is a better deal ...and also I’m ‘integrating’ these neighborhoods (by anxiously trying to lottery into charters to avoid my neighborhood school).” Im not saying west of park are better. But I am saying you are no different than the west of park people. So quit trying to tell me how you are a social justice warrior. We are equally causing issues.