DCI or Stuart Hobson for anxious child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

Agree 100%. Thanks PP. I also have a 6th grader at one of these 3 CH schools, and none of the 6th graders I know well are supplementing (I assume you mean Mathnasium, etc). These are high achieving kids, and - for one metric- my DC's scores this year show great growth. Not only does DC have a great group of peers, but clearly DC is learning at a school the other pp thinks sucks.

[Anonymous]

I choose to vote with my feet, and will move or go private. I’m not going to boost a poorly performing school and pretend it’s good. But I appreciate your points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

But what is your goal? To pretend it’s going well? It’s not. And lying to parents and pressuring them to send their kids to a dcps is really not the way forward either. Have people know the true warts and all of the school: disruptive students, poor curriculum, low test scores, few extracurriculars compared to other schools. Let them make an unbiased choice. Don’t boost it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s incredibly low

There is no angry Stuart Hobson poster. There are people who rightly want more from their I bound option. I am personally tired of people distorting the facts and pretending that Stuart Hobson is an acceptable choice.

Hmm. Did you miss the day at school where they covered the difference between fact and opinion? You can think that SH is a terrible school and unacceptable for your own kid. But repeatedly railing on here about everyone else not “accepting” it is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

We are crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

But what is your goal? To pretend it’s going well? It’s not. And lying to parents and pressuring them to send their kids to a dcps is really not the way forward either. Have people know the true warts and all of the school: disruptive students, poor curriculum, low test scores, few extracurriculars compared to other schools. Let them make an unbiased choice. Don’t boost it.

PP here. Who is lying? Who do you think is being tricked here? We are at an S-H feeder and I don't know a single family who is unaware of the test scores, the curriculum limitations, or the biggest glaring gap of all -- the lack of an adequate high school feed at S-H. Different people are handling it different ways. Everyone's kid is different (with not only different academic needs but also different social needs that may or may not be served by the IB school regardless of academic options). People also have different options -- some people can more easily relocate, some can afford private and others can't, some will get lucky in the lottery for alternative schools and others won't.

But I don't know a single person who thinks S-H has exceptional test scores or is the very best academic option for an academically advanced kid. It's obviously not. But it might be the least bad of limited options, or it might be a compromise made for social or emotional reasons, or a family might decide to play it by ear, see how 6th goes, and make adjustments down the road if necessary.

I don't see how you posting over and over again that S-H is simply unacceptable, that it only teaches remedial math (absolutely false), or that parents who send their kids there are irresponsible or stupid is helping anyone make school choices here. It really seems like you have some kind of deep seated anger about this issue that you are working out on other parents and it's getting old.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see anything wrong with supplementing. Honestly, I like supplementing. I figure out what my kid is either super interested in or needs reinforcement in, and we find things that work. Unless we sent our kid to some super bespoke private school that met all of our needs or interests (which I’m not sure exists) I would expect to keep doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

But what is your goal? To pretend it’s going well? It’s not. And lying to parents and pressuring them to send their kids to a dcps is really not the way forward either. Have people know the true warts and all of the school: disruptive students, poor curriculum, low test scores, few extracurriculars compared to other schools. Let them make an unbiased choice. Don’t boost it.

PP here. Who is lying? Who do you think is being tricked here? We are at an S-H feeder and I don't know a single family who is unaware of the test scores, the curriculum limitations, or the biggest glaring gap of all -- the lack of an adequate high school feed at S-H. Different people are handling it different ways. Everyone's kid is different (with not only different academic needs but also different social needs that may or may not be served by the IB school regardless of academic options). People also have different options -- some people can more easily relocate, some can afford private and others can't, some will get lucky in the lottery for alternative schools and others won't.

But I don't know a single person who thinks S-H has exceptional test scores or is the very best academic option for an academically advanced kid. It's obviously not. But it might be the least bad of limited options, or it might be a compromise made for social or emotional reasons, or a family might decide to play it by ear, see how 6th goes, and make adjustments down the road if necessary.

I don't see how you posting over and over again that S-H is simply unacceptable, that it only teaches remedial math (absolutely false), or that parents who send their kids there are irresponsible or stupid is helping anyone make school choices here. It really seems like you have some kind of deep seated anger about this issue that you are working out on other parents and it's getting old.

Also a SH feeder parent here, and thank you. I could have written this myself. We still have a couple years until middle school, but we plan to stay on the Hill. My kid tests 1-2 grade levels ahead, and I truly see SH as a viable option for us. We have friends (yes, plural) with high performing 5th graders who have enrolled for next year and are going in eyes wide open but also with excitement. I understand that there's frustration living on the Hill and feeling deprived of some of the more sought after DCPS/charter post-elementary options. But the negative PP is simply off base here. This year's WL data speaks volumes about local buy-in, and you've expressed all of it - including re: supplementation - better than I could have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see anything wrong with supplementing. Honestly, I like supplementing. I figure out what my kid is either super interested in or needs reinforcement in, and we find things that work. Unless we sent our kid to some super bespoke private school that met all of our needs or interests (which I’m not sure exists) I would expect to keep doing it.

I think supplementing means different things to different people. I wouldn't expect any school to do a lot of the things I do with my kids; we do them and are happy to do them because they match our family's specific personal interests and/or values. But I would be super annoyed if I felt I needed to pay for math or ELA tutoring just to keep up with grade-level expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

But what is your goal? To pretend it’s going well? It’s not. And lying to parents and pressuring them to send their kids to a dcps is really not the way forward either. Have people know the true warts and all of the school: disruptive students, poor curriculum, low test scores, few extracurriculars compared to other schools. Let them make an unbiased choice. Don’t boost it.

PP here. Who is lying? Who do you think is being tricked here? We are at an S-H feeder and I don't know a single family who is unaware of the test scores, the curriculum limitations, or the biggest glaring gap of all -- the lack of an adequate high school feed at S-H. Different people are handling it different ways. Everyone's kid is different (with not only different academic needs but also different social needs that may or may not be served by the IB school regardless of academic options). People also have different options -- some people can more easily relocate, some can afford private and others can't, some will get lucky in the lottery for alternative schools and others won't.

But I don't know a single person who thinks S-H has exceptional test scores or is the very best academic option for an academically advanced kid. It's obviously not. But it might be the least bad of limited options, or it might be a compromise made for social or emotional reasons, or a family might decide to play it by ear, see how 6th goes, and make adjustments down the road if necessary.

I don't see how you posting over and over again that S-H is simply unacceptable, that it only teaches remedial math (absolutely false), or that parents who send their kids there are irresponsible or stupid is helping anyone make school choices here. It really seems like you have some kind of deep seated anger about this issue that you are working out on other parents and it's getting old.

Also a SH feeder parent here, and thank you. I could have written this myself. We still have a couple years until middle school, but we plan to stay on the Hill. My kid tests 1-2 grade levels ahead, and I truly see SH as a viable option for us. We have friends (yes, plural) with high performing 5th graders who have enrolled for next year and are going in eyes wide open but also with excitement. I understand that there's frustration living on the Hill and feeling deprived of some of the more sought after DCPS/charter post-elementary options. But the negative PP is simply off base here. This year's WL data speaks volumes about local buy-in, and you've expressed all of it - including re: supplementation - better than I could have.

Oops, me clarifying that the supplementation mention actually came in the post after this one. Lumped them together by accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

But what is your goal? To pretend it’s going well? It’s not. And lying to parents and pressuring them to send their kids to a dcps is really not the way forward either. Have people know the true warts and all of the school: disruptive students, poor curriculum, low test scores, few extracurriculars compared to other schools. Let them make an unbiased choice. Don’t boost it.

PP here. Who is lying? Who do you think is being tricked here? We are at an S-H feeder and I don't know a single family who is unaware of the test scores, the curriculum limitations, or the biggest glaring gap of all -- the lack of an adequate high school feed at S-H. Different people are handling it different ways. Everyone's kid is different (with not only different academic needs but also different social needs that may or may not be served by the IB school regardless of academic options). People also have different options -- some people can more easily relocate, some can afford private and others can't, some will get lucky in the lottery for alternative schools and others won't.

But I don't know a single person who thinks S-H has exceptional test scores or is the very best academic option for an academically advanced kid. It's obviously not. But it might be the least bad of limited options, or it might be a compromise made for social or emotional reasons, or a family might decide to play it by ear, see how 6th goes, and make adjustments down the road if necessary.

I don't see how you posting over and over again that S-H is simply unacceptable, that it only teaches remedial math (absolutely false), or that parents who send their kids there are irresponsible or stupid is helping anyone make school choices here. It really seems like you have some kind of deep seated anger about this issue that you are working out on other parents and it's getting old.

Also a SH feeder parent here, and thank you. I could have written this myself. We still have a couple years until middle school, but we plan to stay on the Hill. My kid tests 1-2 grade levels ahead, and I truly see SH as a viable option for us. We have friends (yes, plural) with high performing 5th graders who have enrolled for next year and are going in eyes wide open but also with excitement. I understand that there's frustration living on the Hill and feeling deprived of some of the more sought after DCPS/charter post-elementary options. But the negative PP is simply off base here. This year's WL data speaks volumes about local buy-in, and you've expressed all of it - including re: supplementation - better than I could have.

No the WL data says people will throw on just about anything at the end of their lottery list and still not get anywhere. As the prior poster says, it’s a fine place for a kid that’s not academically motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DC is headed to SH next year. They are a high performing kid and are excited about all of the ECs at the school. We will be keeping an eye on the level of the work and will likely keep supplementing if it’s not rigorous enough but our family is very excited about the school.

I've been browsing this site for more than a decade now, and the conversations around SH really remind me of the conversations around Hardy 10 years ago. Snowballing effect of more families opting in and the school stepping up to meet the needs to high achieving students.

I dont live in that area and my kids are on a different middle/high track, but we have friends at SH and the kids seem completely happy, challenged by the variety of ECs and projects (like the "climate symposium?") and will be fine ramping up when they get to high school.

SH getting stronger is a great thing for the city.

I could not agree more. Stuart Hobson getting stronger is a wonderful thing!

But it’s still a weak, weak school that is failing the smart kids of DC. And lying about statistics (see above for example) and pretending like kids don’t need serious supplementation and outside extra curricular activities isn’t making it stronger. This only serves OSSE and the crazy boosters who care more about their property values going up than children. Stuart Hobson is not a good school, neither is Eliot Hine, neither is Jefferson and that extends to every other dcps middle. Dc needs to do more for their children.

But do you not get that the ONLY way for a public school to keep improving and getting strong, especially in terms of how well it serves high achieving kids, is for more families who have high academic standards and/or high achieving kids to send their kids there? It's literally the only way. You can fantasize all you want about change coming from a top-down DCPS initiative, but it never will. It will come as it has at other schools, with more families investing in the school and saying "we need XYZ program to better serve the school population." And yes, as these changes happen, a lot of families will hedge their bets by supplementing, because at the same time they want the school to improve (and also want their kids to have the experience of attending a decent in boundary school) they are not going to take the risk of hindering their child's project as the school is still improving.

This is all normal. That's why people focus on the progress and on the increasing numbers of high achieving kids attending, instead of fixating on the ways in which the school is still not comparable to a school like Deal or Hardy yet. Because it's the only way to get it there.

If we all just sit around saying S-H (and Eliot-Hine and Jefferson) are terrible and failing kids, instead of looking for the progress and for the ways the school is building off that progress, then these schools will remain terrible because families who value a strong education will avoid them.

Like, what do you want? What's your goal, other than to tell people their school sucks? Mission accomplished.

But what is your goal? To pretend it’s going well? It’s not. And lying to parents and pressuring them to send their kids to a dcps is really not the way forward either. Have people know the true warts and all of the school: disruptive students, poor curriculum, low test scores, few extracurriculars compared to other schools. Let them make an unbiased choice. Don’t boost it.

PP here. Who is lying? Who do you think is being tricked here? We are at an S-H feeder and I don't know a single family who is unaware of the test scores, the curriculum limitations, or the biggest glaring gap of all -- the lack of an adequate high school feed at S-H. Different people are handling it different ways. Everyone's kid is different (with not only different academic needs but also different social needs that may or may not be served by the IB school regardless of academic options). People also have different options -- some people can more easily relocate, some can afford private and others can't, some will get lucky in the lottery for alternative schools and others won't.

But I don't know a single person who thinks S-H has exceptional test scores or is the very best academic option for an academically advanced kid. It's obviously not. But it might be the least bad of limited options, or it might be a compromise made for social or emotional reasons, or a family might decide to play it by ear, see how 6th goes, and make adjustments down the road if necessary.

I don't see how you posting over and over again that S-H is simply unacceptable, that it only teaches remedial math (absolutely false), or that parents who send their kids there are irresponsible or stupid is helping anyone make school choices here. It really seems like you have some kind of deep seated anger about this issue that you are working out on other parents and it's getting old.

Also a SH feeder parent here, and thank you. I could have written this myself. We still have a couple years until middle school, but we plan to stay on the Hill. My kid tests 1-2 grade levels ahead, and I truly see SH as a viable option for us. We have friends (yes, plural) with high performing 5th graders who have enrolled for next year and are going in eyes wide open but also with excitement. I understand that there's frustration living on the Hill and feeling deprived of some of the more sought after DCPS/charter post-elementary options. But the negative PP is simply off base here. This year's WL data speaks volumes about local buy-in, and you've expressed all of it - including re: supplementation - better than I could have.

No the WL data says people will throw on just about anything at the end of their lottery list and still not get anywhere. As the prior poster says, it’s a fine place for a kid that’s not academically motivated.

What is your deal? Just send your own kid somewhere else if you don't like the school. Are you proud you've spent so much of your day sh***ing all over a school that other people are happy about? Go find something productive to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m not familiar with DCI, but am intimately acquainted with Stuart-Hobson since I work there. Like most middle schools, it has its challenges (hallway transitions can be noisy, DCPS mandates don’t always make sense) but it’s a solid school with a large cohort of high-performing kids and increasing buy-in from families who live in boundary.

Off the top of my head, I can think of dozens of girls at Stuart-Hobson who sound similar to your daughter, and they are having good experiences at the school. Advanced course offerings in math, award-winning extracurricular activities, an incredible school library, and most importantly, solid teachers with classroom management experience.

However, Stuart-Hobson can’t compete with DCI when it comes to language offerings, so I w

Sent too soon!

So I would go for DCI if she wants to continue advancing in her second language.

DCI has way more advance offerings in math. SH math is not advance, it’s basically grade level.

This is not true. The math at Stuart Hobson is the lowest, most remedial math track possible for middle school. When you leave for high school your child will be de facto placed in the lowest and slowest math track.

It would be helpful if you explained why instead of just repeating the same claim over and over again. What makes it so low? What level are they teaching and why is this bad/wrong? What should they be doing? Do other DCPS middles do it differently?

NP. I’m not the PP but many kids who take Algebra 1 in 8th who go on to selective schools take a test for math placement and many end up repeating Algebra 1 in 9th.

This also applies to privates where they have to go down a level in math based on testing.

Math is just weak in DCPS. It’s not like it’s a secret or anything.

I'm guessing the kids scoring 4+ on the Algebra I CAPE are not in that camp.

70% of S-H students got a 4+.

Sorry but so many families in DCPS are supplementing in math. That is the closed door secret no one is telling you. Be prepared to do so to get that grade level 4.

All 632 middle schoolers with a 4+ in Algebra I or Geometry are supplementing. Got it.

No idea where you got number above because the whole school is about 483 kids and 32% kids 4+ and on grade level and up, not 70%. That’s about 154 kids across 3 grades so 50 kids on average per grade on grade level.

https://schoolreportcard.dc.gov/lea/1/school/428/report#measure-100

PP said "families in DCPS." 632 middle schoolers across DCPS scored 4+ in Algebra I or Geometry in SY24-25. 39 from S-H.

Wow only 632 students in all of DCPS on grade level or higher?? That is so so embarrassing low.

How many above grade level with 5? I’m guessing 150? Why doesn’t the PP above tell is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see anything wrong with supplementing. Honestly, I like supplementing. I figure out what my kid is either super interested in or needs reinforcement in, and we find things that work. Unless we sent our kid to some super bespoke private school that met all of our needs or interests (which I’m not sure exists) I would expect to keep doing it.

I think supplementing means different things to different people. I wouldn't expect any school to do a lot of the things I do with my kids; we do them and are happy to do them because they match our family's specific personal interests and/or values. But I would be super annoyed if I felt I needed to pay for math or ELA tutoring just to keep up with grade-level expectations.

You are going to have to supplement in DCPS no matter what. The issue is how much are you willing to do because the fact is all subjects are weak and not just math.

Don’t get me into science with Amblify and the new ELA curriculum.

It’s way too much. You only have so much time in the day and your kid will be miserable and angry forcing them to supplement so much. People just opt out and leave DCPS.