What happened to Brent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ross parents really must have something better to do. We're rolling our eyes over our 4-stars at Brent. Maybe the 4 stars will help us cope with crowding! We could use some help on that front. Rumor has it that we're getting two more trailers in AUgust.

For all the hand wringing over Brent's feeder, Jefferson scored a respectable 3 stars. Obvious room for improvement but probably better result than many in Brent community would have assumed

Very impressive showing from Brent alums now at Jefferson (and their parents) at the last Brent PTA meeting. The kids (7 of them?) and their parents were genuinely enthusiastic about their experiences at Jefferson, both academically and socially. I think 17 or 18 from last year's Brent 5th grade class are there now. I just wish more Brent families had been in attendance to hear the kids and their parents talk. And it seemed like the leveled homerooms which went to their four core classes together and mixed electives was a good way to straddle the divide in preparation for kids entering without completely walling kids off.

Yup once you have legit tracking the rest of them will follow

[Anonymous]

We lotteried into Brent years back, from the Cluster. If there's no legit tracking at JA this coming school year (it's been hard to get straight answers about the plan), and we don't lottery into Wash Latin, we plan to go with Hobson.

My understanding is that under the new Hobson head, the school's offering a full menu of academic honors classes and electives for students who work at or above grade level. I don't get why JA won't offer the same honors classes. My kid scored 5s on the PARCC last year. Not convinced that he'd be challenged at JA under the current "leveled homerooms" instructional paradigm.

[Anonymous]

I'd encourage you to seek out alumni families that have gone on to JA to see what their experiences have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fair enough. But then some of us in the Brent District who've been following developments at both schools are left wondering if the new ranking system is simply silly.

It’s definitely silly.

- Not a Brent parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

One metric which DC calculates but doesn't disseminate nearly as widely as in-boundary rate (percentage of kids that come from within the school's boundaries) is the "capture rate" of a school (percentage of kids from a school's boundaries that choose to attend that public school). I would argue that focusing on in-boundary rates appears to be (and, for some, may indeed be) exclusionary. A focus on a school's capture rate focuses on the degree to which a geographic community believes their local school will serve their kids' needs. (With the proliferation of charters in the city, I'd posit that its relatively easy for most families, even those with low social capital and/or mobility, to avoid DCPS.) If a school had enough capacity, it could have a very high capture rate while still allowing people from outside the boundaries to attend. (That's a pipe dream for Brent right now, of course.)

All this is to say, some of the PP may be saying "I'm so glad that my neighbors are choosing to attend this local school" rather than "I'm so glad that our school doesn't other people in" when they say they are excited by the high IB rate. Talking about capture rate (Brent's is pretty darn high) is a better way to make that distinction, and I just wish DCPS would put that out there more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

One metric which DC calculates but doesn't disseminate nearly as widely as in-boundary rate (percentage of kids that come from within the school's boundaries) is the "capture rate" of a school (percentage of kids from a school's boundaries that choose to attend that public school). I would argue that focusing on in-boundary rates appears to be (and, for some, may indeed be) exclusionary. A focus on a school's capture rate focuses on the degree to which a geographic community believes their local school will serve their kids' needs. (With the proliferation of charters in the city, I'd posit that its relatively easy for most families, even those with low social capital and/or mobility, to avoid DCPS.) If a school had enough capacity, it could have a very high capture rate while still allowing people from outside the boundaries to attend. (That's a pipe dream for Brent right now, of course.)

All this is to say, some of the PP may be saying "I'm so glad that my neighbors are choosing to attend this local school" rather than "I'm so glad that our school doesn't other people in" when they say they are excited by the high IB rate. Talking about capture rate (Brent's is pretty darn high) is a better way to make that distinction, and I just wish DCPS would put that out there more.

They put it right on the DCPS school profiles. Maybe instead they should paint it on the school's awnings?

That can't be a metric in a city-wide rating system as it is irrelevant to city-wide DCPS schools, application high schools, DCPS alternative schools and charters.

[Anonymous]

The obvious solution is to generate multiple rankings, like US News and World Report does for colleges. On the USNWR web site, I see that they like to compare apples to apples - best national universities, best regional universities, best public universities, most competitive admissions etc. Good neighborhood schools should absolutely be rewarded for serving their communities well in any ranking system adopted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

One metric which DC calculates but doesn't disseminate nearly as widely as in-boundary rate (percentage of kids that come from within the school's boundaries) is the "capture rate" of a school (percentage of kids from a school's boundaries that choose to attend that public school). I would argue that focusing on in-boundary rates appears to be (and, for some, may indeed be) exclusionary. A focus on a school's capture rate focuses on the degree to which a geographic community believes their local school will serve their kids' needs. (With the proliferation of charters in the city, I'd posit that its relatively easy for most families, even those with low social capital and/or mobility, to avoid DCPS.) If a school had enough capacity, it could have a very high capture rate while still allowing people from outside the boundaries to attend. (That's a pipe dream for Brent right now, of course.)

All this is to say, some of the PP may be saying "I'm so glad that my neighbors are choosing to attend this local school" rather than "I'm so glad that our school doesn't other people in" when they say they are excited by the high IB rate. Talking about capture rate (Brent's is pretty darn high) is a better way to make that distinction, and I just wish DCPS would put that out there more.

They put it right on the DCPS school profiles. Maybe instead they should paint it on the school's awnings?

That can't be a metric in a city-wide rating system as it is irrelevant to city-wide DCPS schools, application high schools, DCPS alternative schools and charters.

You missed the point. PP is arguing for the use of capture rate rather than IB rate. Capture rate is not on the DCPS profiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

One metric which DC calculates but doesn't disseminate nearly as widely as in-boundary rate (percentage of kids that come from within the school's boundaries) is the "capture rate" of a school (percentage of kids from a school's boundaries that choose to attend that public school). I would argue that focusing on in-boundary rates appears to be (and, for some, may indeed be) exclusionary. A focus on a school's capture rate focuses on the degree to which a geographic community believes their local school will serve their kids' needs. (With the proliferation of charters in the city, I'd posit that its relatively easy for most families, even those with low social capital and/or mobility, to avoid DCPS.) If a school had enough capacity, it could have a very high capture rate while still allowing people from outside the boundaries to attend. (That's a pipe dream for Brent right now, of course.)

All this is to say, some of the PP may be saying "I'm so glad that my neighbors are choosing to attend this local school" rather than "I'm so glad that our school doesn't other people in" when they say they are excited by the high IB rate. Talking about capture rate (Brent's is pretty darn high) is a better way to make that distinction, and I just wish DCPS would put that out there more.

They put it right on the DCPS school profiles. Maybe instead they should paint it on the school's awnings?

That can't be a metric in a city-wide rating system as it is irrelevant to city-wide DCPS schools, application high schools, DCPS alternative schools and charters.

You missed the point. PP is arguing for the use of capture rate rather than IB rate. Capture rate is not on the DCPS profiles.

I’d love to see capture rates. That is 100% what I’m interested in. A school like Maury or Ross is always going to have a high IB rate because they’re tiny, whereas a school like Moner is always going to have a lower IB rate because it’s enormous. Now, I’m guessing Maury and Ross (both excellent schools by any measure) are also going to have high capture rates and Miner’s can’t be very good (because they have basically no white students from 2nd grade up in an area with a significant white population), but that’s the figure I’d like to know whether it’s improving. (Just demographic data doesn’t tell the full story, because I don’t care about OOB white kids at ECE and I do care about IB AA kids, e.g.).

[Anonymous]

Brent’s PARCC scores this year sucked for a school as affluent as them. Ludlow-Taylor, still a T1 school this year and in a less affluent part of the same basic neighborhood, had a higher percentage of 4s and 5s in one of math or English (cant remember which)... Not adjusted for anything or for one demographic, but overall. That’s actually pretty shocking.

[Anonymous]

OK, you don't hear stories of families leaving Brent for Ludlow. Selling their Brent District homes to buy up on the Stanton Park neighborhood in their shock and disgust. Sounds like you're a little lonely in your shock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, you don't hear stories of families leaving Brent for Ludlow. Selling their Brent District homes to buy up on the Stanton Park neighborhood in their shock and disgust. Sounds like you're a little lonely in your shock.

Give me a break. This just happened this past year and anyone who sells their home based on one year’s test results is a moron. That said, you are wrong if you think Brent parents weren’t concerned and the principal wasn’t asked for an explanation.

[Anonymous]

Also, I wouldn’t even remotely claim that L-T is a “more desirable” school than Brent for the preferences of an average UMC white family. That said, if I had an AA kid? I would absolutely prefer L-T for a host of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brent’s PARCC scores this year sucked for a school as affluent as them. Ludlow-Taylor, still a T1 school this year and in a less affluent part of the same basic neighborhood, had a higher percentage of 4s and 5s in one of math or English (cant remember which)... Not adjusted for anything or for one demographic, but overall. That’s actually pretty shocking.

BASIS is another affluent Tier 1 that dipped to Tier 2 charter in 2017 and rebounded back to T1 in 2018, which mostly accounts for its higher ratings.

The star system is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, I wouldn’t even remotely claim that L-T is a “more desirable” school than Brent for the preferences of an average UMC white family. That said, if I had an AA kid? I would absolutely prefer L-T for a host of reasons.

I'd gladly pick L-T over Brent depending on commute and house price. The days of Brent-or-bust on the Hill are long gone. Which is fine, great even! Brent is still a great school. It's stupid and racist to decide your elementary school based on race.