Does it actually matter which school you send your kid to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pay an arm and a leg for real estate

The original school choice in America, and still the only option in 95% of the country.

And this is why the only thing keeping middle class families in the city EOTP long term is charters if they can’t afford private. The only thing or else many more families will move.

That's just not true, especially people who paid quite a bit of money for their homes and love their neighbors and short communtes. look at the momenturm around Garrison/Langley/Seaton now... If the charters didn't exist, there would just be more upper middle class people in those schools and they would become majority rich people even quicker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pay an arm and a leg for real estate

The original school choice in America, and still the only option in 95% of the country.

And this is why the only thing keeping middle class families in the city EOTP long term is charters if they can’t afford private. The only thing or else many more families will move.

That's just not true, especially people who paid quite a bit of money for their homes and love their neighbors and short communtes. look at the momenturm around Garrison/Langley/Seaton now... If the charters didn't exist, there would just be more upper middle class people in those schools and they would become majority rich people even quicker.

Sorry, nope. Without charters as a long-term solution I would not have lived in the neighborhood at all. Nor would I have been willing to send my kid to Langley and volunteer a lot for several years. Langley's future is bright but it has a very long way to go before high-SES folks stay past 1st or 2nd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pay an arm and a leg for real estate

The original school choice in America, and still the only option in 95% of the country.

And this is why the only thing keeping middle class families in the city EOTP long term is charters if they can’t afford private. The only thing or else many more families will move.

That's just not true, especially people who paid quite a bit of money for their homes and love their neighbors and short communtes. look at the momenturm around Garrison/Langley/Seaton now... If the charters didn't exist, there would just be more upper middle class people in those schools and they would become majority rich people even quicker.

Sorry, nope. Without charters as a long-term solution I would not have lived in the neighborhood at all. Nor would I have been willing to send my kid to Langley and volunteer a lot for several years. Langley's future is bright but it has a very long way to go before high-SES folks stay past 1st or 2nd.

We only moved to EOTP after getting into a charter. Before were were in an apartment wotp. If we hadn't won the charter lottery we'd likely be in silver spring or fairfax. Charter lottery keep people here. We are about to age out of sibling prference and my youngest won't have it. We may end up in a eotp elementary school with her. Maybe we'll even stat till 4th.

[Anonymous]

Just as a point of information, you can live WOTP and still have a short commute. I work on the red line, 4 stops from my office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2 things matter regarding schools

1. The number one factor in school success is the parents/home environment. Points to the poster commenting that having a shorter commute pays dividends

2. The second thing that matters is having a highly motivated cohort. Now, since this is DCUM I'm assuming the kid in question is top 10%. Usually, most schools have at least a collection of high performing students. Now unfortunately in DC, this is not the case. The majority of middle and high schools in DC are terrible. There are only 3-5 good middle schools in DC which requires either living in the most expensive parts of the city are getting lucky through a charter. For high school the selective high schools are an option but again middle school is a big problem.

Based on this I would leave DCPS after 4th grade unless you had a path to one of the 3-5 decent middle school options.

OP has a one year old. The middle school landscape could change sognificantly by then.

OP, the school is only one part of your life. A long commute will make it very hard to do other things like an instrument, a sport, any special activity that you may choose, especially if you can't afford a lot of household help. And with your child so young and your preference for downtown, it seems silly to make sacrifices for a middle or high school so far in the future.

The years from 1 to 9 (when you start seriously thinking about MS) go by very quickly ... much more quickly than MS changes, in my experience. We bought our house when I was pregnant, in large part due to the good elementary school, and now like a blink of an eye it's only 2 years until we have to do the lottery for MS. Because the zoned MS was and still is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our daughter is 1 year old. We currently live downtown, and we're thinking we'll need to move in the next year or two to get a little more space. As we think about the parts of the city we'd love to live in, though, we keep coming back to the school conversation. A desirable (and affordable!) neighborhood to live in does not necessary have schools known for being great.

Does that matter? What is the lifelong impact of sending your kid to an amazing school? An okay one? A kind of crappy one? And then how are we defining amazing/okay/crappy.. is it just test scores?

I'm curious how you chose the school you chose (or how you chose to wing it with the lottery). And I'm curious your philosophy on the importance--or lack thereof--of K-12 education.

And then to get into practical advice.. any feeder patterns you love or would avoid?

Many desirable neighborhoods EOTP don’t have great schools. Many families go charter, and it works for them.

Test scores are not the be all and end all but it gives you a sense of peer group. How many kids are below grade level, on grade level, above grade level?
This starts to become important in the upper elementary as the academic gap widens between those below and those on or above grade level, especially since there is no G & T or AAP or tracking.

We wanted language immersion because felt it was important to be bilingual in today’s diverse society. Language immersion also tends to be a harder curriculum in general because the child is learning all topics in 2 languages. We were very lucky in the lottery and are currently very happy with DC’s experience so far. Private was our back up if the lottery did not work out. Our IB school was not a viable option.

The language immersion charters has a feeder pattern to not only middle school but also high school with DCI.

You're asking the right question. I'm a grandparent. We raised our kids in a wealthy DC suburb and sent them to very highly regarded public schools. Very few poor kids, if any. Zero diversity. But man, did it have high test scores.

Fast forward 25 years, we're living in DC and our grandkids are enrolled in a largely black, largely poor school. When we show up, everyone in the school knows who we are because we don't look like anybody else. And guess what? The grandkids are reading well above grade level and are doing very well socially. In the end, it all boils down to who they go home to.

Don't get caught up in the rat race like we did.

I guarantee your kids are not going to send their kids to the zoned middle or HS.

Why is this ALWAYS the response?

Because it's self-evident ... and everyone knows it. There's no way PP's grandkids are going to Kramer MS and Anacostia High.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pay an arm and a leg for real estate

The original school choice in America, and still the only option in 95% of the country.

And this is why the only thing keeping middle class families in the city EOTP long term is charters if they can’t afford private. The only thing or else many more families will move.

That's just not true, especially people who paid quite a bit of money for their homes and love their neighbors and short communtes. look at the momenturm around Garrison/Langley/Seaton now... If the charters didn't exist, there would just be more upper middle class people in those schools and they would become majority rich people even quicker.

Sorry, nope. Without charters as a long-term solution I would not have lived in the neighborhood at all. Nor would I have been willing to send my kid to Langley and volunteer a lot for several years. Langley's future is bright but it has a very long way to go before high-SES folks stay past 1st or 2nd.

+1. No way would we have stayed in our neighborhood after the toddler years with DC if we had not gotten into a charter. No way. Period.

Reality is families going to Langley and those other poor performing schools are there because they struck out in the lottery. Most make the best of it, try to boost the school but secretly playing the lottery every year to get into charters. There may be 1 or 2 exception but we all know this is how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pay an arm and a leg for real estate

The original school choice in America, and still the only option in 95% of the country.

And this is why the only thing keeping middle class families in the city EOTP long term is charters if they can’t afford private. The only thing or else many more families will move.

That's just not true, especially people who paid quite a bit of money for their homes and love their neighbors and short communtes. look at the momenturm around Garrison/Langley/Seaton now... If the charters didn't exist, there would just be more upper middle class people in those schools and they would become majority rich people even quicker.

Sorry, nope. Without charters as a long-term solution I would not have lived in the neighborhood at all. Nor would I have been willing to send my kid to Langley and volunteer a lot for several years. Langley's future is bright but it has a very long way to go before high-SES folks stay past 1st or 2nd.

+1. No way would we have stayed in our neighborhood after the toddler years with DC if we had not gotten into a charter. No way. Period.

Reality is families going to Langley and those other poor performing schools are there because they struck out in the lottery. Most make the best of it, try to boost the school but secretly playing the lottery every year to get into charters. There may be 1 or 2 exception but we all know this is how it goes.

This isn't universally true- we live EOTP but more west than the Langley district and I'm not even considering putting any charters down. There is just such chaos and bad feedback surrounding so many charters. Maybe I'll change my tune once we get to middle school, but for elementary, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pay an arm and a leg for real estate

The original school choice in America, and still the only option in 95% of the country.

And this is why the only thing keeping middle class families in the city EOTP long term is charters if they can’t afford private. The only thing or else many more families will move.

That's just not true, especially people who paid quite a bit of money for their homes and love their neighbors and short communtes. look at the momenturm around Garrison/Langley/Seaton now... If the charters didn't exist, there would just be more upper middle class people in those schools and they would become majority rich people even quicker.

Sorry, nope. Without charters as a long-term solution I would not have lived in the neighborhood at all. Nor would I have been willing to send my kid to Langley and volunteer a lot for several years. Langley's future is bright but it has a very long way to go before high-SES folks stay past 1st or 2nd.

+1. No way would we have stayed in our neighborhood after the toddler years with DC if we had not gotten into a charter. No way. Period.

Reality is families going to Langley and those other poor performing schools are there because they struck out in the lottery. Most make the best of it, try to boost the school but secretly playing the lottery every year to get into charters. There may be 1 or 2 exception but we all know this is how it goes.

Mundo P St cleared its list for K this year, and made a ton of offers for 1st. People still at Langley are choosing to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just bite the bullet and move to the Wilson catchment area (mostly WOTP). Honestly, some of the MD/VA school might be better, but the difference seems to me mostly marginal and driven by socio-economics. The schools are safe and pretty average with little crime and violence.

In our schools (Stoddert -> Hardy); things seem fine. Most importantly, we don't sit down and worry about the school and our kids' life trajectory. (I.e. no TJ worries like some of our VA friends; or Middle/HS worries like our Cap Hill friends) The kids can walk to school, their friends are in the neighborhood, and there is racial diversity. Life is pretty relaxing (other than the younger one throwing tantrums about food preference).

This is bad advice. You don't need to do this. Skip the bullet and stay urban until you need to. You'll know when that is, if it comes up. I really don't think WOTP people understand that the don't actually live in a city whatsoever, they live in a fancy suburb. If that's not your cup of tea, wait and see but you can (gasp!) move twice within the next 13 years if you need to. The worrying doesn't set in for a while, for most. We enjoy our lives.

I am not sure how you define "fancy suburb." To me, the difference between urban and suburban is walkability and proximity to commerce. I live in a dreaded WOTP neighborhood and here is an incomplete list of things I can walk to in a mile or less: all 3 of my kids' schools, my kids' dentist and doctor, 2 libraries, 2 post offices, 2 great wine stores, an awesome bakery, 2 local coffee shops and 2 Starbucks, 3 large grocery stores and 2 smaller ones (plus the new Wegman's), one the best independent book stores, a historic movie theater, several fast casual restaurants, a few nicer restaurants, 2 metro stops, multiple bus stops, and now 2 Targets. If you define suburb by size of houses, I can assure you that my duplex is smaller than many of the houses in MtP, ColHi, Shaw, etc.

What exactly is it that makes my neighborhood not a "city"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just bite the bullet and move to the Wilson catchment area (mostly WOTP). Honestly, some of the MD/VA school might be better, but the difference seems to me mostly marginal and driven by socio-economics. The schools are safe and pretty average with little crime and violence.

In our schools (Stoddert -> Hardy); things seem fine. Most importantly, we don't sit down and worry about the school and our kids' life trajectory. (I.e. no TJ worries like some of our VA friends; or Middle/HS worries like our Cap Hill friends) The kids can walk to school, their friends are in the neighborhood, and there is racial diversity. Life is pretty relaxing (other than the younger one throwing tantrums about food preference).

This is bad advice. You don't need to do this. Skip the bullet and stay urban until you need to. You'll know when that is, if it comes up. I really don't think WOTP people understand that the don't actually live in a city whatsoever, they live in a fancy suburb. If that's not your cup of tea, wait and see but you can (gasp!) move twice within the next 13 years if you need to. The worrying doesn't set in for a while, for most. We enjoy our lives.

I am not sure how you define "fancy suburb." To me, the difference between urban and suburban is walkability and proximity to commerce. I live in a dreaded WOTP neighborhood and here is an incomplete list of things I can walk to in a mile or less: all 3 of my kids' schools, my kids' dentist and doctor, 2 libraries, 2 post offices, 2 great wine stores, an awesome bakery, 2 local coffee shops and 2 Starbucks, 3 large grocery stores and 2 smaller ones (plus the new Wegman's), one the best independent book stores, a historic movie theater, several fast casual restaurants, a few nicer restaurants, 2 metro stops, multiple bus stops, and now 2 Targets. If you define suburb by size of houses, I can assure you that my duplex is smaller than many of the houses in MtP, ColHi, Shaw, etc.

What exactly is it that makes my neighborhood not a "city"?

The lack of residential density. You live in a small home in an inner-ring suburb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just bite the bullet and move to the Wilson catchment area (mostly WOTP). Honestly, some of the MD/VA school might be better, but the difference seems to me mostly marginal and driven by socio-economics. The schools are safe and pretty average with little crime and violence.

In our schools (Stoddert -> Hardy); things seem fine. Most importantly, we don't sit down and worry about the school and our kids' life trajectory. (I.e. no TJ worries like some of our VA friends; or Middle/HS worries like our Cap Hill friends) The kids can walk to school, their friends are in the neighborhood, and there is racial diversity. Life is pretty relaxing (other than the younger one throwing tantrums about food preference).

This is bad advice. You don't need to do this. Skip the bullet and stay urban until you need to. You'll know when that is, if it comes up. I really don't think WOTP people understand that the don't actually live in a city whatsoever, they live in a fancy suburb. If that's not your cup of tea, wait and see but you can (gasp!) move twice within the next 13 years if you need to. The worrying doesn't set in for a while, for most. We enjoy our lives.

I am not sure how you define "fancy suburb." To me, the difference between urban and suburban is walkability and proximity to commerce. I live in a dreaded WOTP neighborhood and here is an incomplete list of things I can walk to in a mile or less: all 3 of my kids' schools, my kids' dentist and doctor, 2 libraries, 2 post offices, 2 great wine stores, an awesome bakery, 2 local coffee shops and 2 Starbucks, 3 large grocery stores and 2 smaller ones (plus the new Wegman's), one the best independent book stores, a historic movie theater, several fast casual restaurants, a few nicer restaurants, 2 metro stops, multiple bus stops, and now 2 Targets. If you define suburb by size of houses, I can assure you that my duplex is smaller than many of the houses in MtP, ColHi, Shaw, etc.

What exactly is it that makes my neighborhood not a "city"?

Density. Housing density. Your duplex is the outlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just bite the bullet and move to the Wilson catchment area (mostly WOTP). Honestly, some of the MD/VA school might be better, but the difference seems to me mostly marginal and driven by socio-economics. The schools are safe and pretty average with little crime and violence.

In our schools (Stoddert -> Hardy); things seem fine. Most importantly, we don't sit down and worry about the school and our kids' life trajectory. (I.e. no TJ worries like some of our VA friends; or Middle/HS worries like our Cap Hill friends) The kids can walk to school, their friends are in the neighborhood, and there is racial diversity. Life is pretty relaxing (other than the younger one throwing tantrums about food preference).

This is bad advice. You don't need to do this. Skip the bullet and stay urban until you need to. You'll know when that is, if it comes up. I really don't think WOTP people understand that the don't actually live in a city whatsoever, they live in a fancy suburb. If that's not your cup of tea, wait and see but you can (gasp!) move twice within the next 13 years if you need to. The worrying doesn't set in for a while, for most. We enjoy our lives.

I am not sure how you define "fancy suburb." To me, the difference between urban and suburban is walkability and proximity to commerce. I live in a dreaded WOTP neighborhood and here is an incomplete list of things I can walk to in a mile or less: all 3 of my kids' schools, my kids' dentist and doctor, 2 libraries, 2 post offices, 2 great wine stores, an awesome bakery, 2 local coffee shops and 2 Starbucks, 3 large grocery stores and 2 smaller ones (plus the new Wegman's), one the best independent book stores, a historic movie theater, several fast casual restaurants, a few nicer restaurants, 2 metro stops, multiple bus stops, and now 2 Targets. If you define suburb by size of houses, I can assure you that my duplex is smaller than many of the houses in MtP, ColHi, Shaw, etc.

What exactly is it that makes my neighborhood not a "city"?

Another WOTP poster. Upper NW is not Capital Hill or Dupont Circle, not even close. I was down on Capital Hill last week for a doctor's appt with my daughter. I LOVE tha neighborhood, it is so vibrant. We may even move there after our kids get out of high school, but upper NW is not city livng in a real sense. Neither is much of EOTP further north of Capial Hill.

We made a decision to move from the Kalorama/Adam's Morgan neighborhood for schools 16 years ago when pregnant and we do not regret it. Latin and Basis did not exist at that time, there were many fewer options. I do not regret the move itn the least, but I do not pretend it is urban. It is very convenient, we have short commutes by metro and our kids have had great educational options. We call our neighborhood the burbs within DC and I have all (or comparable) walkability to the NW poster above.

[Anonymous]

https://ggwash.org/view/74251/density-in-housing-looks-different-depending-on-where-you-are

Here are some Washington neighborhoods by density. In upper NW, higher incomes mean fewer people per square feet of housing, and fewer apartments or condos to bring up the density average. High incomes mean it can support more retail, but that does not make it a city. Just a suburb that is denser and wealthier than many other suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our daughter is 1 year old. We currently live downtown, and we're thinking we'll need to move in the next year or two to get a little more space. As we think about the parts of the city we'd love to live in, though, we keep coming back to the school conversation. A desirable (and affordable!) neighborhood to live in does not necessary have schools known for being great.

Does that matter? What is the lifelong impact of sending your kid to an amazing school? An okay one? A kind of crappy one? And then how are we defining amazing/okay/crappy.. is it just test scores?

I'm curious how you chose the school you chose (or how you chose to wing it with the lottery). And I'm curious your philosophy on the importance--or lack thereof--of K-12 education.

And then to get into practical advice.. any feeder patterns you love or would avoid?

Many desirable neighborhoods EOTP don’t have great schools. Many families go charter, and it works for them.

Test scores are not the be all and end all but it gives you a sense of peer group. How many kids are below grade level, on grade level, above grade level?
This starts to become important in the upper elementary as the academic gap widens between those below and those on or above grade level, especially since there is no G & T or AAP or tracking.

We wanted language immersion because felt it was important to be bilingual in today’s diverse society. Language immersion also tends to be a harder curriculum in general because the child is learning all topics in 2 languages. We were very lucky in the lottery and are currently very happy with DC’s experience so far. Private was our back up if the lottery did not work out. Our IB school was not a viable option.

The language immersion charters has a feeder pattern to not only middle school but also high school with DCI.

You're asking the right question. I'm a grandparent. We raised our kids in a wealthy DC suburb and sent them to very highly regarded public schools. Very few poor kids, if any. Zero diversity. But man, did it have high test scores.

Fast forward 25 years, we're living in DC and our grandkids are enrolled in a largely black, largely poor school. When we show up, everyone in the school knows who we are because we don't look like anybody else. And guess what? The grandkids are reading well above grade level and are doing very well socially. In the end, it all boils down to who they go home to.

Don't get caught up in the rat race like we did.

If you are well off and well educated it doesn’t make as much of a difference as it does if you are not. Well off and we’ll educated parents generally have children who start school with better than basic beginning literacy, numeracy and social skills. The experiences they can afford for their children support continued development. On the other hand, families at-risk absolutely need excellent instruction and support in school.