Looking on the Hill - curious for reviews of area elementary schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class sizes are small. I don't know the numbers off hand but I think in the upper grades it's like 15.

It's great that the school doesn't feel financially pressured to fill the seats of those that leave (the perks of T1), but this suggests your child is not even approaching the upper grades yet... so, honestly, I don't think you're in a position to pontificate on whether in-classroom differentiation is enough to make up for a class that's 70% below grade level and 40% WAY below grade level.

And what's your basis to pontificate? And why do you assume that everyone's DCUM Larlo is going to be above grade level. Did it ever occur to you that some of us have kids that in fact benefit from teachers attuned to providing support?

She was responding to my posts in which I described MY snowflake as above grade level, so this was in the context of a discussion about whether Payne was appropriate for such a child. I have no doubt that Payne might be fantastic for kids just below or below grade level, especially with the small class sizes.

why do you assume the teachers are so poor or your kid so sensitive that they couldn’t cope with being in the top quarter of the class? it’s a really weird attitude.

Because teachers in DCPS are under incredible pressure to teach to the middle at most. Really, the 25th %ile in many cases, because of how the testing incentives are set up for schools. A 5 v a 4 gets a teacher and a school basically nothing; a 3 v 2 and 4 v 3 are huge wins. If more than 50% of the class is below grade level, then the academic aspects of school are a waste of time for my kid. That’s just how it is. Differentiation in the classroom is better than nothing, but it’s certainly not as good as a neighborhood school pitched at grade level or above.

Not all of us share those beliefs about parenting and schools. But yeah, if you want 80% 4+, an affordable house, urban amenities, walkability, etc, you may need to look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class sizes are small. I don't know the numbers off hand but I think in the upper grades it's like 15.

It's great that the school doesn't feel financially pressured to fill the seats of those that leave (the perks of T1), but this suggests your child is not even approaching the upper grades yet... so, honestly, I don't think you're in a position to pontificate on whether in-classroom differentiation is enough to make up for a class that's 70% below grade level and 40% WAY below grade level.

And what's your basis to pontificate? And why do you assume that everyone's DCUM Larlo is going to be above grade level. Did it ever occur to you that some of us have kids that in fact benefit from teachers attuned to providing support?

She was responding to my posts in which I described MY snowflake as above grade level, so this was in the context of a discussion about whether Payne was appropriate for such a child. I have no doubt that Payne might be fantastic for kids just below or below grade level, especially with the small class sizes.

why do you assume the teachers are so poor or your kid so sensitive that they couldn’t cope with being in the top quarter of the class? it’s a really weird attitude.

Because teachers in DCPS are under incredible pressure to teach to the middle at most. Really, the 25th %ile in many cases, because of how the testing incentives are set up for schools. A 5 v a 4 gets a teacher and a school basically nothing; a 3 v 2 and 4 v 3 are huge wins. If more than 50% of the class is below grade level, then the academic aspects of school are a waste of time for my kid. That’s just how it is. Differentiation in the classroom is better than nothing, but it’s certainly not as good as a neighborhood school pitched at grade level or above.

I would also add that I specifically look to the number of 5s at a school when I’m looking for a strong cohort. I want my kid to have enough other 5s in her class that there are higher groups or pullouts rather than computer-based differentiation to the greatest extent possible.

ok you and your snowflake 5 who must be surrounded by only other 5s to thrive can move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

Space us the sanctimonious crap, PP. Brent, Maury, SWS and Peabody are all pretty thoroughly gentrified/majority UMC and white these days, and Ludlow's getting there.

Brent's at-risk rate is something like 5% and Maury's is in the teens. There are schools in upper NW, e.g. Stoddert, Hearst and Eaton, with higher percentages of poor minority kids.

Come on, nobody's buys in-boundary specifically for Payne. Payne is desirable for ECE (early childhood), OK for K-2nd, maybe 3rd, but on nobody's list for the upper grades. IB Payne parents still try to lottery out en masse.

Ludlow is already majority UMC. Not majority white (though plurality), but it's racial diversity is a plus in my book.

Whatever. The tiny L-T District has been overwhelmingly white for a decade now. In my book, wildly popular neighborhood elementary schools are a bigger plus than those featuring stunning "racial diversity"(read strong representation of minority kids from other neighborhoods).

Wow. You do you. The above comment was not meant as a knock on any of those other schools. And, FWIW, there are plenty of IB non-white students at Ludlow; the PK is roughly 65% white and, obviously, entirely IB.

Spare us your veiled accusations of racism. How long have you lived in the L-T neighborhood? We've been here for over 30 years. Brent and Maury got a big head start over L-T, due to better leadership. Nice to see Ludlow finally catching up as a neighborhood school.

You literally said you don’t treat racial diversity as a plus. I don’t think that’s veiled racism.

. Bunk. PP asserted that racial diversity wasn’t as important as the emergence of a true neighborhood school in an area that happens to be majority white. See the racism boogeyman where you like but spare us your holier than though crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

Space us the sanctimonious crap, PP. Brent, Maury, SWS and Peabody are all pretty thoroughly gentrified/majority UMC and white these days, and Ludlow's getting there.

Brent's at-risk rate is something like 5% and Maury's is in the teens. There are schools in upper NW, e.g. Stoddert, Hearst and Eaton, with higher percentages of poor minority kids.

Come on, nobody's buys in-boundary specifically for Payne. Payne is desirable for ECE (early childhood), OK for K-2nd, maybe 3rd, but on nobody's list for the upper grades. IB Payne parents still try to lottery out en masse.

Ludlow is already majority UMC. Not majority white (though plurality), but it's racial diversity is a plus in my book.

Whatever. The tiny L-T District has been overwhelmingly white for a decade now. In my book, wildly popular neighborhood elementary schools are a bigger plus than those featuring stunning "racial diversity"(read strong representation of minority kids from other neighborhoods).

Wow. You do you. The above comment was not meant as a knock on any of those other schools. And, FWIW, there are plenty of IB non-white students at Ludlow; the PK is roughly 65% white and, obviously, entirely IB.

Spare us your veiled accusations of racism. How long have you lived in the L-T neighborhood? We've been here for over 30 years. Brent and Maury got a big head start over L-T, due to better leadership. Nice to see Ludlow finally catching up as a neighborhood school.

You literally said you don’t treat racial diversity as a plus. I don’t think that’s veiled racism.

. Bunk. PP asserted that racial diversity wasn’t as important as the emergence of a true neighborhood school in an area that happens to be majority white. See the racism boogeyman where you like but spare us your holier than though crap.

the emergence of a true neighborhood school, springing full formed from Zeus’s forehead.

come on.

[Anonymous]

Huh? The Hill elementary schools that are majority in-boundary, UMC and white have taken 10 or 15 years to become that way. Nobody has argued otherwise on this thread. The problem with Watkins is that it never changes, never gets on track to become a real neighborhood school. OP may not mind, but should know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Hill elementary schools that are majority in-boundary, UMC and white have taken 10 or 15 years to become that way. Nobody has argued otherwise on this thread. The problem with Watkins is that it never changes, never gets on track to become a real neighborhood school. OP may not mind, but should know this.

My only point above was that L-T was already majority IB and majority UMC. It is not (likely, yet) majority white -- though it is plurality white -- but I don't see that as an issue (in fact, I personally think it's a benefit). That is not a knock on Brent, Maury or SWS and those are great schools I would be super happy to have my kid at from what I know of them. But, from my perspective, L-T is already also a school I am happy to have my kid at. I don't need it to become majority white. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

Space us the sanctimonious crap, PP. Brent, Maury, SWS and Peabody are all pretty thoroughly gentrified/majority UMC and white these days, and Ludlow's getting there.

Brent's at-risk rate is something like 5% and Maury's is in the teens. There are schools in upper NW, e.g. Stoddert, Hearst and Eaton, with higher percentages of poor minority kids.

Come on, nobody's buys in-boundary specifically for Payne. Payne is desirable for ECE (early childhood), OK for K-2nd, maybe 3rd, but on nobody's list for the upper grades. IB Payne parents still try to lottery out en masse.

Ludlow is already majority UMC. Not majority white (though plurality), but it's racial diversity is a plus in my book.

Whatever. The tiny L-T District has been overwhelmingly white for a decade now. In my book, wildly popular neighborhood elementary schools are a bigger plus than those featuring stunning "racial diversity"(read strong representation of minority kids from other neighborhoods).

Wow. You do you. The above comment was not meant as a knock on any of those other schools. And, FWIW, there are plenty of IB non-white students at Ludlow; the PK is roughly 65% white and, obviously, entirely IB.

Spare us your veiled accusations of racism. How long have you lived in the L-T neighborhood? We've been here for over 30 years. Brent and Maury got a big head start over L-T, due to better leadership. Nice to see Ludlow finally catching up as a neighborhood school.

You literally said you don’t treat racial diversity as a plus. I don’t think that’s veiled racism.

. Bunk. PP asserted that racial diversity wasn’t as important as the emergence of a true neighborhood school in an area that happens to be majority white. See the racism boogeyman where you like but spare us your holier than though crap.

Apologies, I actually meant to respond to this post.

My only point above was that L-T was already majority IB and majority UMC. It is not (likely, yet) majority white -- though it is plurality white -- but I don't see that as an issue (in fact, I personally think it's a benefit). That is not a knock on Brent, Maury or SWS and those are great schools I would be super happy to have my kid at from what I know of them. But, from my perspective, L-T is already also a school I am happy to have my kid at. I don't need it to become majority white. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class sizes are small. I don't know the numbers off hand but I think in the upper grades it's like 15.

It's great that the school doesn't feel financially pressured to fill the seats of those that leave (the perks of T1), but this suggests your child is not even approaching the upper grades yet... so, honestly, I don't think you're in a position to pontificate on whether in-classroom differentiation is enough to make up for a class that's 70% below grade level and 40% WAY below grade level.

And what's your basis to pontificate? And why do you assume that everyone's DCUM Larlo is going to be above grade level. Did it ever occur to you that some of us have kids that in fact benefit from teachers attuned to providing support?

She was responding to my posts in which I described MY snowflake as above grade level, so this was in the context of a discussion about whether Payne was appropriate for such a child. I have no doubt that Payne might be fantastic for kids just below or below grade level, especially with the small class sizes.

why do you assume the teachers are so poor or your kid so sensitive that they couldn’t cope with being in the top quarter of the class? it’s a really weird attitude.

Because teachers in DCPS are under incredible pressure to teach to the middle at most. Really, the 25th %ile in many cases, because of how the testing incentives are set up for schools. A 5 v a 4 gets a teacher and a school basically nothing; a 3 v 2 and 4 v 3 are huge wins. If more than 50% of the class is below grade level, then the academic aspects of school are a waste of time for my kid. That’s just how it is. Differentiation in the classroom is better than nothing, but it’s certainly not as good as a neighborhood school pitched at grade level or above.

Not all of us share those beliefs about parenting and schools. But yeah, if you want 80% 4+, an affordable house, urban amenities, walkability, etc, you may need to look elsewhere.

I don't need 80% 4+, I need -- ideally -- majority 4+; I would take 40%+ as long as we're around 70% 3+s. There must be more 4s&5s than 1&2s. Luckily, there are quite a few Hill schools that get me that, so I don't need to move anywhere. (FWIW, from my experience it's more important you're at 50%+ 4s & 5s in ELA, because that trickles into other subjects more and schools are much more amenable to pullups in math.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Hill elementary schools that are majority in-boundary, UMC and white have taken 10 or 15 years to become that way. Nobody has argued otherwise on this thread. The problem with Watkins is that it never changes, never gets on track to become a real neighborhood school. OP may not mind, but should know this.

Actually, Watkins has been changing. When I bought IB for the Cluster 10 years ago, its was 20% IB. Now it is 37% IB, which is HUGE considering that it doesn't include PK3, PK4, or K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

Space us the sanctimonious crap, PP. Brent, Maury, SWS and Peabody are all pretty thoroughly gentrified/majority UMC and white these days, and Ludlow's getting there.

Brent's at-risk rate is something like 5% and Maury's is in the teens. There are schools in upper NW, e.g. Stoddert, Hearst and Eaton, with higher percentages of poor minority kids.

Come on, nobody's buys in-boundary specifically for Payne. Payne is desirable for ECE (early childhood), OK for K-2nd, maybe 3rd, but on nobody's list for the upper grades. IB Payne parents still try to lottery out en masse.

Ludlow is already majority UMC. Not majority white (though plurality), but it's racial diversity is a plus in my book.

How is Ludlow majority UMC yet still receiving Title 1 funding?? Is there some sort of fraud going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

Space us the sanctimonious crap, PP. Brent, Maury, SWS and Peabody are all pretty thoroughly gentrified/majority UMC and white these days, and Ludlow's getting there.

Brent's at-risk rate is something like 5% and Maury's is in the teens. There are schools in upper NW, e.g. Stoddert, Hearst and Eaton, with higher percentages of poor minority kids.

Come on, nobody's buys in-boundary specifically for Payne. Payne is desirable for ECE (early childhood), OK for K-2nd, maybe 3rd, but on nobody's list for the upper grades. IB Payne parents still try to lottery out en masse.

Ludlow is already majority UMC. Not majority white (though plurality), but it's racial diversity is a plus in my book.

How is Ludlow majority UMC yet still receiving Title 1 funding?? Is there some sort of fraud going on?

LT isn't Title 1. Payne is Title 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Class sizes are small. I don't know the numbers off hand but I think in the upper grades it's like 15.

It's great that the school doesn't feel financially pressured to fill the seats of those that leave (the perks of T1), but this suggests your child is not even approaching the upper grades yet... so, honestly, I don't think you're in a position to pontificate on whether in-classroom differentiation is enough to make up for a class that's 70% below grade level and 40% WAY below grade level.

And what's your basis to pontificate? And why do you assume that everyone's DCUM Larlo is going to be above grade level. Did it ever occur to you that some of us have kids that in fact benefit from teachers attuned to providing support?

She was responding to my posts in which I described MY snowflake as above grade level, so this was in the context of a discussion about whether Payne was appropriate for such a child. I have no doubt that Payne might be fantastic for kids just below or below grade level, especially with the small class sizes.

why do you assume the teachers are so poor or your kid so sensitive that they couldn’t cope with being in the top quarter of the class? it’s a really weird attitude.

Because teachers in DCPS are under incredible pressure to teach to the middle at most. Really, the 25th %ile in many cases, because of how the testing incentives are set up for schools. A 5 v a 4 gets a teacher and a school basically nothing; a 3 v 2 and 4 v 3 are huge wins. If more than 50% of the class is below grade level, then the academic aspects of school are a waste of time for my kid. That’s just how it is. Differentiation in the classroom is better than nothing, but it’s certainly not as good as a neighborhood school pitched at grade level or above.

Not all of us share those beliefs about parenting and schools. But yeah, if you want 80% 4+, an affordable house, urban amenities, walkability, etc, you may need to look elsewhere.

I don't need 80% 4+, I need -- ideally -- majority 4+; I would take 40%+ as long as we're around 70% 3+s. There must be more 4s&5s than 1&2s. Luckily, there are quite a few Hill schools that get me that, so I don't need to move anywhere. (FWIW, from my experience it's more important you're at 50%+ 4s & 5s in ELA, because that trickles into other subjects more and schools are much more amenable to pullups in math.)

Good for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Hill elementary schools that are majority in-boundary, UMC and white have taken 10 or 15 years to become that way. Nobody has argued otherwise on this thread. The problem with Watkins is that it never changes, never gets on track to become a real neighborhood school. OP may not mind, but should know this.

Actually, Watkins has been changing. When I bought IB for the Cluster 10 years ago, its was 20% IB. Now it is 37% IB, which is HUGE considering that it doesn't include PK3, PK4, or K.

Don't agree that the change in the Cluster is huge. You sound mired in relativism.

10 years ago, Maury was around 20% in-boundary. Now it's roughly 70%. Brent was around 25%. Now it's over 80%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Hill elementary schools that are majority in-boundary, UMC and white have taken 10 or 15 years to become that way. Nobody has argued otherwise on this thread. The problem with Watkins is that it never changes, never gets on track to become a real neighborhood school. OP may not mind, but should know this.

Actually, Watkins has been changing. When I bought IB for the Cluster 10 years ago, its was 20% IB. Now it is 37% IB, which is HUGE considering that it doesn't include PK3, PK4, or K.

Don't agree that the change in the Cluster is huge. You sound mired in relativism.

10 years ago, Maury was around 20% in-boundary. Now it's roughly 70%. Brent was around 25%. Now it's over 80%.

Also, the thing to keep in mind with the Cluster is that 15 years ago, it was the farthest along Hill school. Up and down progress over time, but never just steady gains. Also, some of the change is the last few years is because they finally stopped just dumping in a bunch of new, by definition OOB kids, in 1st because Watkins was structured around having much bigger classes than the IB could support. That trend is finally changing from my understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^p.s.: But I’m sure Payne is improving and that it’s trajectory is positive. I just don’t buy that it’s all perfect now in upper grades.

nobody said it was perfect. if you want your kids surrounded only by kids just like them, the Hill may not be for you.

Space us the sanctimonious crap, PP. Brent, Maury, SWS and Peabody are all pretty thoroughly gentrified/majority UMC and white these days, and Ludlow's getting there.

Brent's at-risk rate is something like 5% and Maury's is in the teens. There are schools in upper NW, e.g. Stoddert, Hearst and Eaton, with higher percentages of poor minority kids.

Come on, nobody's buys in-boundary specifically for Payne. Payne is desirable for ECE (early childhood), OK for K-2nd, maybe 3rd, but on nobody's list for the upper grades. IB Payne parents still try to lottery out en masse.

Ludlow is already majority UMC. Not majority white (though plurality), but it's racial diversity is a plus in my book.

How is Ludlow majority UMC yet still receiving Title 1 funding?? Is there some sort of fraud going on?

LT isn't Title 1. Payne is Title 1.

Ludlow is no longer T1 and, because of how the process works, the designation lags the demographics by a year or two. LT changed so quickly that it skipped the whole interim category between T1 and not that Watkins, e.g., spent 3 years in. It’s a small school, so the demographics shifted very quickly once IBers started coming for PK3 and staying.