In which NW DC neighborhoods do most (75%+) of ES-aged kids attend their in-bound public ES?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feels like this is true of Lafayette area, but where else?

Adams Morgan - we have Oyster and Marie Reed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

Umm. Check yourself. NP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

You (we) deserve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

It’s just where the evidence is in all research. Good teachers can only be good when they have kids and families that care. Family environment and cultural standards strongly limit the extent to which teachers can help kids. And DC is chock full of kids whose families do not value school, teachers, or education at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

It’s just where the evidence is in all research. Good teachers can only be good when they have kids and families that care. Family environment and cultural standards strongly limit the extent to which teachers can help kids. And DC is chock full of kids whose families do not value school, teachers, or education at all.

Show "all research."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

"Troubling" lmao

At those schools that's all they do. The blatant goal is to close the achievement gap by dragging the top down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of us don't make much distinction between charter and public schools. They're all just schools.

Well, it does change the vibe of the neighborhood when lots of neighbors go to school together -- the kids can walk to each others houses for playdates, etc.

The kids in our area all go to different schools. No one cares. They all play together.

This. Big mistake if you prioritize poor neighborhood schools over better schools. You will realize this sooner than later in upper elementary and upper. Kids don’t choose friends based on where they live. It’s not an issue when they can also take metro and get around by themselves. My DS started going on metro by himself to school in 6th.

No one is doing that. Most of the schools on the list the PP posted above with very high IB participation rates are the best schools in the city (Janney, Mann, etc).

The DCPS schools that are not that great don't have very high IB participation, so kids don't get that "walk to and from school with friends and go freely from house to house" thing.

Some circling logic here--the only reason these schools are "great" is they have a self-selected cohort of students from very well-off families that can pay to segregate themselves in specific neighborhoods to take advantage of geographic boundary preferences. Theses school would not be "great" for long if they didn't offer an in-boundary preference.

Not really. One of the biggest determinants of how well kids do is what the kids around them are doing. If they're in a class full of children working hard, they will likely work hard too. If they're in a class full of children who aren't working hard, they probably won't either. Peer pressure is powerful thing among children, and that can be bad and it can be good.

How is that different. If it is the cohort of kids and the resulting peer pressure that makes them perform better, then the school is not actually "great"-- teacher quality and curricula don't factor in much. The neighborhood is "great" not the school.

+1
Just look at the test scores for kids who are lower income at some of these schools. The scores are pretty bad considering the resources the school has to put into a relatively low percent of disadvantaged kids.

Fortunately (or not) those kids only matter to my children and I when they compose a majority of the class. At that point, it’s not the teachers’ fault at all but there will be no learning going on in those classrooms.

I don’t think there’s realistically anything the teachers can do for those kids except raise the floor but you get enough of those kids and the teachers can’t teach at the appropriate level. There’s nothing a teacher can do if the kids and the families are disruptive.

I think it’s a bit disturbing how many times you wrote “there’s nothing a teacher can do” to support lower income students. It’s also troubling that you only characterize then as disruptive. I think you should reevaluate your biases. And hold your schools to higher expectations to support these students.

It’s just where the evidence is in all research. Good teachers can only be good when they have kids and families that care. Family environment and cultural standards strongly limit the extent to which teachers can help kids. And DC is chock full of kids whose families do not value school, teachers, or education at all.

Show "all research."

Teacher quality doesn’t affect much, more than washed out by family “quality” and other factors: https://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek+Rivkin_AnnRevEcon.pdf (long review of the literature).

Is that not intuitive? Teachers only spend a little bit of time with kids compared to their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

I'd bet that at least 90 percent of the City Paper staffers who came up with Upper Caucasia as a label for upper NW were white. As a white person, I have no problem whatsoever with white people making fun of white people.

[Anonymous]

You can search by school here and see the numbers: https://edscape.dc.gov/page/enrollments-dcps-boundary-00

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can search by school here and see the numbers: https://edscape.dc.gov/page/enrollments-dcps-boundary-00

"This dashboard shows where public schools students living in each of the DCPS school boundaries enrolled."

This does not fully answer OP's question becuase it does not tell you what percentage of NW DC neighborhood kids attend private ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can search by school here and see the numbers: https://edscape.dc.gov/page/enrollments-dcps-boundary-00

"This dashboard shows where public schools students living in each of the DCPS school boundaries enrolled."

This does not fully answer OP's question becuase it does not tell you what percentage of NW DC neighborhood kids attend private ES.

Scroll down. Click to download the dataset. Search by the school you are curious about (the first instance, which is sy24-25). Now look at columns F-I. Fin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper Caucasia is not a new reference, though it is funny. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/233552/upper-caucasia/

It’s so cool that we can finally publicly mock an entire race of people without fear. #progress

You (we) deserve it.

And as mentioned earlier in this thread, this joke is from 2008, so we “finally” got here 17 years ago.