HELP US DECIDE, home you love or school you would wnat your kids to attend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be more inclined to pick the better school and make due with a lesser house but my husband and I recently have fallen in love with a neighborhood for reasons beyond just the homes. The entire culture of the neighborhood is exactly the kind of community we'd like to raise our kids in and it would make it easier for us to raise a large family out here, by ourselves, away from our own families. The public schools aren't great, not good even, BUT there's an excellent church school we can afford and there are magnet programs within the school district that are quite good. So, we feel confident we can offer our kids a good education, either through the church school or the magnets if we were lucky enough to win the lottery, in that neighborhood. So, we're going for it. If it turns out to be a disaster, we'll move to a better school district in a few years.

Typos - sorry. Fixed a few. OP, in your situation, not being able to afford any private options, I would not gamble on winning a magnet lottery. I'd focus on buying in a good school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends. I would rather be in a lesser school pyramid such as Herndon or South Lakes in Fairfax County in a nicer house than a small crappy house in the Langley district, because the FX County district overall is pretty good. But if I were in DC, I'd go for the better school district because there is more disparity between good and bad schools and I don't want my snowflake in a truly bad school environment.

This.

[Anonymous]

If the "bad school" is essentially 40-60% high achievers and the remaining low achievers, then this isn't so bad.

But if we're talking FARMS over 60%, relatively high ESOL rates, etc., tread carefully as the administration may need to focus more on the at-risk students and not so much your kid. Title I aid helps, but how much of that extra "stuff" goes to the at-risk kids?

Also, a number of things are just a crapshoot with schools (and neighbors, for that matter.)

The K class this year may have non-catty/non-racist yuppie parents, a number of FARMS/ESOL parents that are eager to work together with the yuppie parents in the PTA and elsewhere, etc., etc., whereas the next year it's the exact opposite.

Not saying the crapshoot is only in the at-risk areas.

In the wealthy neighborhoods, you might get a clique of SAHMs that ruin it for everyone else, or WOHMs that look down on everyone that's not as amazing as they are and able to have 5 kids involved in everything, work as a law partner, and maintain that rocking body with natural 34Ds.

That great principal who's able to life everyone up? Whoops, he just got promoted to the central office or an even MORE at risk school, and along comes some drone who either worships diversity or doesn't acknowledge his at-risk students.

Also -- consider what you'll actually be doing with your kids. Will you *really* need a Walkscore of 95 with eight lively bars, 20-25 restaurants, artisanal and antique shopping out the wazoo, etc., etc. or will you be as happy in practice with a Walkscore of 73, a couple of mild bars for DH (or you) to catch the game w/o having to drink and drive, a Giant, and a couple of places that're approved by kids between 6-12?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the "bad school" is essentially 40-60% high achievers and the remaining low achievers, then this isn't so bad.

But if we're talking FARMS over 60%, relatively high ESOL rates, etc., tread carefully as the administration may need to focus more on the at-risk students and not so much your kid. Title I aid helps, but how much of that extra "stuff" goes to the at-risk kids?

Also, a number of things are just a crapshoot with schools (and neighbors, for that matter.)

The K class this year may have non-catty/non-racist yuppie parents, a number of FARMS/ESOL parents that are eager to work together with the yuppie parents in the PTA and elsewhere, etc., etc., whereas the next year it's the exact opposite.

Not saying the crapshoot is only in the at-risk areas.

In the wealthy neighborhoods, you might get a clique of SAHMs that ruin it for everyone else, or WOHMs that look down on everyone that's not as amazing as they are and able to have 5 kids involved in everything, work as a law partner, and maintain that rocking body with natural 34Ds.

That great principal who's able to life everyone up? Whoops, he just got promoted to the central office or an even MORE at risk school, and along comes some drone who either worships diversity or doesn't acknowledge his at-risk students.

Also -- consider what you'll actually be doing with your kids. Will you *really* need a Walkscore of 95 with eight lively bars, 20-25 restaurants, artisanal and antique shopping out the wazoo, etc., etc. or will you be as happy in practice with a Walkscore of 73, a couple of mild bars for DH (or you) to catch the game w/o having to drink and drive, a Giant, and a couple of places that're approved by kids between 6-12?

This seems to conflate "high achievers" with FARMS/ESOL rates.

Lots of words above, but the overall intent seems to be to recommend largely homogenous, "down-to-earth" middle-income areas, most likely in the outer suburbs, where no one is too poor, too rich, too fat or too thin. That might work for a middle-income government contractor or IT professional working near Dulles or somewhere along the Route 270 corredor, but not so well for people who'd have a horrendous commute if they worked in DC and lived out in Ashburn, Gainesville or Damascus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the "bad school" is essentially 40-60% high achievers and the remaining low achievers, then this isn't so bad.

But if we're talking FARMS over 60%, relatively high ESOL rates, etc., tread carefully as the administration may need to focus more on the at-risk students and not so much your kid. Title I aid helps, but how much of that extra "stuff" goes to the at-risk kids?

Also, a number of things are just a crapshoot with schools (and neighbors, for that matter.)

The K class this year may have non-catty/non-racist yuppie parents, a number of FARMS/ESOL parents that are eager to work together with the yuppie parents in the PTA and elsewhere, etc., etc., whereas the next year it's the exact opposite.

Not saying the crapshoot is only in the at-risk areas.

In the wealthy neighborhoods, you might get a clique of SAHMs that ruin it for everyone else, or WOHMs that look down on everyone that's not as amazing as they are and able to have 5 kids involved in everything, work as a law partner, and maintain that rocking body with natural 34Ds.

That great principal who's able to life everyone up? Whoops, he just got promoted to the central office or an even MORE at risk school, and along comes some drone who either worships diversity or doesn't acknowledge his at-risk students.

Also -- consider what you'll actually be doing with your kids. Will you *really* need a Walkscore of 95 with eight lively bars, 20-25 restaurants, artisanal and antique shopping out the wazoo, etc., etc. or will you be as happy in practice with a Walkscore of 73, a couple of mild bars for DH (or you) to catch the game w/o having to drink and drive, a Giant, and a couple of places that're approved by kids between 6-12?

This seems to conflate "high achievers" with FARMS/ESOL rates.

Lots of words above, but the overall intent seems to be to recommend largely homogenous, "down-to-earth" middle-income areas, most likely in the outer suburbs, where no one is too poor, too rich, too fat or too thin. That might work for a middle-income government contractor or IT professional working near Dulles or somewhere along the Route 270 corredor, but not so well for people who'd have a horrendous commute if they worked in DC and lived out in Ashburn, Gainesville or Damascus.

I work with many middle income professionals; and too a rule most commute from hr+ away into DC. They know the score; your smart DC will be neglected within an at-risk school, they are just not the priority, and the administration knows they will be fine b/c of the parents. You either aim for high achieving school close in, or you drive till you can afford neighborhood with good schools. That's just the rub I'm sorry. In the inner suburbs there are no middle class; it wealthy and low income and nothing in between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I work with many middle income professionals; and too a rule most commute from hr+ away into DC. They know the score; your smart DC will be neglected within an at-risk school, they are just not the priority, and the administration knows they will be fine b/c of the parents. You either aim for high achieving school close in, or you drive till you can afford neighborhood with good schools. That's just the rub I'm sorry. In the inner suburbs there are no middle class; it wealthy and low income and nothing in between.

I don't think this is true, although it depends on how define "wealthy" or "low-income." There are people in the middle, but their presence tends to get ignored until they are large in numbers. These are the folks who moved into the W-L district in Arlington before it was cool to do so, and are moving into South Arlington and less exalted parts of Fairfax today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I work with many middle income professionals; and too a rule most commute from hr+ away into DC. They know the score; your smart DC will be neglected within an at-risk school, they are just not the priority, and the administration knows they will be fine b/c of the parents. You either aim for high achieving school close in, or you drive till you can afford neighborhood with good schools. That's just the rub I'm sorry. In the inner suburbs there are no middle class; it wealthy and low income and nothing in between.

I don't think this is true, although it depends on how define "wealthy" or "low-income." There are people in the middle, but their presence tends to get ignored until they are large in numbers. These are the folks who moved into the W-L district in Arlington before it was cool to do so, and are moving into South Arlington and less exalted parts of Fairfax today.

Or into places like Silver Spring in Maryland, for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more DC gentrifies, the more the demographics of DCPS will change. Also, there will be many more tax dollars flowing in. The "crappy school system" WILL get better, because bad school systems are typically not bad, they just have low SES students. All these students are being pushed out into certain suburbs and east of the river.

DCPS is ranked low in the country. There is a direct correlation between ses, teacher quality and education. Where do you think the best teachers want to teach? Which school is going to focus on advanced education, the one where majority can't speak English or where the parents tutor and support there kids outside of school? If a parent can't feed their kids do you think they are going to worry more about getting food on the table or advanced algebra? In fact they may even urge their kids to work asap instead of spending extra time studying.

PP here. I realize that, which is why I said "as DC gentrifies". There are huge Swaths of the city that poor people can't afford to live in and it's continuing to spread. The schools on Capitol Hill improved because the demographics of the area changed. This is happening in the entire city. The low SES students are getting pushed out.
The district is transforming to one of the wealthiest areas in the country. The schools are going to
Improve.

Georgetown has been wealthy forever, why do the schools there suck?

Georgetown was particularly wealthy when it was full of slave shacks. If you make pronouncements, OP, at least try to understand the history of this area.