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

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Generally true and the most important but you also need a smart cohort to boost the learning opportunities for your kid and again outside of 3-5 middle schools in DC it just isn't there

And again all the people championing your local schools great but most of you have kids that aren't even in school yet or in the early elementary grades. It changes fast almost all of you will bail if you don't get lucky with a charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not comparing Upper NW to Capital Hill or Dupont, but I still don't agree that it is not city living. I walk to everything and I'm 3 stops away from my office on the metro. My neighborhood has smaller house and lots of apartment buildings. I guess if you are only defining urban as those few areas like Capital Hill or Dupont I'd accept it, but then there are few other areas EOTP that should be considered urban either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK, so then we are telling the people in Brookland that they are also suburban, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK, so then we are telling the people in Brookland that they are also suburban, correct?

Yep, at least the parts farther from the metro. All of these area were originally considered suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not comparing Upper NW to Capital Hill or Dupont, but I still don't agree that it is not city living. I walk to everything and I'm 3 stops away from my office on the metro. My neighborhood has smaller house and lots of apartment buildings. I guess if you are only defining urban as those few areas like Capital Hill or Dupont I'd accept it, but then there are few other areas EOTP that should be considered urban either.

I also don't get the argument that the benefit of "city living" is all about housing density. The density of housing seems much less important to the overall quality of life than easy proximity to services and businesses. If you live in a dense area that but have to drive to everything, how is that preferable?

[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.

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.

Generally true and the most important but you also need a smart cohort to boost the learning opportunities for your kid and again outside of 3-5 middle schools in DC it just isn't there

And again all the people championing your local schools great but most of you have kids that aren't even in school yet or in the early elementary grades. It changes fast almost all of you will bail if you don't get lucky with a charter.

Here is the problem with these poor educational studies. They just look at middle class kids in poor performing schools to see if they graduated high school, went to college, etc... Of course they are going to do that, it’s a given.

What they needed to do was take out all the families who supplement outside of school and that variable in the poorer performing schools. Then have a control group of a similar level student going to a school with majority high performing students. Then analyze data by giving them tests based on critical thinking, knowledge base, etc... and examine outcomes of SAT scores, college acceptances, etc... Then track how they perform overall in college against higher performing peers.

This is where you will see the divergence of cognitive knowledge base, content, and critical thinking skills. This is where you will see the missing gap in potential of the student going to a lower performing school with lower academic peer group. But really, you don’t need a study to know the results.

Put a top performing kid in Dunbar high school and put the same kid in Sidwell and we all know which kid is going to come out stronger and more prepared for college. It’s not really rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Get back to us when your grandkids are in upper elementary. All families say this and rave about diversity at their IB poor performing schools EOTP. But things change quick in the upper grades and they bail. Ask the countless families who have been there, done that. Why don’t you think these schools can’t retain middle class families?

BTW your grandkids are not going to be so special and fawned upon because they are above grade level EOTP if they move WOTP. They will just be average and on grade level at best, maybe below. Happens to many families kids who make the move.

Subjective teacher standards for grade level in poor performing schools are much lower catering to the majority of poor performing cohort.

[Anonymous]

Yes school matters. Schools have reputations for a reason. You as a parent have the responsibility to pick the best fit for your child. It may be too early now, but as time goes on you’ll be able to understand this.
Meanwhile, pick the the best public school area you can afford. You won’t regret it. You will regret living in a poorly rated school zone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For Pk3-K/1st/2nd maybe it doesn't matter in DC.

But when your kid isn't able to learn because of class disruptions or because they are one of only a few on grade level or above, or when kids behavior on the playground or in the cafeteria make your kid intimidated or worse...yes it does matter. A Lot.

This. +100. All day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not comparing Upper NW to Capital Hill or Dupont, but I still don't agree that it is not city living. I walk to everything and I'm 3 stops away from my office on the metro. My neighborhood has smaller house and lots of apartment buildings. I guess if you are only defining urban as those few areas like Capital Hill or Dupont I'd accept it, but then there are few other areas EOTP that should be considered urban either.

LOL at your definition of "city living" and the paltry amount of places you can walk to "within a mile." I live in the U Street/Logan area, and absolutely everything you need to live is within a block or two. Dozens of bars and restaurants, several grocery stores, doctors for both humans and pets, pharmacies, dry cleaners, banks, fast food, coffee shops, post office, etc. -- I can crawl to all of it on my hands and knees. On top of that, we actually have people of color and people from all economic and professional/non-professional walks of life around here. THAT'S what city living is. If you have to define walkability in terms of what's available within a mile, you're in the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

OP, a lot of what the PPs are talking from is racism cloaked as "everyone knows" and "gut instinct". Get to know your neighbors and their kids. Can you get comfortable there? Then you can make the schools work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Get back to us when your grandkids are in upper elementary. All families say this and rave about diversity at their IB poor performing schools EOTP. But things change quick in the upper grades and they bail. Ask the countless families who have been there, done that. Why don’t you think these schools can’t retain middle class families?

BTW your grandkids are not going to be so special and fawned upon because they are above grade level EOTP if they move WOTP. They will just be average and on grade level at best, maybe below. Happens to many families kids who make the move.

Subjective teacher standards for grade level in poor performing schools are much lower catering to the majority of poor performing cohort.

Wow. Someone's bitter. You seem to forget that we raised our own kids in suburban schools in NOVA that, by virtually every objective measure, are better than the best WOTP schools. And guess what, they all were well above grade level in their fancy publics and all ended up in top colleges. On top of that, as I said in my earlier post, one of our adult children is a teacher in a highly rated suburban elementary school in NOVA, and has a pretty good idea -- I dare say, better than you and me -- of how our grandchildren are performing: as well or better than the best students in suburban publics.

One final thing: I never said our grandkids are "special and fawned upon." They're just smart and happy kids who are doing well while mixing with lots of kids who don't look like them. All the special and fawned upon kids are in the suburbs with all the rich white folks.

Just because you're afraid of diversity doesn't mean the rest of us are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not comparing Upper NW to Capital Hill or Dupont, but I still don't agree that it is not city living. I walk to everything and I'm 3 stops away from my office on the metro. My neighborhood has smaller house and lots of apartment buildings. I guess if you are only defining urban as those few areas like Capital Hill or Dupont I'd accept it, but then there are few other areas EOTP that should be considered urban either.

LOL at your definition of "city living" and the paltry amount of places you can walk to "within a mile." I live in the U Street/Logan area, and absolutely everything you need to live is within a block or two. Dozens of bars and restaurants, several grocery stores, doctors for both humans and pets, pharmacies, dry cleaners, banks, fast food, coffee shops, post office, etc. -- I can crawl to all of it on my hands and knees. On top of that, we actually have people of color and people from all economic and professional/non-professional walks of life around here. THAT'S what city living is. If you have to define walkability in terms of what's available within a mile, you're in the suburbs.

Very few people live within a block of "everything you need," even in a city. My friends live on Capital Hill and aren't within 2 blocks of anything. You don't need to be crawling distance to things to qualify as city living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Get back to us when your grandkids are in upper elementary. All families say this and rave about diversity at their IB poor performing schools EOTP. But things change quick in the upper grades and they bail. Ask the countless families who have been there, done that. Why don’t you think these schools can’t retain middle class families?

BTW your grandkids are not going to be so special and fawned upon because they are above grade level EOTP if they move WOTP. They will just be average and on grade level at best, maybe below. Happens to many families kids who make the move.

Subjective teacher standards for grade level in poor performing schools are much lower catering to the majority of poor performing cohort.

Wow. Someone's bitter. You seem to forget that we raised our own kids in suburban schools in NOVA that, by virtually every objective measure, are better than the best WOTP schools. And guess what, they all were well above grade level in their fancy publics and all ended up in top colleges. On top of that, as I said in my earlier post, one of our adult children is a teacher in a highly rated suburban elementary school in NOVA, and has a pretty good idea -- I dare say, better than you and me -- of how our grandchildren are performing: as well or better than the best students in suburban publics.

One final thing: I never said our grandkids are "special and fawned upon." They're just smart and happy kids who are doing well while mixing with lots of kids who don't look like them. All the special and fawned upon kids are in the suburbs with all the rich white folks.

Just because you're afraid of diversity doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Performance matters little and are easy when the kids are young and learning basics. Stakes are much higher when it becomes more involved and in depth. Notice the pattern of responders on here who say their kids are in DCPS EOTP but will be rethinking things for middle. I think you and your kids are naive at this point. Wait a few more years.

Also, no many of us are not afraid of diversity. I’m a minority. You are using the typical race card to justify why families don’t send their kids to your school when the real reason is because it’s a poorly performing school. It’s not just white middle class families who don’t send their kids there either. It’s black, asian, latino middle class families too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not comparing Upper NW to Capital Hill or Dupont, but I still don't agree that it is not city living. I walk to everything and I'm 3 stops away from my office on the metro. My neighborhood has smaller house and lots of apartment buildings. I guess if you are only defining urban as those few areas like Capital Hill or Dupont I'd accept it, but then there are few other areas EOTP that should be considered urban either.

LOL at your definition of "city living" and the paltry amount of places you can walk to "within a mile." I live in the U Street/Logan area, and absolutely everything you need to live is within a block or two. Dozens of bars and restaurants, several grocery stores, doctors for both humans and pets, pharmacies, dry cleaners, banks, fast food, coffee shops, post office, etc. -- I can crawl to all of it on my hands and knees. On top of that, we actually have people of color and people from all economic and professional/non-professional walks of life around here. THAT'S what city living is. If you have to define walkability in terms of what's available within a mile, you're in the suburbs.

Whatevs. You can continue to crawl to bars. My kids (ages 8 and up) walk to school on their own, run up and downs the streets with their friends, and go to diverse schools with kids from all over DC. I can walk anywhere I want to be in 10 minutes, and I can Uber to your hipster neighborhood in 15 if I want to. And no matter what you say, I live within the boundaries of a city.