ludlow-taylor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: LT leadership is committed to educating poor (and because we are DC) thus largely AA kids. Admirable and much needed. This generates tension with local gentrifiers who would like to send their kids to a more affluent, racially diverse neighborhood school. Also understandable. The problem for these two groups is that there is no middle ground. If more affluent, white kids start coming to the school, others will follow, and pretty soon your classroom demographics look like Brent: two thirds white and 10% FARMS. Once a tipping point is reached the change comes very fast. The result being that 200+ good quality ES seats are lost to poor black families. LT leadership has good reason to resist this, except that LT is a neighborhood school and thus meant to serve a local community. I wonder if some middle ground could be found if schools were prevented from gentrifying quite as much and as quickly as Brent has. Perhaps by reserving seats for FARMS kids at all schools. For a city with a demographic profile like DC setting a floor of 35% low SES kids in any school might be healthy. Might entice us gentrifiers to invest in neighborhood schools with the test scores and classroom diversity we are looking for, while mitigating resistance from educators who are passionate about meeting the needs of under privileged kids.

ACtually Brent is already overcrowded in the lower grades with in boundary families who have a right to their neighborhood school. What would you do with those families while the seats they would occupy are occupied with the 35% low SES kids? My feeling is that the answer is not in engineering a mix in only the school, but engineering a mix in the neighborhood around the school. More affordable, mixed-income housing that feeds into Brent.

Easy. Shrink the IB area for Brent. Families have a right to their IB school, but nothing says the boundaries have to stay as is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
ACtually Brent is already overcrowded in the lower grades with in boundary families who have a right to their neighborhood school. What would you do with those families while the seats they would occupy are occupied with the 35% low SES kids? My feeling is that the answer is not in engineering a mix in only the school, but engineering a mix in the neighborhood around the school. More affordable, mixed-income housing that feeds into Brent.

I'm in boundry for Brent and I agree with this entirely. Change has happened very fast-- uncomfortably fast-- but setting aside spots is insulting to all. All neighborhoods should have great schools in their neighborhood-- kids should not be bussed into a handful of good schools. But we appreciate diversity in our nieghborhood schools, but it get that we should focus on making neighborhoods more diverse. The city should work on creating more affordable housing in Brent area (increase section 8 vouchers, etc.) and work to develop nicer housing stock to attract high income families to neighborhoods that currently have few high income families.

All neighborhoods should have great schools, but they don't. Until they do mandating a degree of socioeconomic diversity makes sense. Cheaper than trying to engineer the housing market. Nobody needs to be bussed. IB kids are already coming to L-T, it's just a matter of ensuring that a reasonable number of places stay open for lower SES kids when schools gentrify. Curious how this would be insulting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ OK, we hear you. You make several good points. I'm surely not alone in appreciating the historic perspective you provide.

Of course LT would be improved--dramatically--by having more (white, affluent) families from the immediate neighborhood. Jut look at Maury, where DC-CAS scores leapt up 28 points in reading this year, and 19 in math, arguably because most of the kids in the large cohort of high-SES/predominantly white families who started in Pres3 in 2008 stayed on to 3rd grade. There is no other plausible explanation, other than widespread cheating (not being argued in this case)for the sudden and dramatic rise in scores. Even if you aren't enamored of standardized testing, there's no denying that it's a new day for Maury.

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax, where admissions are race-blind, only has half a dozen AA kids in its freshman class? There are reasons that high-SES parents of all races are generally reluctant to send their kids to schools where most of their classmates (vs. kids in the building) are black and lower-middle-class or poor.

And yet LT still out performed maury.

[Anonymous]

The question is "would be improved" for whom? As illustrated at various schools across the city in the last 10 years, when a school in a gentrifiing neighborhood attracts a critical mass of richer white families test scores go up. These schools then attract more IB white families while the number of seats available to OOB families is squeezed, gradually to nil. For the IB families, the school is improved. From the perspective of educational outcomes I am not so sure. Aren't you just shunting kids around. Kids who would previously have done well at private or suburban schools are now doing well in the city. OOB kids who would previously have struggled academically at Brent and Maury are now struggling elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

As others have noted, to no avail, LT ALREADY OUTPERFORMS MAURY on test scores.

[cue cheating accusations in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...]

It amazes me that, in the face of EVIDENCE that LT is doing a fine job educating high-achieving kids, people keep talking as though Maury is something to aspire to.

If your goal is more white butts in seats, Maury is something to aspire to; if your goal is a school that offers solid educational opportunities, LT is already there.

And, y'know, if your goal IS more white butts in seats -- if your goal is to have a school that's at least 20% white through the upper grades, so that your child isn't an "only" -- I think that's OK. Just admit that.

But don't confuse that with making the school "stronger" or "increasing opportunity" or (worse) "overhaul." It makes the school a more comfortable place for you and your child, which is an understandable goal for you to have. You don't have to justify it as "improving" the school -- that only succeeds in offending the families whose kids are already excelling at LT.

[Anonymous]

^Not necessarily. When I got to a Maury open house in the spring the kick ass French-Canadian principal gave a great little presentation about how much better her low-SES kids are doing in a diverse school than when the student population was entirely AA and low-SES. She came armed with a good many hard-to-deny facts and figures.

Many many things change for the better in Hill schools when most of the parents are highly educated. Leadership improves, teaching improves, facilities improve, field trips are taken more regularly and are of better quality, after care improves, you name it. Even JKLM have FARMs kids.

As a professional with two graduate degrees and a good job who went to college on a Pell Grant, you're never going to convince me that it's better for poor kids to stay in traditional public schools where most of the other kids are low-SES. KIPP or SEED or BASIS schools with extended day/school years, a variety of special enrichment program, non-unionized teachers and lots of grant money maybe. LT, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As others have noted, to no avail, LT ALREADY OUTPERFORMS MAURY on test scores.

[cue cheating accusations in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...]

It amazes me that, in the face of EVIDENCE that LT is doing a fine job educating high-achieving kids, people keep talking as though Maury is something to aspire to.

If your goal is more white butts in seats, Maury is something to aspire to; if your goal is a school that offers solid educational opportunities, LT is already there.

And, y'know, if your goal IS more white butts in seats -- if your goal is to have a school that's at least 20% white through the upper grades, so that your child isn't an "only" -- I think that's OK. Just admit that.

But don't confuse that with making the school "stronger" or "increasing opportunity" or (worse) "overhaul." It makes the school a more comfortable place for you and your child, which is an understandable goal for you to have. You don't have to justify it as "improving" the school -- that only succeeds in offending the families whose kids are already excelling at LT.

MYOPIA. Within several years, Maury's test scores will shoot into the 70s and 80s (like Brent's, and Watkins' for white kids) while LT's won't budge.

I could care less about offending families at LT who don't live in the Stanton Park neighborhood (at least 3/4 of the current parents). Change LT o a charter or city-wide lottery elementary school and I'll grant your points about improving the school.

[Anonymous]

We are a high-SES family with an AA DS in an area elementary. I'm surprised (maybe naively) that families actually count the number of AA's in classrooms to determine it's potential success?

Is my child getting labelled every time one of these parents looks around his classroom? "Oh, there's another black boy in the class..."

Is there an assumption that all black kids are not as smart OR is it just wanting more white kids in class so that your child is not the only one.

Just very curious.

[Anonymous]

For all the hand wringing over LT, Watkins is the real elephant in the room. Somewhat established achievement levels yet slight but noticeable erosion of results parallel to increasingly OOB student population. Watkins has become much less of a neighborhood school than it was when the Cluster was on stronger footing. A lot of families who would have opted Cluster in past years are now populating Tyler SI, SWS charters and even Brent, which not that long ago was widely considered an inferior option to the Cluster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are not many but there are some white/high SES families in the upper grades. Maybe talk to them? Clearly they are having positive experiences or they wouldn't stay. Maybe LT really is "the best kept secret on the hill."

I talk to them, regularly. They have the patience of saints. More power to them, although they aren't exactly mainstream for Stanton Park gentrifiers. The high-SES families I know at LT past PreK are lovely people, lovely, super liberal on-the-verge-of-hippie people. Most of us are more middle of the road, socially and politically.

Do they think their children are getting a quality education? Do they like the teachers? Do their children feel safe and welcome? Are their children making friends and building positive relationships with their classmates?

CAN THIS PLEASE BE ANSWERED. BECAUSE IF THE ANSWERS ARE YES THAT SAYS A LOT AND PERHAPS A LOT OF THIS NONSENSE CAN STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are a high-SES family with an AA DS in an area elementary. I'm surprised (maybe naively) that families actually count the number of AA's in classrooms to determine it's potential success?

Is my child getting labelled every time one of these parents looks around his classroom? "Oh, there's another black boy in the class..."

Is there an assumption that all black kids are not as smart OR is it just wanting more white kids in class so that your child is not the only one.

Just very curious.

I would not try to draw meaningful conclusions from postings on this board. Undoubtedly, potential success is linked with SES, which by and large tracks race in DC. Of course there are many AA students from high-SES who attend a DCPS and help to contribute to continuing academic success. While i can't speak for others, this is not strictly speaking a racial issue from my own perspective as i welcome efforts to promote diversity to the extent possible at our IB school (Brent). I certainly can empathize with parents reluctant to send their child to what is perceived as an unwelcoming or underperforming school in their neighborhood as we found ourselves in this same posture not that long ago. At the same time, I am all-too-familiar with tensions that can result from the effects of gentrification once a critical mass of children of high-SES tips the balance (as happened several years ago at Brent), thereby foreclosing perceived opportunities for greater numbers of OOB students. Virtually everyone wants a classroom with highly-effective teachers and students who show up every day prepared to learn, regardless of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the hand wringing over LT, Watkins is the real elephant in the room. Somewhat established achievement levels yet slight but noticeable erosion of results parallel to increasingly OOB student population. Watkins has become much less of a neighborhood school than it was when the Cluster was on stronger footing. A lot of families who would have opted Cluster in past years are now populating Tyler SI, SWS charters and even Brent, which not that long ago was widely considered an inferior option to the Cluster

Watkins is a valid case to be studied. However, the days when Hill parents can get into Brent as OOB have come and gone. There are instances when students have been admitted to Brent in the past couple years, but these exceptions are rare not the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As others have noted, to no avail, LT ALREADY OUTPERFORMS MAURY on test scores.

[cue cheating accusations in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...]

It amazes me that, in the face of EVIDENCE that LT is doing a fine job educating high-achieving kids, people keep talking as though Maury is something to aspire to.

If your goal is more white butts in seats, Maury is something to aspire to; if your goal is a school that offers solid educational opportunities, LT is already there.

And, y'know, if your goal IS more white butts in seats -- if your goal is to have a school that's at least 20% white through the upper grades, so that your child isn't an "only" -- I think that's OK. Just admit that.

But don't confuse that with making the school "stronger" or "increasing opportunity" or (worse) "overhaul." It makes the school a more comfortable place for you and your child, which is an understandable goal for you to have. You don't have to justify it as "improving" the school -- that only succeeds in offending the families whose kids are already excelling at LT.

Why can't we discuss allegations of cheating at L-T? It is a valid concern and like it or not casts doubt on your evidence of high performance. Personally, because of the mess around DC cas scores in the city, I need other evidence of a high level of teaching and learning going on at L-t. For example, I would want to hear directly from English and math teachers at the middle schools where l-t students end up if they are well prepared for their courses or not. That's where the evidence really is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the hand wringing over LT, Watkins is the real elephant in the room. Somewhat established achievement levels yet slight but noticeable erosion of results parallel to increasingly OOB student population. Watkins has become much less of a neighborhood school than it was when the Cluster was on stronger footing. A lot of families who would have opted Cluster in past years are now populating Tyler SI, SWS charters and even Brent, which not that long ago was widely considered an inferior option to the Cluster

Neighborhood people didn't opt out of Watkins. I was here and remember a time when the Cluster school was the ONLY public school on the Hill that well-educated middle class families ( of all races ) would consider. If you lived out of the Cluster boundaries and did not win in the lottery, you were SOL and needed to commute out of the neighborhood for public school ( to Georgetown or Upper NW ). All of the other neighborhood schools, including Two Rivers, that are now siphoning families away from Watkins got their impetus from the lack of enough space at Watkins and Peabody. It is a good thing that the desire for excellent, local public schools and the scarcity of seats led to innovation and rejuvenation. Unfortunately The Cluster has not been able to ( or doesn't want to ) remain highly desireable to neighborhood families who now have other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are not many but there are some white/high SES families in the upper grades. Maybe talk to them? Clearly they are having positive experiences or they wouldn't stay. Maybe LT really is "the best kept secret on the hill."

I talk to them, regularly. They have the patience of saints. More power to them, although they aren't exactly mainstream for Stanton Park gentrifiers. The high-SES families I know at LT past PreK are lovely people, lovely, super liberal on-the-verge-of-hippie people. Most of us are more middle of the road, socially and politically.

Do they think their children are getting a quality education? Do they like the teachers? Do their children feel safe and welcome? Are their children making friends and building positive relationships with their classmates?

CAN THIS PLEASE BE ANSWERED. BECAUSE IF THE ANSWERS ARE YES THAT SAYS A LOT AND PERHAPS A LOT OF THIS NONSENSE CAN STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still no answer...Once this is answered we can stop this crazy back and forth.