ludlow-taylor

[Anonymous]

Good question^ That would be interesting data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a white K parent at LT, I am VERY happy with how things are going so far for my child & feel very positive about the school -- she's learning a lot in a safe & respectful environment and has friends of varying ethnicities.

Do you plan to keep your child at the school next year? Did you play the lottery last year?

Yeah, I played the lottery -- there are two specific schools that appeal to me for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with academics. I went ahead and filled out all six choices, b/c it seemed pointless not two -- but when we got a place at Tyler (=not one of the two specific schools), I turned it down w/out hesitation.

Even if she -had- gotten into one of the two specific schools, I'm not sure we would've switched -- I really would've had to think hard about it. After two years at LT, my daughter feels at home there, and we feel comfortable there as a family.

I don't know yet what I'll do this time around. We *really* like LT, at this point I think we'd be happy for her to go through 5th grade. However, my daughter does have to deal with this other factor that these two specific schools are better prepared to address, and I can't in good conscience shrug my shoulders and dismiss it as irrelevant.

Realistically, the odds she'll get in to one of those two specific schools are slim; if she stays at LT through 5th, I'm fine with that.

[Anonymous]

^ugh, to not two!

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your honesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Well said, pp!

PP, you are a hopeless advocate for LT. If the school is indeed "already there" offering "solid educational opportunities" as you claim, why do the great majority of neighborhood parents, most of whom seem to be smart people (hint, they have graduate degrees), avoid the school? Rampant racism alone explains why LT's white population has dropped two school years in a row? You discount the attraction of several far more diverse charters opening in Brookland since 2010?

My goal is more white kids in seats because rafts of such kids' parents own and rent homes in-boundary and LT, after all, is supposed to be a neighborhood school. Moreover, with almost all white kids on Capitol Hill coming from high SES backgrounds, it stands to reason that LT would benefit from far more upper-middle-class support.

The fact that a handful of white and Asian families are sticking around after K doesn't move me. I'm hoping that it won't move our future Ward 6 DC CM either. I'm betting on 2015 for abiding change at LT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the school is indeed "already there" offering "solid educational opportunities" as you claim, why do the great majority of neighborhood parents, most of whom seem to be smart people (hint, they have graduate degrees), avoid the school? Rampant racism alone explains why LT's white population has dropped two school years in a row? You discount the attraction of several far more diverse charters opening in Brookland since 2010?

I don't think it's rampant racism, exactly -- there is some of that, for sure, but I also think it's people afraid their white/Latino/Asian child will be ostracized or picked on if every other child in the class is African-American.

I have noticed the kids with white parents seem more likely to socialize together -- which I think has more to do with the parents' comfort than the kids'. I keep track of who my child hangs with in school, and so far she has plenty of friends who are black, which makes me think if we stay for the duration, she won't suddenly be the odd kid out, even if she is the only child of her ethnicity in her grade. I admit I do need to do a better job of reaching out to arrange playdates with kids in her class who are black; it shouldn't take effort, but it does, and I think some parents (white & black) aren't keen on making that effort.

I also think sometimes white parents who didn't grow up in cities have different expectations as far as school culture -- at the spring festival, for example (which I enjoyed tremendously), you could buy fried fish sandwiches on white bread, and I heard later that some parents complained that there should have been healthier bread. I don't know which parents complained, maybe they weren't white -- but I have to admit, that sounded like a white high-SES complaint to me, and it made me roll my eyes. But I would guess that if someone responded critically, whichever parent made that suggestion would be genuinely confused -- they're just trying to be helpful and improve the event, and they don't even get how a suggestion like that can be unwelcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'll take that bet! LT is not only doing a good job at educating students from diverse SE backgrounds, but the IB demographics for LT are the same as for Maury and Brent. As more IB parents elect to say at LT, its scores will continue to rise along the lines of the other schools you mention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It usually works better at the high school level to have teachers with degrees in the subject matter that they teach, however at the early childhood and elementary level there is way too much developmental knowledge and methods knowledge needed to be successful. I would be very uncomfortable having my child in an elementary class where the teacher did not hold at least one degree in education. However, you are correct. There are some strong teachers without credentials and weak ones with them. The thing in DC is that under IMPACT the weak teachers do not get to stay. Tenure is a thing of the past. DCPS teachers who are weak are forced to leave (thanks Michelle).

Yes thankfully she has been gone for a long time. She created worse conditions at many schools; maybe not yours.. Or did you have kids in the system at that time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It usually works better at the high school level to have teachers with degrees in the subject matter that they teach, however at the early childhood and elementary level there is way too much developmental knowledge and methods knowledge needed to be successful. I would be very uncomfortable having my child in an elementary class where the teacher did not hold at least one degree in education. However, you are correct. There are some strong teachers without credentials and weak ones with them. The thing in DC is that under IMPACT the weak teachers do not get to stay. Tenure is a thing of the past. DCPS teachers who are weak are forced to leave (thanks Michelle).

Yes thankfully she has been gone for a long time. She created worse conditions at many schools; maybe not yours.. Or did you have kids in the system at that time?

DP here. Yep, not every competent committed professional had such a great experience with Rhee who made a number of novice mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said, pp!

PP, you are a hopeless advocate for LT. If the school is indeed "already there" offering "solid educational opportunities" as you claim, why do the great majority of neighborhood parents, most of whom seem to be smart people (hint, they have graduate degrees), avoid the school? Rampant racism alone explains why LT's white population has dropped two school years in a row? You discount the attraction of several far more diverse charters opening in Brookland since 2010?

My goal is more white kids in seats because rafts of such kids' parents own and rent homes in-boundary and LT, after all, is supposed to be a neighborhood school. Moreover, with almost all white kids on Capitol Hill coming from high SES backgrounds, it stands to reason that LT would benefit from far more upper-middle-class support.

The fact that a handful of white and Asian families are sticking around after K doesn't move me. I'm hoping that it won't move our future Ward 6 DC CM either. I'm betting on 2015 for abiding change at LT.

Oh fer gosh sakes! I'm not the pp who wrote about getting white butts in the seats but I think she/he was right in saying that that she seems to be fine with it the way it is while you want to see more high SES (white) kids there. I don't really get why everyone has to convince the rest of DCUM that they are right and the other side is wrong. If you don't think there are enough high SES kids, fine - don't go there. But there are apparently at least a few high SES families who are okay with LT the way it is at this point. They have different standards than you apparently. Why try to beat it into their heads that they're wrong when they are happy with the way things are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Well said, pp!

PP, you are a hopeless advocate for LT. If the school is indeed "already there" offering "solid educational opportunities" as you claim, why do the great majority of neighborhood parents, most of whom seem to be smart people (hint, they have graduate degrees), avoid the school? Rampant racism alone explains why LT's white population has dropped two school years in a row? You discount the attraction of several far more diverse charters opening in Brookland since 2010?

My goal is more white kids in seats because rafts of such kids' parents own and rent homes in-boundary and LT, after all, is supposed to be a neighborhood school. Moreover, with almost all white kids on Capitol Hill coming from high SES backgrounds, it stands to reason that LT would benefit from far more upper-middle-class support.

The fact that a handful of white and Asian families are sticking around after K doesn't move me. I'm hoping that it won't move our future Ward 6 DC CM either. I'm betting on 2015 for abiding change at LT.



Because degrees are the mark of cognitive capacity...
I take it yours is not in a biological science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Well said, pp!

PP, you are a hopeless advocate for LT. If the school is indeed "already there" offering "solid educational opportunities" as you claim, why do the great majority of neighborhood parents, most of whom seem to be smart people (hint, they have graduate degrees), avoid the school? Rampant racism alone explains why LT's white population has dropped two school years in a row? You discount the attraction of several far more diverse charters opening in Brookland since 2010?

My goal is more white kids in seats because rafts of such kids' parents own and rent homes in-boundary and LT, after all, is supposed to be a neighborhood school. Moreover, with almost all white kids on Capitol Hill coming from high SES backgrounds, it stands to reason that LT would benefit from far more upper-middle-class support.

The fact that a handful of white and Asian families are sticking around after K doesn't move me. I'm hoping that it won't move our future Ward 6 DC CM either. I'm betting on 2015 for abiding change at LT.

Because degrees are the mark of cognitive capacity...
I take it yours is not in a biological science.

[Anonymous]

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'll take that bet! LT is not only doing a good job at educating students from diverse SE backgrounds, but the IB demographics for LT are the same as for Maury and Brent. As more IB parents elect to say at LT, its scores will continue to rise along the lines of the other schools you mention.


Maury has gone from more than 3/4 FARMs and 10% white to about 1/3 FARMS and majority white (narrowly) in just five years. LT's development trajectory as a neighborhood school has been much less robust in the same timeframe (staying between 9 and 12% white), but notable and praiseworthy nonetheless. I just can't get excited about what's happening there. We just started charter for PreS3 rather than trying LT and won't return. We don't have the patience wait for a critical mass of high SES local kids to reach the testing grades, like most of our IB friends.

DCPS doesn't break down scores by race when fewer than 25 kids of a race take the DC-CAS at a particular school. When will LT reach that critical mass. Any guesses? 2016 or 17?

[Anonymous]

2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the school is indeed "already there" offering "solid educational opportunities" as you claim, why do the great majority of neighborhood parents, most of whom seem to be smart people (hint, they have graduate degrees), avoid the school? Rampant racism alone explains why LT's white population has dropped two school years in a row? You discount the attraction of several far more diverse charters opening in Brookland since 2010?

I don't think it's rampant racism, exactly -- there is some of that, for sure, but I also think it's people afraid their white/Latino/Asian child will be ostracized or picked on if every other child in the class is African-American.

I have noticed the kids with white parents seem more likely to socialize together -- which I think has more to do with the parents' comfort than the kids'. I keep track of who my child hangs with in school, and so far she has plenty of friends who are black, which makes me think if we stay for the duration, she won't suddenly be the odd kid out, even if she is the only child of her ethnicity in her grade. I admit I do need to do a better job of reaching out to arrange playdates with kids in her class who are black; it shouldn't take effort, but it does, and I think some parents (white & black) aren't keen on making that effort.

I also think sometimes white parents who didn't grow up in cities have different expectations as far as school culture -- at the spring festival, for example (which I enjoyed tremendously), you could buy fried fish sandwiches on white bread, and I heard later that some parents complained that there should have been healthier bread. I don't know which parents complained, maybe they weren't white -- but I have to admit, that sounded like a white high-SES complaint to me, and it made me roll my eyes. But I would guess that if someone responded critically, whichever parent made that suggestion would be genuinely confused -- they're just trying to be helpful and improve the event, and they don't even get how a suggestion like that can be unwelcome.

Wow. Whoever made that complaint is the scum of the earth.