Asking which school is "better" is pointless. Brent remains at disadvantage on several fronts because of the longstanding and unresolved MS situation. Unlike Janney, there is not a path through HS for Brent students. Brent parents start obsessing about options around First or Second Grade and many, particularly those with older siblings in Latin or BASiS (Hearst used to be in the mix as well), gradually become less and less invested in the school. The fact that there is no clear vision for articulation through Fourth and Fifth Grades does not help. However, increasing competition for spots at Latin and BASIS soon may result in a greater number of IB students continuing at Brent through Fifth Grade and thereby strengthening the school. Much hinges upon whether DCPS will try to force controlledchoice or some other form of social engineering upon Brent as the messaging seems to be indicating that WotP is off-limits to this sort of untested experimentation.

Ok - so maybe Janney is "better" than Brent in the upper elementary years. For the lower grades (say PS-2nd) as I mentioned in an earlier post, I really can't imagine how it could be "better" given identical inputs (high SES cohort, excellent teaching, blah blah).

Anonymous wrote:I'd be interested to know what the basis for that ^^ statement is. Who here has had a kid at both schools and can directly compare? At a certain point, aren't all cats gray at night (or dusk, or whatever that adage is!)? I mean, I have a kid at Brent (still in the early years) and I can't imagine a better experience in terms of quality of teaching/class cohort and parental involvement. I can see how Janney would be equivalent (quality teachers; high-SES cohort, etc.) but what, other than those critical things, would make it better?

Janney is roughly twice the size of Brent and has a population which is more than 90 percent IB and less than five percent FARMs. While the percentage of Brent students eligible for FARMs is relatively low by DCPS standards, it is three times that of Janney and weighted heavily toward the upper (testing) grades by which time many IB students leave for charters or other alternatives. Comparing test scores, Brent is 16 and 39 percent "Advanced" for reading and math respectively, while Janney is 45 and 68 percent "Advanced.". Likewise, Brent is 24 and 20 percent "Basic" or below in reading and math, while Janney is 6 and 7 percent "Basic" or below. That said, I suspect that the perceived achievement gap between Brent and Janney will continue to close at a fairly rapid clip over the next couple of years.

Anonymous wrote:Not enough of y'all to make the school self-sufficient. They are re-opening VanNess to make a point.

I think you're partially right. I think Kaya wants to have a large OOB cohort as part of her desire to create charter-like schools with a citywide draw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be pretty good but not on par with Brent or Janney for a long time. Yes there are a lot of affluent people in the area with young kids but people seem to forget that there are still over 400 units of public housing that are going to be rebuilt in the same area (I think on the empty lots adjacent to canal park). There will still be a lot of high needs kids in the school coming from very challenging situations...so in that sense it won't be like Brent/Janney. Maybe more of a Tyler or Maury?

Not to mention that Brent has a long way to go before it's the equivalent of Janney. It's much more like Maury.

Maury still has problems in the early childhood years, much less the upper grades. Brent is much farther along.

Not enough of y'all to make the school self-sufficient. They are re-opening VanNess to make a point.

I'd be interested to know what the basis for that ^^ statement is. Who here has had a kid at both schools and can directly compare? At a certain point, aren't all cats gray at night (or dusk, or whatever that adage is!)? I mean, I have a kid at Brent (still in the early years) and I can't imagine a better experience in terms of quality of teaching/class cohort and parental involvement. I can see how Janney would be equivalent (quality teachers; high-SES cohort, etc.) but what, other than those critical things, would make it better?

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be pretty good but not on par with Brent or Janney for a long time. Yes there are a lot of affluent people in the area with young kids but people seem to forget that there are still over 400 units of public housing that are going to be rebuilt in the same area (I think on the empty lots adjacent to canal park). There will still be a lot of high needs kids in the school coming from very challenging situations...so in that sense it won't be like Brent/Janney. Maybe more of a Tyler or Maury?

Not to mention that Brent has a long way to go before it's the equivalent of Janney. It's much more like Maury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be completely off-base here, but would be interested to hear some reactions. I feel like a problem with Capitol Hill schools, generally, is that there are a fair number of families who are still in their "starter" homes, and with free PS/PK, they figure they may as well stay in DC for those years, and maybe they stay for a little longer if the school is pretty good and for whatever other reasons they aren't ready to put down a down payment on a new house. And that is why you see a lot of kids leaving DC at K, first, second grade. I feel like this phenomenon would be even more pronounced for Van Ness, where most of the housing would be market-rate high-rise condos. So you may get a school that is great in the lower grades, but then loses that neighborhood feel in the upper grades and gets lots of OOB kids (and of course, the "problems" this creates is debatable on DCUM)

A decent chunk of my DCs PS classmates moved or are planning to move because of what you describe. Once you have a second (or third) child, those 2BR/1.5BA rowhomes can become very tight.

Based on the ages of their children, I suspect the posters who didn't experience that are probably living in larger homes and purchased them when bargains could still be found in Capitol Hill.

Larger, yes (nearly everyone we know has 3BRs), but you'd probably have to go pre-2004 to find true bargains.

Not too many actual "starter" homes have been on the market on CH over the past several years, at least IB for schools like Ludlow, Maury and Brent. You were looking at $500,000+ for a fixer-upper three years ago without factoring in renovation costs.. The situation really wasn't all that different IB for Miner and Payne. And there are not too many against to be found in better school districts in Fairfax or Montgomery. Too soon to speculate what will happen at Van Ness several years after it reopens.

Anonymous wrote:I could be completely off-base here, but would be interested to hear some reactions. I feel like a problem with Capitol Hill schools, generally, is that there are a fair number of families who are still in their "starter" homes, and with free PS/PK, they figure they may as well stay in DC for those years, and maybe they stay for a little longer if the school is pretty good and for whatever other reasons they aren't ready to put down a down payment on a new house. And that is why you see a lot of kids leaving DC at K, first, second grade. I feel like this phenomenon would be even more pronounced for Van Ness, where most of the housing would be market-rate high-rise condos. So you may get a school that is great in the lower grades, but then loses that neighborhood feel in the upper grades and gets lots of OOB kids (and of course, the "problems" this creates is debatable on DCUM)

A decent chunk of my DCs PS classmates moved or are planning to move because of what you describe. Once you have a second (or third) child, those 2BR/1.5BA rowhomes can become very tight.

Based on the ages of their children, I suspect the posters who didn't experience that are probably living in larger homes and purchased them when bargains could still be found in Capitol Hill.

My child went to a 2 year old play school on Capitol Hill 11 years ago with a small group of kids. At least 7 of those families still live on the Hill. No starter home effect in our circle of friends. Very few have moved away. None to the suburbs of DC.

Anonymous wrote:I could be completely off-base here, but would be interested to hear some reactions. I feel like a problem with Capitol Hill schools, generally, is that there are a fair number of families who are still in their "starter" homes, and with free PS/PK, they figure they may as well stay in DC for those years, and maybe they stay for a little longer if the school is pretty good and for whatever other reasons they aren't ready to put down a down payment on a new house. And that is why you see a lot of kids leaving DC at K, first, second grade. I feel like this phenomenon would be even more pronounced for Van Ness, where most of the housing would be market-rate high-rise condos. So you may get a school that is great in the lower grades, but then loses that neighborhood feel in the upper grades and gets lots of OOB kids (and of course, the "problems" this creates is debatable on DCUM)

I think you are completely off-base. We have not observed any mass exodus of kids during K-2 nor have we heard about it from other parents re: other schools. That might have been the case years ago, but now everyone seems content to stay until at least middle school.

I also haven't been exposed to the starter home effect. For the most part, our friends, like us, moved to the Hill to be on the Hill, not as a stopping point on the journey to the suburbs. And, based on what we recently saw, it's not as if the immediate suburbs are any cheaper. We would have had to move to McLean or Great Falls to get real space for what we pay now.

Anonymous wrote:I could be completely off-base here, but would be interested to hear some reactions. I feel like a problem with Capitol Hill schools, generally, is that there are a fair number of families who are still in their "starter" homes, and with free PS/PK, they figure they may as well stay in DC for those years, and maybe they stay for a little longer if the school is pretty good and for whatever other reasons they aren't ready to put down a down payment on a new house. And that is why you see a lot of kids leaving DC at K, first, second grade. I feel like this phenomenon would be even more pronounced for Van Ness, where most of the housing would be market-rate high-rise condos. So you may get a school that is great in the lower grades, but then loses that neighborhood feel in the upper grades and gets lots of OOB kids (and of course, the "problems" this creates is debatable on DCUM)

We are on Capitol Hill and have a 6th grader. My DC and I actually looked at the class photo from Pre-K recently and we tried to figure out where everyone was these days. By our count 13 of the kids are definitely still living on the Hill and going to a combo of charter, DCPS, private and Catholic. Five of them moved to Maryland or Virginia and two I just don't know where they are. Still, I think that 13 families out of the twenty are still living in their small Capitol Hill homes is a lot. As schools improve, I would think that number would get even bigger and more will stay in public school.