Positive Washington Post profile of Jefferson Academy today -- pushing back on DeVos' comments about teachers there after her visit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/a-closer-look-at-the-dc-school-that-devos-visited-jefferson-middle/2017/03/09/1f6b8de0-ff5b-11e6-8ebe-6e0dbe4f2bca_story.html?utm_term=.57339ccd494a

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you assuming poor kids have to have scores in the teens? They don't. It's not a law of nature. That is DCPS failure. So when parents don't want to send their kids to that school and they have a choice, they are reacting to the failure of the adults in the building and in central office, not the children. Get it?

DCPS performs better than most urban cities.

When you control for SES? Please post data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the parent moving to MoCo, but not sure I'm staying either. OK, how are you defining "rich" in this context? Not FARMs? If yes, wonderful, this single mom had no idea she was rich making less than six-figures annually.

I've seen a good deal of evidence that, at the ES level, the most important developments in a child's education take place at home. But the balance shifts away from home and toward what's happening at school the farther the kids progress. That said, I'm sure that some kids can do well in almost any sort of school. Others will need this and that to thrive...a certain amount of special attention, support, structure, encouragement, open space, arts training, certain types of intellectual challenge, being kept away from temptation, other...girls, boys, Jews, Asians, whites, AAs, Latinos, poor students, international students, handicapped students, bilingual students etc. etc. to feel at home and to thrive academically. You sound like a Jefferson Academy booster. Sorry, when I visited last year, I didn't want to return.

PP here. I agree with everything you say. But none of that has anything to do with the ridiculous proposal to gerrymander most of the rich (err, "high SES") kids on Capitol Hill into a single middle school that I have been seeing on here.

And yes, I do believe that, as a general matter, white kids on Capitol Hill are relatively rich. That doesn't mean I think your kids are.

I think you need to understand what gerrymandering is. Capitol Hill is a neighborhood and putting the kids in one school would not be gerrymandering. Putting them in three different middle schools is gerrymandering. By slicing up a neighborhood like this, you're manipulating the boundaries of the neighborhood so as to favor one party or class, that being the out of bound students.

The problem with that logic is that it does not reflect the reality of geography. The closest elementary schools to Jefferson are Amidon and Brent (not taking into account Van Ness, which, doesn't feed into any middle school yet). Are you suggesting that Amidon should be the sole feeder into Jefferson, while all of the schools on Capitol Hill should feed into another single school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the parent moving to MoCo, but not sure I'm staying either. OK, how are you defining "rich" in this context? Not FARMs? If yes, wonderful, this single mom had no idea she was rich making less than six-figures annually.

I've seen a good deal of evidence that, at the ES level, the most important developments in a child's education take place at home. But the balance shifts away from home and toward what's happening at school the farther the kids progress. That said, I'm sure that some kids can do well in almost any sort of school. Others will need this and that to thrive...a certain amount of special attention, support, structure, encouragement, open space, arts training, certain types of intellectual challenge, being kept away from temptation, other...girls, boys, Jews, Asians, whites, AAs, Latinos, poor students, international students, handicapped students, bilingual students etc. etc. to feel at home and to thrive academically. You sound like a Jefferson Academy booster. Sorry, when I visited last year, I didn't want to return.

PP here. I agree with everything you say. But none of that has anything to do with the ridiculous proposal to gerrymander most of the rich (err, "high SES") kids on Capitol Hill into a single middle school that I have been seeing on here.

And yes, I do believe that, as a general matter, white kids on Capitol Hill are relatively rich. That doesn't mean I think your kids are.

I think you need to understand what gerrymandering is. Capitol Hill is a neighborhood and putting the kids in one school would not be gerrymandering. Putting them in three different middle schools is gerrymandering. By slicing up a neighborhood like this, you're manipulating the boundaries of the neighborhood so as to favor one party or class, that being the out of bound students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the parent moving to MoCo, but not sure I'm staying either. OK, how are you defining "rich" in this context? Not FARMs? If yes, wonderful, this single mom had no idea she was rich making less than six-figures annually.

I've seen a good deal of evidence that, at the ES level, the most important developments in a child's education take place at home. But the balance shifts away from home and toward what's happening at school the farther the kids progress. That said, I'm sure that some kids can do well in almost any sort of school. Others will need this and that to thrive...a certain amount of special attention, support, structure, encouragement, open space, arts training, certain types of intellectual challenge, being kept away from temptation, other...girls, boys, Jews, Asians, whites, AAs, Latinos, poor students, international students, handicapped students, bilingual students etc. etc. to feel at home and to thrive academically. You sound like a Jefferson Academy booster. Sorry, when I visited last year, I didn't want to return.

PP here. I agree with everything you say. But none of that has anything to do with the ridiculous proposal to gerrymander most of the rich (err, "high SES") kids on Capitol Hill into a single middle school that I have been seeing on here.

And yes, I do believe that, as a general matter, white kids on Capitol Hill are relatively rich. That doesn't mean I think your kids are.

The proposal discussed upthread to feed all Ward 6 ESes to a single MS or all Ward 6 ESes minus the Cluster (if it chooses not to play ball) could hardly be called grrrymanderinng. It's sort of the opposite: it makes intra Ward 6 boundaries irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:Why are you assuming poor kids have to have scores in the teens? They don't. It's not a law of nature. That is DCPS failure. So when parents don't want to send their kids to that school and they have a choice, they are reacting to the failure of the adults in the building and in central office, not the children. Get it?

DCPS performs better than most urban cities.

Why are you assuming poor kids have to have scores in the teens? They don't. It's not a law of nature. That is DCPS failure. So when parents don't want to send their kids to that school and they have a choice, they are reacting to the failure of the adults in the building and in central office, not the children. Get it?

Anonymous wrote:Not the parent moving to MoCo, but not sure I'm staying either. OK, how are you defining "rich" in this context? Not FARMs? If yes, wonderful, this single mom had no idea she was rich making less than six-figures annually.

I've seen a good deal of evidence that, at the ES level, the most important developments in a child's education take place at home. But the balance shifts away from home and toward what's happening at school the farther the kids progress. That said, I'm sure that some kids can do well in almost any sort of school. Others will need this and that to thrive...a certain amount of special attention, support, structure, encouragement, open space, arts training, certain types of intellectual challenge, being kept away from temptation, other...girls, boys, Jews, Asians, whites, AAs, Latinos, poor students, international students, handicapped students, bilingual students etc. etc. to feel at home and to thrive academically. You sound like a Jefferson Academy booster. Sorry, when I visited last year, I didn't want to return.

PP here. I agree with everything you say. But none of that has anything to do with the ridiculous proposal to gerrymander most of the rich (err, "high SES") kids on Capitol Hill into a single middle school that I have been seeing on here.

And yes, I do believe that, as a general matter, white kids on Capitol Hill are relatively rich. That doesn't mean I think your kids are.

Not the parent moving to MoCo, but not sure I'm staying either. OK, how are you defining "rich" in this context? Not FARMs? If yes, wonderful, this single mom had no idea she was rich making less than six-figures annually.

I've seen a good deal of evidence that, at the ES level, the most important developments in a child's education take place at home. But the balance shifts away from home and toward what's happening at school the farther the kids progress. That said, I'm sure that some kids can do well in almost any sort of school. Others will need this and that to thrive...a certain amount of special attention, support, structure, encouragement, open space, arts training, certain types of intellectual challenge, being kept away from temptation, other...girls, boys, Jews, Asians, whites, AAs, Latinos, poor students, international students, handicapped students, bilingual students etc. etc. to feel at home and to thrive academically. You sound like a Jefferson Academy booster. Sorry, when I visited last year, I didn't want to return.

The basic gist of some of these comments seems to be that rich kids can only do well in a school that has lots of other rich kids. But I haven't seen any statistical evidence to back up this claim.

In fact, the only evidence I have seen says precisely the opposite. White kids at Watkins (whom we can safely assume are generally rich) outperform white kids at many of the so-called "top" schools in Upper NW (most of whom are also rich). This is the case despite the fact that Watkins overall does not have great scores.

Anonymous wrote:A real question. My IB MS has a proficiency pass rate in the teens. At this rate, we'll be moving to MoCo.

Ok, bye. Not to be curt but what did you expect? Did you know that bag when you moved there or had kids? You do know that your bright kid can still do well in a school with scores in the teens. But importantly, nobody has a right to attend a school where peers aren't all kid to high performing. You have to do what's best for your kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to sound inflammatory, but a lot of high SES parents pull their kids out after elementary school and move to NW or the burbs. Is there movement afoot to improve middle and high school choices? Can anyone forecast the outlook over the next 10 years?

Within the next 3 years it will sink in with everyone that Hardy MS is now desirable. That will do a few things - it will show that DCPS can turn a middle school in addition to Deal. It will mean fewer OOB slots at Hardy for the Hill. OTOH it might mean a few more slots at the desirable charter middle schools.

Not at all clear what will happen at McFarland. DCPS will continue to work on unraveling the EC's.

Meanwhile gentrification on the Hill and in nearby areas will proceed apace. This will increase the number of high SES kids at a range of Hill area elementaries. By ten years from now the demographic situation impacting the three middle schools will be very different.

What are the feeders to Hardy and what are their 5th grade test scores? I am sure they are not in the teens as are most of the feeders to Jefferson and Eliot Hine. Totally different situation. Apples and oranges.

A real question. My IB MS has a proficiency pass rate in the teens. At this rate, we'll be moving to MoCo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to sound inflammatory, but a lot of high SES parents pull their kids out after elementary school and move to NW or the burbs. Is there movement afoot to improve middle and high school choices? Can anyone forecast the outlook over the next 10 years?

Within the next 3 years it will sink in with everyone that Hardy MS is now desirable. That will do a few things - it will show that DCPS can turn a middle school in addition to Deal. It will mean fewer OOB slots at Hardy for the Hill. OTOH it might mean a few more slots at the desirable charter middle schools.

Not at all clear what will happen at McFarland. DCPS will continue to work on unraveling the EC's.

Meanwhile gentrification on the Hill and in nearby areas will proceed apace. This will increase the number of high SES kids at a range of Hill area elementaries. By ten years from now the demographic situation impacting the three middle schools will be very different.

All this. Good job PP!

And if you don't have ten years to wait for the "demographic situation impacting the middle schools" to kick in, you do...what, exactly?

You move to go to your IB school. Is this a real question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to sound inflammatory, but a lot of high SES parents pull their kids out after elementary school and move to NW or the burbs. Is there movement afoot to improve middle and high school choices? Can anyone forecast the outlook over the next 10 years?

Within the next 3 years it will sink in with everyone that Hardy MS is now desirable. That will do a few things - it will show that DCPS can turn a middle school in addition to Deal. It will mean fewer OOB slots at Hardy for the Hill. OTOH it might mean a few more slots at the desirable charter middle schools.

Not at all clear what will happen at McFarland. DCPS will continue to work on unraveling the EC's.

Meanwhile gentrification on the Hill and in nearby areas will proceed apace. This will increase the number of high SES kids at a range of Hill area elementaries. By ten years from now the demographic situation impacting the three middle schools will be very different.

All this. Good job PP!

And if you don't have ten years to wait for the "demographic situation impacting the middle schools" to kick in, you do...what, exactly?