Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

I don't think anyone made any such statement. The conversation has been explicitly about L-T and I actually haven't seen anyone discuss any other EOTP schools on here at all. I get schools gentrify but if that's what's behind lower than expected scores in higher grades, then it would seem that the real answer to OP's question is not "yes, having more peers at grade level is important" but instead "having higher SES peers is important." Related answers, but not exactly the same.

I know schools do iReady and other testing in classrooms to asses student progress in early elementary grades but I was not aware that schools aggregated that data and reported it out -- I thought it was intended just as a tool for teaching the specific student and tracking their progress, or making sure they are placed in the right groups for reading and math. I've never seen aggregated data on this from my school, just my individual student's test results. That's why I asked.

My kid is at an "EOTP" elementary, for what it is worth.

You’ve seen your own kids scores but are surprised the schools administer the tests? Nothing in your original post had anything to do with sharing the data in an aggregated fashion; you questioned the idea that schools did the testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

To the poster above this one… Actually, here’s the post where the PP explicitly mocks the idea of demographic changes across grade levels.

Yes but it's a post just referencing L-T, not all schools EOTP. Like I would not expect K and 3rd grade to be a substantially different group of kids at Brent or Maury, nor at some of the Title 1 schools EOTP where high-SES families don't go at all or only go for PK and then bail out. L-T might be uniquely in the middle of a gentrification where that's not true, but if so you can just answer the question (this is why I think there are demographic differences between lower and upper elementary at L-T) rather than act incensed that someone would mostly expect the student population at a well-regarded school to be pretty consistent from grade to grade, since at most schools it is consistent because good schools tend to retain families through at least 4th.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

To the poster above this one… Actually, here’s the post where the PP explicitly mocks the idea of demographic changes across grade levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

I don't think anyone made any such statement. The conversation has been explicitly about L-T and I actually haven't seen anyone discuss any other EOTP schools on here at all. I get schools gentrify but if that's what's behind lower than expected scores in higher grades, then it would seem that the real answer to OP's question is not "yes, having more peers at grade level is important" but instead "having higher SES peers is important." Related answers, but not exactly the same.

I know schools do iReady and other testing in classrooms to asses student progress in early elementary grades but I was not aware that schools aggregated that data and reported it out -- I thought it was intended just as a tool for teaching the specific student and tracking their progress, or making sure they are placed in the right groups for reading and math. I've never seen aggregated data on this from my school, just my individual student's test results. That's why I asked.

My kid is at an "EOTP" elementary, for what it is worth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

I don't think anyone made any such statement. The conversation has been explicitly about L-T and I actually haven't seen anyone discuss any other EOTP schools on here at all. I get schools gentrify but if that's what's behind lower than expected scores in higher grades, then it would seem that the real answer to OP's question is not "yes, having more peers at grade level is important" but instead "having higher SES peers is important." Related answers, but not exactly the same.

I know schools do iReady and other testing in classrooms to asses student progress in early elementary grades but I was not aware that schools aggregated that data and reported it out -- I thought it was intended just as a tool for teaching the specific student and tracking their progress, or making sure they are placed in the right groups for reading and math. I've never seen aggregated data on this from my school, just my individual student's test results. That's why I asked.

My kid is at an "EOTP" elementary, for what it is worth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Are you the same poster who though PK and 4th grade classes were demographically then same anywhere EOTP? Because of course schools do their own testing of K and 1st graders. You seem very confident on a lot of points while seemingly having never stepped foot in any EOTP DCPS much less L-T.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread kind of makes me jealous of the vast majority of American parents who just enroll their kids in their suburban boundary school because that’s what’s available to them. Though I realize it’s a double edge sword, if those schools don’t work for their kid, most parents do not have another option. Moving or private school aren’t realistic to most of our country, where in the DC UMC it seems almost like a given if things aren’t working out.

it is extremely coming throughout the rest of the country for parents to choose where they live specifically for the school their home is zoned for. Yes, they just send their kid to the local school, but they didn’t randomly end up where they did.

DC seems to be full of more oblivious parents who wake up one day and realize the house they bought with the great walk to all the bars and coffee shops is zoned for a terrible school.

I see this opinion on here often and I don't get it. In some cases good schools are "a great walk to all the bars and coffee shops." In other instances, people bought homes before they had kids or even knew if they wanted to have kids, so didn't prioritize schools (and didn't great metrics for evaluating them even if they did). Sometimes people buy homes believing the IB school to be good, only to attend for ECE and discover it's not at all right for their kid. Some people rent, and/or can't afford to live in-bound for better schools. Some people bought knowing the schools were bad but believed they would be able to move before it was an issue, only to run into issues (a job loss, Covid, home not appreciating well while homes in more desired school boundaries shooting up in price, etc.).



I know you think you are really owning all the families in DC who have poor IB schools that happen to be near a coffee shop or bar they enjoy going too, but you just wind up coming off incredibly ignorant. You seem to think there are large numbers of people who can buy wherever they want but choose homes in "hip" neighborhoods with bad schools just because they are stupid and oblivious. It's not happening. In fact, one of the things that happens is that a bunch of people buy homes in "hip" neighborhoods and then the schools get a lot better -- see the aforementioned Ludlow Taylor, and Maury, among others.

I'm sorry your upper NW neighborhood or suburb has so few good businesses to walk to, but at least your schools are good.

Actually I think the comment is spot on and I don't get it either. That said, I think it applies only to a slice of UMC DC that lives EOTP. These are the same people who say "outcomes track demographics. As long as your kid is from an UMC family they will be fine. Statistics show that. Don't worry about the schools." But what they don't realize is that in 95% of the country UMC people who want to use the public schools intentionally locate near good ones. There are very very few UMC families in the US that are going to failing schools, because they can afford not to. So what the "statistics" say about demographics really represents more than just straight demographics.

To the other poster's point about their young kid being in the "top XX%" nationwide.... I'm going to go out an a limb and assume this percentile is from i-ready scores, where the nationwide percentile is provided. But a cautionary point there, that I just realized myself. My current 6th grader has consistently scored in the 97-99 percentile on i-ready, including this year. But their middle-of-year 6th grade i-ready scores said that they were scoring as an end-of-year 6th grader. That seemed odd to me-- how could a kid in the 99 percentile be performing only slightly above grade level? I asked the teacher at conferences who said it was confusing to him too, but his best guess is that i-ready isn't used broadly across the US, and is mostly used by urban schools, so the "nationwide" sample set doesn't really represent the country. I started looking at scores differently after that.

This is such a fantastic insight. I always feel like that about Ed policy studies that get to the right "liberal" result (and I am a liberal...)

Demographic SES of school doesn't matter
Where you go to college doesn't matter
Etc etc

So many lurking variables behind them.

Is this a joke? The studies that say that are explicitly controlling for school and school system. It’s not a confounding factor; it’s the *very thing they are studying.*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread kind of makes me jealous of the vast majority of American parents who just enroll their kids in their suburban boundary school because that’s what’s available to them. Though I realize it’s a double edge sword, if those schools don’t work for their kid, most parents do not have another option. Moving or private school aren’t realistic to most of our country, where in the DC UMC it seems almost like a given if things aren’t working out.

it is extremely coming throughout the rest of the country for parents to choose where they live specifically for the school their home is zoned for. Yes, they just send their kid to the local school, but they didn’t randomly end up where they did.

DC seems to be full of more oblivious parents who wake up one day and realize the house they bought with the great walk to all the bars and coffee shops is zoned for a terrible school.

I see this opinion on here often and I don't get it. In some cases good schools are "a great walk to all the bars and coffee shops." In other instances, people bought homes before they had kids or even knew if they wanted to have kids, so didn't prioritize schools (and didn't great metrics for evaluating them even if they did). Sometimes people buy homes believing the IB school to be good, only to attend for ECE and discover it's not at all right for their kid. Some people rent, and/or can't afford to live in-bound for better schools. Some people bought knowing the schools were bad but believed they would be able to move before it was an issue, only to run into issues (a job loss, Covid, home not appreciating well while homes in more desired school boundaries shooting up in price, etc.).



I know you think you are really owning all the families in DC who have poor IB schools that happen to be near a coffee shop or bar they enjoy going too, but you just wind up coming off incredibly ignorant. You seem to think there are large numbers of people who can buy wherever they want but choose homes in "hip" neighborhoods with bad schools just because they are stupid and oblivious. It's not happening. In fact, one of the things that happens is that a bunch of people buy homes in "hip" neighborhoods and then the schools get a lot better -- see the aforementioned Ludlow Taylor, and Maury, among others.

I'm sorry your upper NW neighborhood or suburb has so few good businesses to walk to, but at least your schools are good.

Actually I think the comment is spot on and I don't get it either. That said, I think it applies only to a slice of UMC DC that lives EOTP. These are the same people who say "outcomes track demographics. As long as your kid is from an UMC family they will be fine. Statistics show that. Don't worry about the schools." But what they don't realize is that in 95% of the country UMC people who want to use the public schools intentionally locate near good ones. There are very very few UMC families in the US that are going to failing schools, because they can afford not to. So what the "statistics" say about demographics really represents more than just straight demographics.

To the other poster's point about their young kid being in the "top XX%" nationwide.... I'm going to go out an a limb and assume this percentile is from i-ready scores, where the nationwide percentile is provided. But a cautionary point there, that I just realized myself. My current 6th grader has consistently scored in the 97-99 percentile on i-ready, including this year. But their middle-of-year 6th grade i-ready scores said that they were scoring as an end-of-year 6th grader. That seemed odd to me-- how could a kid in the 99 percentile be performing only slightly above grade level? I asked the teacher at conferences who said it was confusing to him too, but his best guess is that i-ready isn't used broadly across the US, and is mostly used by urban schools, so the "nationwide" sample set doesn't really represent the country. I started looking at scores differently after that.

This is such a fantastic insight. I always feel like that about Ed policy studies that get to the right "liberal" result (and I am a liberal...)

Demographic SES of school doesn't matter
Where you go to college doesn't matter
Etc etc

So many lurking variables behind them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

I would say that in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math. The kids who peel off are non-randomly distributed UMC-wise and same with new kids who come each year, so 3-5 results only tell part of the story & 5th in particular is not really reflective of the school as a whole.

We don't have to guesstimate, we have the data.

Ludlow Taylor 2021-2022 PARCC results by grade:

Grade 3
Level 1 ELA: 7.55%
Level 2 ELA: 5.66%
Level 3 ELA: 9.43%
Level 4 ELA: 62.26%
Level 5 ELA: 15.09%

Level 1 Math: 13.21%
Level 2 Math: 7.55%
Level 3 Math: 28.30%
Level 4 Math: 32.08%
Level 5 Math: 18.87%

Grade 4
Level 1 ELA: 13.33%
Level 2 ELA: 13.33%
Level 3 ELA: 13.33%
Level 4 ELA: 24.44%
Level 5 ELA: 35.56%

Level 1 Math: DS
Level 2 Math: 20%
Level 3 Math: 22.22%
Level 4 Math: DS
Level 5 Math: DS

Grade 5
Level 1 ELA: DS
Level 2 ELA: DS
Level 3 ELA: 20%
Level 4 ELA: 53.33%
Level 5 ELA: 15.56%

Level 1 Math: 6.67%
Level 2 Math: 22.22%
Level 3 Math: 35.56%
Level 4 Math: 28.89%
Level 5 Math: 6.67%

And no, I don't know what DS stands for, sorry. I know it screws up the Grade 4 numbers but I guess you can kind of fill in the blanks. My takeaway from this is that Ludlow is doing a terrific job of getting kids at or slightly above grade level. The lack of Level 5 scores across the board does not compare favorably with some of the suburban schools I've looked at, or even with elementaries in upper NW, where you expect to see a lot more Level 5 scores. I'd say Ludlow is doing an awesome job with a diverse student body, but also that scores likely tend to mostly reflect the SES of the families in question.

Which, to relate back to OP's question, indicates that if you stay on the Hill at a school like L-T (and you'd be lucky to be at L-T compared to many other schools in Ward 6!), your child will have a good number of peers at or above grade level, but probably fewer peers well above grade level as you might see in other schools where both the school and the family base is extremely well-resourced. Now, I personally think there are huge benefits to being in a school where not everyone has wealthy parents who watch their child's national percentages like a hawk, so I'd actually argue that L-T is offering the best of both worlds, meeting the needs of high performers, doing a good job moving low performers up to grade level, and also giving children an experience that isn't in some little bubble of privilege. This is one of many reasons I prefer public schools to private.

However, I think the claims in the last few pages that a significant number of L-T students are testing "well above" grade level are hyperbole and reflect maybe some of the hopes and dreams of the posters for their kids, and not facts. I'd also argue that you can't just drop the Grade 5 results as though they don't matter, because there is no guarantee that your child would get into a charter for Grade 5, or a private, or that you'd move. So if you are considering public schools on the Hill, you need to factor in that Grade 5 experience as though you will be part of it, and also factor in Middle Schools. If you find the Grade 5 results unacceptable, or if you find the Stuart Hobson unacceptable, I'd argue that L-T is probably not the best place for you.

I think you missed the PP's point in that they were guesstimating stats for the whole school -- explicitly not just 3-5. When you're considering the peers your kid will have, you don't just care about 3-5, especially when there's a very good chance you'll leave after 4th. I don't think the Grade 5 results are unacceptable, I just don't tell anything close to 1/3rd of the story of your kid's experience over 7-8 years, which if you just look at the PARCC average, is what you're doing.

Why would you think PK3-2nd would be substantially different peers than 3rd? These are the same kids.

The PP said "in the average non-5th grade class, about 75-80% of kids are at or above grade level for reading and 50% for math." That's not true. Don't get me wrong, L-T's scores are GREAT. Not a knock on L-T at all.

The point, though, is that guesstimates of grade level based on your "sense" of your kid's class aren't great. The OP is asking about the impact of having a lot of kids below grade level in a classroom, assuming your child is at or above grade level. If this is something that matters to you, don't go by the broad perceptions of parents with kids at the school. Look at the numbers. L-T has a lot more kids at or above grade level than many other elementaries in Ward 6. It has fewer kids testing well above grade level than in some other DCPS elementaries and in some suburban districts. That's the data point. If grade level of the peer set is really important to you, make your decision based on actual data, not vague estimates, which as we see here, tend to be inaccurate. I would not have expected these to be the testing numbers based on the PPs' comments about L-T -- I would have expected to see a lot more 4s and 5s, especially in Grade 4.

Sorry, you don’t understand that gentrifying schools especially have different average populations in PK v 4th? I can’t take anything you say seriously any more. FWIW my guesstimates are pretty accurate to the extent that internal school data is meaningful, because this is all publicly shared at LT during LSAT meetings.

If the internal data shared at LSAT meeting is public, why not share it here? And what internal data? Is L-T doing testing of K or 1st graders on their own? That would be fascinating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread kind of makes me jealous of the vast majority of American parents who just enroll their kids in their suburban boundary school because that’s what’s available to them. Though I realize it’s a double edge sword, if those schools don’t work for their kid, most parents do not have another option. Moving or private school aren’t realistic to most of our country, where in the DC UMC it seems almost like a given if things aren’t working out.

it is extremely coming throughout the rest of the country for parents to choose where they live specifically for the school their home is zoned for. Yes, they just send their kid to the local school, but they didn’t randomly end up where they did.

DC seems to be full of more oblivious parents who wake up one day and realize the house they bought with the great walk to all the bars and coffee shops is zoned for a terrible school.

I see this opinion on here often and I don't get it. In some cases good schools are "a great walk to all the bars and coffee shops." In other instances, people bought homes before they had kids or even knew if they wanted to have kids, so didn't prioritize schools (and didn't great metrics for evaluating them even if they did). Sometimes people buy homes believing the IB school to be good, only to attend for ECE and discover it's not at all right for their kid. Some people rent, and/or can't afford to live in-bound for better schools. Some people bought knowing the schools were bad but believed they would be able to move before it was an issue, only to run into issues (a job loss, Covid, home not appreciating well while homes in more desired school boundaries shooting up in price, etc.).



I know you think you are really owning all the families in DC who have poor IB schools that happen to be near a coffee shop or bar they enjoy going too, but you just wind up coming off incredibly ignorant. You seem to think there are large numbers of people who can buy wherever they want but choose homes in "hip" neighborhoods with bad schools just because they are stupid and oblivious. It's not happening. In fact, one of the things that happens is that a bunch of people buy homes in "hip" neighborhoods and then the schools get a lot better -- see the aforementioned Ludlow Taylor, and Maury, among others.

I'm sorry your upper NW neighborhood or suburb has so few good businesses to walk to, but at least your schools are good.

Actually I think the comment is spot on and I don't get it either. That said, I think it applies only to a slice of UMC DC that lives EOTP. These are the same people who say "outcomes track demographics. As long as your kid is from an UMC family they will be fine. Statistics show that. Don't worry about the schools." But what they don't realize is that in 95% of the country UMC people who want to use the public schools intentionally locate near good ones. There are very very few UMC families in the US that are going to failing schools, because they can afford not to. So what the "statistics" say about demographics really represents more than just straight demographics.

To the other poster's point about their young kid being in the "top XX%" nationwide.... I'm going to go out an a limb and assume this percentile is from i-ready scores, where the nationwide percentile is provided. But a cautionary point there, that I just realized myself. My current 6th grader has consistently scored in the 97-99 percentile on i-ready, including this year. But their middle-of-year 6th grade i-ready scores said that they were scoring as an end-of-year 6th grader. That seemed odd to me-- how could a kid in the 99 percentile be performing only slightly above grade level? I asked the teacher at conferences who said it was confusing to him too, but his best guess is that i-ready isn't used broadly across the US, and is mostly used by urban schools, so the "nationwide" sample set doesn't really represent the country. I started looking at scores differently after that.