Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting because the quotes got messed up:


The fact that people who live OOB for Watkins and LT (both of those schools have a majority OOB population) are choosing to attend SH is meaningless. They are doing that because their options are WORSE. What people on the Hill want is strong elementary schools and a strong middle school. They don’t have that, so they are voting with their feet. You seem to think that because there are worse DCPS schools that people are fleeing to fill Hill ES and SH, that somehow negates the fact that people who actually live IB for these schools don’t attend. It does not.

+1. We left Watkins because it's too crazy, and we're IB. It's no neighborhood school.

How do you think schools get to be IB? Overnight? Do you think Maury was always IB? Can we also address the irony that you pulled your kid out of your IB school because it was too crazy....and since you presumably didn't pull them out of school entirely, now they are not IB kids at their current school? Does your kid pull down the scores and quality of the education? Or is that just other OOB kids?

Some of the frustration expressed here emanates from the snail's pace of change at LT and SH in the last decade. I've lived IB for both for over 15 years.

Positive change hasn't even been slow but steady. SH saw a big drop in IB enrollment when many new charters were opening, and after Watkins lost Cap Hill Montessori and SWS in a two-year period, taking 7 or 8 years to recover. LT had the same problem during the Cobbs years.

Meanwhile, we've watched Maury go from around 1/4 IB/high SES to nearly 2/3 in just five years, and Brent do the same in under a decade. For its part, LT is on it's third principal in five years and stubbornly remains a Title 1 school. Parents get fed up waiting around for both LT and SH to take off despite the local buzz about impressive test scores, teaching, facility upgrades etc.

ice story, but SWS never fed SH and it topped out at K at the time. Its first graduating class last year did in fact send a cohort to SH, including mostly families who didn't jump to charters for 5th. CHML was and is a small drop in the bucket in terms of enrollment. The impact on SH was negligible.

And if you weighted LT scores against Brent or Maury to factor both economic diversity of its students LT would blow the doors off both of them.

SWS was in the cluster, had the same inbounds as Peabody/Watkins, and fed to Watkins and Stuart Hobson. It never fed to SH when it was a standalone school, it did when it was one of three pre-school options in the Cluster.

Yes, and many of the families would go private after SWS. The ones who went on to Watkins would jump ship before SH. Small percentages of SWS Kindergarden graduates ever matriculated from SH. Yes a few, but only a few. SWS has never been a big part of SH.

And now that the common lottery is being enforced and SWS can't cherry pick the yoga=pants wearing mafia, watch how the demographics of that school start to change to reflect what a city-wide ES should look like.

do you actually get out and meet any other parents on the Hill? This is such a stupid swing and a miss it's laughable.

It is a citywide school. Unless it was gaming the system it should not have looked like the immediate neighborhood. It should have looked like HRCS on or near the Hill. But thanks for making my point for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting because the quotes got messed up:


The fact that people who live OOB for Watkins and LT (both of those schools have a majority OOB population) are choosing to attend SH is meaningless. They are doing that because their options are WORSE. What people on the Hill want is strong elementary schools and a strong middle school. They don’t have that, so they are voting with their feet. You seem to think that because there are worse DCPS schools that people are fleeing to fill Hill ES and SH, that somehow negates the fact that people who actually live IB for these schools don’t attend. It does not.

+1. We left Watkins because it's too crazy, and we're IB. It's no neighborhood school.

How do you think schools get to be IB? Overnight? Do you think Maury was always IB? Can we also address the irony that you pulled your kid out of your IB school because it was too crazy....and since you presumably didn't pull them out of school entirely, now they are not IB kids at their current school? Does your kid pull down the scores and quality of the education? Or is that just other OOB kids?

Some of the frustration expressed here emanates from the snail's pace of change at LT and SH in the last decade. I've lived IB for both for over 15 years.

Positive change hasn't even been slow but steady. SH saw a big drop in IB enrollment when many new charters were opening, and after Watkins lost Cap Hill Montessori and SWS in a two-year period, taking 7 or 8 years to recover. LT had the same problem during the Cobbs years.

Meanwhile, we've watched Maury go from around 1/4 IB/high SES to nearly 2/3 in just five years, and Brent do the same in under a decade. For its part, LT is on it's third principal in five years and stubbornly remains a Title 1 school. Parents get fed up waiting around for both LT and SH to take off despite the local buzz about impressive test scores, teaching, facility upgrades etc.

ice story, but SWS never fed SH and it topped out at K at the time. Its first graduating class last year did in fact send a cohort to SH, including mostly families who didn't jump to charters for 5th. CHML was and is a small drop in the bucket in terms of enrollment. The impact on SH was negligible.

And if you weighted LT scores against Brent or Maury to factor both economic diversity of its students LT would blow the doors off both of them.

SWS was in the cluster, had the same inbounds as Peabody/Watkins, and fed to Watkins and Stuart Hobson. It never fed to SH when it was a standalone school, it did when it was one of three pre-school options in the Cluster.

Yes, and many of the families would go private after SWS. The ones who went on to Watkins would jump ship before SH. Small percentages of SWS Kindergarden graduates ever matriculated from SH. Yes a few, but only a few. SWS has never been a big part of SH.

Funny - we don’t think of ourselves as unicorns. SWS-Watkins-SH and then Walls. We aren’t numerous but there is always a steady cohort of SWS/downstairs Peabody (before the split) who went on to Watkins and the SH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting because the quotes got messed up:


The fact that people who live OOB for Watkins and LT (both of those schools have a majority OOB population) are choosing to attend SH is meaningless. They are doing that because their options are WORSE. What people on the Hill want is strong elementary schools and a strong middle school. They don’t have that, so they are voting with their feet. You seem to think that because there are worse DCPS schools that people are fleeing to fill Hill ES and SH, that somehow negates the fact that people who actually live IB for these schools don’t attend. It does not.

+1. We left Watkins because it's too crazy, and we're IB. It's no neighborhood school.

How do you think schools get to be IB? Overnight? Do you think Maury was always IB? Can we also address the irony that you pulled your kid out of your IB school because it was too crazy....and since you presumably didn't pull them out of school entirely, now they are not IB kids at their current school? Does your kid pull down the scores and quality of the education? Or is that just other OOB kids?

Some of the frustration expressed here emanates from the snail's pace of change at LT and SH in the last decade. I've lived IB for both for over 15 years.

Positive change hasn't even been slow but steady. SH saw a big drop in IB enrollment when many new charters were opening, and after Watkins lost Cap Hill Montessori and SWS in a two-year period, taking 7 or 8 years to recover. LT had the same problem during the Cobbs years.

Meanwhile, we've watched Maury go from around 1/4 IB/high SES to nearly 2/3 in just five years, and Brent do the same in under a decade. For its part, LT is on it's third principal in five years and stubbornly remains a Title 1 school. Parents get fed up waiting around for both LT and SH to take off despite the local buzz about impressive test scores, teaching, facility upgrades etc.

ice story, but SWS never fed SH and it topped out at K at the time. Its first graduating class last year did in fact send a cohort to SH, including mostly families who didn't jump to charters for 5th. CHML was and is a small drop in the bucket in terms of enrollment. The impact on SH was negligible.

And if you weighted LT scores against Brent or Maury to factor both economic diversity of its students LT would blow the doors off both of them.

SWS was in the cluster, had the same inbounds as Peabody/Watkins, and fed to Watkins and Stuart Hobson. It never fed to SH when it was a standalone school, it did when it was one of three pre-school options in the Cluster.

Yes, and many of the families would go private after SWS. The ones who went on to Watkins would jump ship before SH. Small percentages of SWS Kindergarden graduates ever matriculated from SH. Yes a few, but only a few. SWS has never been a big part of SH.

And now that the common lottery is being enforced and SWS can't cherry pick the yoga=pants wearing mafia, watch how the demographics of that school start to change to reflect what a city-wide ES should look like.

do you actually get out and meet any other parents on the Hill? This is such a stupid swing and a miss it's laughable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting because the quotes got messed up:


The fact that people who live OOB for Watkins and LT (both of those schools have a majority OOB population) are choosing to attend SH is meaningless. They are doing that because their options are WORSE. What people on the Hill want is strong elementary schools and a strong middle school. They don’t have that, so they are voting with their feet. You seem to think that because there are worse DCPS schools that people are fleeing to fill Hill ES and SH, that somehow negates the fact that people who actually live IB for these schools don’t attend. It does not.

+1. We left Watkins because it's too crazy, and we're IB. It's no neighborhood school.

How do you think schools get to be IB? Overnight? Do you think Maury was always IB? Can we also address the irony that you pulled your kid out of your IB school because it was too crazy....and since you presumably didn't pull them out of school entirely, now they are not IB kids at their current school? Does your kid pull down the scores and quality of the education? Or is that just other OOB kids?

Some of the frustration expressed here emanates from the snail's pace of change at LT and SH in the last decade. I've lived IB for both for over 15 years.

Positive change hasn't even been slow but steady. SH saw a big drop in IB enrollment when many new charters were opening, and after Watkins lost Cap Hill Montessori and SWS in a two-year period, taking 7 or 8 years to recover. LT had the same problem during the Cobbs years.

Meanwhile, we've watched Maury go from around 1/4 IB/high SES to nearly 2/3 in just five years, and Brent do the same in under a decade. For its part, LT is on it's third principal in five years and stubbornly remains a Title 1 school. Parents get fed up waiting around for both LT and SH to take off despite the local buzz about impressive test scores, teaching, facility upgrades etc.

ice story, but SWS never fed SH and it topped out at K at the time. Its first graduating class last year did in fact send a cohort to SH, including mostly families who didn't jump to charters for 5th. CHML was and is a small drop in the bucket in terms of enrollment. The impact on SH was negligible.

And if you weighted LT scores against Brent or Maury to factor both economic diversity of its students LT would blow the doors off both of them.

SWS was in the cluster, had the same inbounds as Peabody/Watkins, and fed to Watkins and Stuart Hobson. It never fed to SH when it was a standalone school, it did when it was one of three pre-school options in the Cluster.

Yes, and many of the families would go private after SWS. The ones who went on to Watkins would jump ship before SH. Small percentages of SWS Kindergarden graduates ever matriculated from SH. Yes a few, but only a few. SWS has never been a big part of SH.

a few, yes, but "many" is BS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting because the quotes got messed up:


The fact that people who live OOB for Watkins and LT (both of those schools have a majority OOB population) are choosing to attend SH is meaningless. They are doing that because their options are WORSE. What people on the Hill want is strong elementary schools and a strong middle school. They don’t have that, so they are voting with their feet. You seem to think that because there are worse DCPS schools that people are fleeing to fill Hill ES and SH, that somehow negates the fact that people who actually live IB for these schools don’t attend. It does not.

+1. We left Watkins because it's too crazy, and we're IB. It's no neighborhood school.

How do you think schools get to be IB? Overnight? Do you think Maury was always IB? Can we also address the irony that you pulled your kid out of your IB school because it was too crazy....and since you presumably didn't pull them out of school entirely, now they are not IB kids at their current school? Does your kid pull down the scores and quality of the education? Or is that just other OOB kids?

Some of the frustration expressed here emanates from the snail's pace of change at LT and SH in the last decade. I've lived IB for both for over 15 years.

Positive change hasn't even been slow but steady. SH saw a big drop in IB enrollment when many new charters were opening, and after Watkins lost Cap Hill Montessori and SWS in a two-year period, taking 7 or 8 years to recover. LT had the same problem during the Cobbs years.

Meanwhile, we've watched Maury go from around 1/4 IB/high SES to nearly 2/3 in just five years, and Brent do the same in under a decade. For its part, LT is on it's third principal in five years and stubbornly remains a Title 1 school. Parents get fed up waiting around for both LT and SH to take off despite the local buzz about impressive test scores, teaching, facility upgrades etc.

ice story, but SWS never fed SH and it topped out at K at the time. Its first graduating class last year did in fact send a cohort to SH, including mostly families who didn't jump to charters for 5th. CHML was and is a small drop in the bucket in terms of enrollment. The impact on SH was negligible.

And if you weighted LT scores against Brent or Maury to factor both economic diversity of its students LT would blow the doors off both of them.

SWS was in the cluster, had the same inbounds as Peabody/Watkins, and fed to Watkins and Stuart Hobson. It never fed to SH when it was a standalone school, it did when it was one of three pre-school options in the Cluster.

Yes, and many of the families would go private after SWS. The ones who went on to Watkins would jump ship before SH. Small percentages of SWS Kindergarden graduates ever matriculated from SH. Yes a few, but only a few. SWS has never been a big part of SH.

And now that the common lottery is being enforced and SWS can't cherry pick the yoga=pants wearing mafia, watch how the demographics of that school start to change to reflect what a city-wide ES should look like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting because the quotes got messed up:


The fact that people who live OOB for Watkins and LT (both of those schools have a majority OOB population) are choosing to attend SH is meaningless. They are doing that because their options are WORSE. What people on the Hill want is strong elementary schools and a strong middle school. They don’t have that, so they are voting with their feet. You seem to think that because there are worse DCPS schools that people are fleeing to fill Hill ES and SH, that somehow negates the fact that people who actually live IB for these schools don’t attend. It does not.

+1. We left Watkins because it's too crazy, and we're IB. It's no neighborhood school.

How do you think schools get to be IB? Overnight? Do you think Maury was always IB? Can we also address the irony that you pulled your kid out of your IB school because it was too crazy....and since you presumably didn't pull them out of school entirely, now they are not IB kids at their current school? Does your kid pull down the scores and quality of the education? Or is that just other OOB kids?

Some of the frustration expressed here emanates from the snail's pace of change at LT and SH in the last decade. I've lived IB for both for over 15 years.

Positive change hasn't even been slow but steady. SH saw a big drop in IB enrollment when many new charters were opening, and after Watkins lost Cap Hill Montessori and SWS in a two-year period, taking 7 or 8 years to recover. LT had the same problem during the Cobbs years.

Meanwhile, we've watched Maury go from around 1/4 IB/high SES to nearly 2/3 in just five years, and Brent do the same in under a decade. For its part, LT is on it's third principal in five years and stubbornly remains a Title 1 school. Parents get fed up waiting around for both LT and SH to take off despite the local buzz about impressive test scores, teaching, facility upgrades etc.

ice story, but SWS never fed SH and it topped out at K at the time. Its first graduating class last year did in fact send a cohort to SH, including mostly families who didn't jump to charters for 5th. CHML was and is a small drop in the bucket in terms of enrollment. The impact on SH was negligible.

And if you weighted LT scores against Brent or Maury to factor both economic diversity of its students LT would blow the doors off both of them.

SWS was in the cluster, had the same inbounds as Peabody/Watkins, and fed to Watkins and Stuart Hobson. It never fed to SH when it was a standalone school, it did when it was one of three pre-school options in the Cluster.

Yes, and many of the families would go private after SWS. The ones who went on to Watkins would jump ship before SH. Small percentages of SWS Kindergarden graduates ever matriculated from SH. Yes a few, but only a few. SWS has never been a big part of SH.

^^ NP.

Just FYI -- there are lots of students at both BASIS and Latin who do NOT live on the Hill (see page 21 and 124). You can't prove what you are trying to with these stats.

https://dcpcsb.egnyte.com/dl/wz03B5UHgG

The outcomes at 5th and 6th aren’t what most parents are most worried about, it’s the 9-12 part! Wanna talk about the OTHER big problem, called Eastern? How about those feeders?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reposting because the quotes got messed up:


The fact that people who live OOB for Watkins and LT (both of those schools have a majority OOB population) are choosing to attend SH is meaningless. They are doing that because their options are WORSE. What people on the Hill want is strong elementary schools and a strong middle school. They don’t have that, so they are voting with their feet. You seem to think that because there are worse DCPS schools that people are fleeing to fill Hill ES and SH, that somehow negates the fact that people who actually live IB for these schools don’t attend. It does not.

+1. We left Watkins because it's too crazy, and we're IB. It's no neighborhood school.

How do you think schools get to be IB? Overnight? Do you think Maury was always IB? Can we also address the irony that you pulled your kid out of your IB school because it was too crazy....and since you presumably didn't pull them out of school entirely, now they are not IB kids at their current school? Does your kid pull down the scores and quality of the education? Or is that just other OOB kids?

Some of the frustration expressed here emanates from the snail's pace of change at LT and SH in the last decade. I've lived IB for both for over 15 years.

Positive change hasn't even been slow but steady. SH saw a big drop in IB enrollment when many new charters were opening, and after Watkins lost Cap Hill Montessori and SWS in a two-year period, taking 7 or 8 years to recover. LT had the same problem during the Cobbs years.

Meanwhile, we've watched Maury go from around 1/4 IB/high SES to nearly 2/3 in just five years, and Brent do the same in under a decade. For its part, LT is on it's third principal in five years and stubbornly remains a Title 1 school. Parents get fed up waiting around for both LT and SH to take off despite the local buzz about impressive test scores, teaching, facility upgrades etc.

ice story, but SWS never fed SH and it topped out at K at the time. Its first graduating class last year did in fact send a cohort to SH, including mostly families who didn't jump to charters for 5th. CHML was and is a small drop in the bucket in terms of enrollment. The impact on SH was negligible.

And if you weighted LT scores against Brent or Maury to factor both economic diversity of its students LT would blow the doors off both of them.

SWS was in the cluster, had the same inbounds as Peabody/Watkins, and fed to Watkins and Stuart Hobson. It never fed to SH when it was a standalone school, it did when it was one of three pre-school options in the Cluster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improving, right, but, as has been said, turning SH into a Deal, or even a Hardy, is a 10-20 year project without Brent, Maury and SWS when it could have been a 3-5 year project.

Many of us on the Hill are fed up with losing dear friends to the burbs because Hill schools aren't attractive to most in-boundary families after elementary. Many of us feel that DCPS made a terrible mistake four years ago in refusing to respond to high local demand for a change in the Ward 6 middle school elementary-to-middle school feed situation.

I'm in-bounds for SH and won't enroll my child in a couple years on current trends, like most of our friends. Our children are well-behaved students who easily score 5s on both PARCC sections. Arguably, SH won't be better off without us.

Christ, it's been said by YOU about 1000 times on any SH related post. Give it a rest.

We got it -- you're going elsewhere. From your condescending tone alone I can promise you that you would not be missed at SH.

NP here and this is a real problem. You have tons of high SES parents IB for Hill schools opting out of DCPS because the middle school situation is a mess on the Hill. Some of those families are moving but many more are going to charters. DCPS could easily fix this by adjusting the feeder patterns and it’s so stupid that they refuse to do it.

Yes, it is. I'm going elsewhere, too, and haven't posted on other SH threads. Hundreds like us will in fact be missed at SH by any stakeholder with a thinking brain who cares about educating poor kids (um, all things being equal, poor kids don't do better without lots of higher SES classmates in their schools than they do with lots of high SES classmates in their schools).

I see even greater stupidity in how some IB Cluster parents defend the mess tooth and nail. Over the years, they've become their own worst enemies where Hill middle schools go.

The fact that YOU don't have feeder rights to SH doesn't a "mess"make. Brent isn't the only IB school with high SES, you obnoxious self centered "me-monster". And as the numbers actually show, LT and other SH feeders are improving (and in some cases outpacing Brent). While the number of OOB lottery spots matching in the lottery is falling to near zero. So the fact that you want to believe nothing is changing doesn't mean nothing is changing.

As others have said, and contrary to your belief, you will in fact not be missed.

New to this thread. Brent's scores drop (by Brent standards - which are higher than DCPS's and LT's) in 5th because so many families leave for Latin or Basis.

Which is really what all of this is about. Honestly, even if they could get into SH, Basis and Latin are better anyway. And THAT is what Hill families wanted. DCPS didn't deliver on rigor and quality so charters stepped in and filled a need. Now they offer something better than what DCPS has to offer. Ultimately, it's DCPS's and the Cluster's loss.

Where to begin.

What on earth does it mean to say that Brent's standards are higher than LT's or DCPS? The numbers aren't adjusted for Brent families; you get that right? They are the same for all schools, and LT's scores are higher, and not just in 4th (see below). Why do you assume non-Brent families don't want exceptional outcomes? Is your premise that the poors and dark people accept less good outcomes because they neither know better nor want to improve those outcomes? And how do you think things improve? The only thing better than self centered a-holes with superiority complexes is when they expose their ignorance while espousing those world views.

Brent's scores aren't higher than LT's in 5th or in 4th. I know that Brent parents like to use the "kids leaving in 5th" excuse, but the data doesn't lie. Repeating a falsehood with conviction doesn't make it any truer. I even pasted the scores in a prior post. Take a look; the LT kids outperform your kids.

Why do you think that Latin and Basis are by-right schools for Brent? And why do you think that Latin is mostly Brent; it isn't. That data is public too.

Follow along, my dear. This isn't a DCPS vs Charter discussion. If I thought you had the capacity I'd accuse you of trolling. But I'm betting you sincerely think your comment contributes to the discussion here. It is not as "charters stepped in to solve the problem". Setting aside the gross oversimplification, it does nothing to advance how we get from where we are to improved outcomes. If you think things are set in stone and nothing can and will change then, with all do respect, go somewhere else and let the adults talk. I vehemently disagree with many of the Brent posters. And I object to the veiled racism of some. But it feels to me at least like even those families truly desire to improve outcomes. I just happen to disagree with how they think that is accomplished. You, on the other hand, are a child who screams "charters" and thinks education on the Hill is a static concept.

There is no magic bullet that takes a school from poor to great overnight. I know Brent parents think the inclusion of your kids will accomplish that, but it won't. The path is improved educational outcomes for kids that are there, which in turn yields buy-in from younger kids and IB families, which in turn feeds MS. LT/JO/Peabody families used lottery into Maury because it was an objectively better school. Those families wanted to invest in their IB schools, but there was another Hill school with objectively better educational outcomes. As that school became more IB, those families were willing to give their IB a try. And as educational outcomes improve those families commit. The challenge in talking to people like you is that you seem to ignore data unless it confirms your belief. Just look at your post! You incorrectly state that Brent is better in 4th and only outperformed in 5th. That just isn't so.

No one is arguing that SH is superior to Deal or Latin right now. The issue is whether the trajectory of the feeders and SH itself portent positive things. Many of us think it does. And that is in the absence of you and your Brent friends, not all of whom are going to Latin or Basis (which, by the way, works 100% through their WL and is not a viable curriculum for many kids.)

thank you for this post.

If you compare 5th grades scores between charters and Hill DCPS you'll find the Hill schools compare favorably to Latin and BASIS, despite 5th grade attrition from DCPS to PCS. Too much of this focus compares DCPS MS (6-8) to PCS MS (in this case 5-8), but the evidence doesn't support better outcomes for charters in 5th. Obviously the Hill 5th grade DCPS schools are retaining performing students. The standard line is 'charters need to make up ground for DCPS deficiencies in ES' yet the Hill DCPS students who stay in DCPS do at least as well if not better in 5th.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what will happen to the MS achievement levels in Hill DCPS if these students stay in the system. Latin and BASIS are assumed to be far more rigorous compared to DCPS (granted more homework), but the evidence doesn't support the assumption that either is providing better educational outcomes. Sure math is a little higher at PCS, but look at LT and SWS on ELA. If you really want to get in the weeds, you'll also find a negligible difference between advanced scorers across sectors too.

5th Grade ELA

Brent ES 59%
Ludlow Taylor ES 69%
Maury ES 54%
School-Within-School @ Goding 71%
Watkins ES 43%
Basis DC PCS 55%
Washington Latin PCS 54%


5th Grade Math

Brent ES 41%
Ludlow Taylor ES 46%
Maury ES 42%
School-Within-School @ Goding 46%
Watkins ES 37%
BASIS DC PCS 51%
Washington Latin PCS Middle School 51%

Anonymous wrote:Neighborhood schools primarily serve families in the catchment area, not kids from outside.

In the case of LT and SH, the overwhelming majority of kids in the catchment area are high SES with professional parents while the majority of the students are low SES.

We were thrilled to lottery into Maury for K from LT in PreK. We're happy to have avoided LT in favoring of attending a real neighborhood school within biking riding distance of our home. If that makes us racist, classist jerks, so be it. We're planning to stay at Maury through 5th. If LT had been majority IB, we'd have stayed.

We hardly care about test scores. To each her own.

Good luck with that lottery in 6th grade, start saving your pennies for MS, or don’t let the door hit you on your way out to the suburbs!

Anonymous wrote:^^ Don't want to quote the whole back and forth above. I'm not that PP and my sense is from her arguments that she is actually IB for SH (whether Watkins or LT, I can't tell). I'm the PP who asked what the tangible benefit is of IB when both scores at LT and Brent are at Watkins. I'm IB for Watkins and sent one kid to SH already and another on the way.

How's your experience been? Any surprises? Did much of his/her 5th grade class move with him/her to SH? Would love to hear from actual parents in lieu of people who know people who heard at the Starbucks that...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Improving, right, but, as has been said, turning SH into a Deal, or even a Hardy, is a 10-20 year project without Brent, Maury and SWS when it could have been a 3-5 year project.

Many of us on the Hill are fed up with losing dear friends to the burbs because Hill schools aren't attractive to most in-boundary families after elementary. Many of us feel that DCPS made a terrible mistake four years ago in refusing to respond to high local demand for a change in the Ward 6 middle school elementary-to-middle school feed situation.

I'm in-bounds for SH and won't enroll my child in a couple years on current trends, like most of our friends. Our children are well-behaved students who easily score 5s on both PARCC sections. Arguably, SH won't be better off without us.

Christ, it's been said by YOU about 1000 times on any SH related post. Give it a rest.

We got it -- you're going elsewhere. From your condescending tone alone I can promise you that you would not be missed at SH.

NP here and this is a real problem. You have tons of high SES parents IB for Hill schools opting out of DCPS because the middle school situation is a mess on the Hill. Some of those families are moving but many more are going to charters. DCPS could easily fix this by adjusting the feeder patterns and it’s so stupid that they refuse to do it.

Yes, it is. I'm going elsewhere, too, and haven't posted on other SH threads. Hundreds like us will in fact be missed at SH by any stakeholder with a thinking brain who cares about educating poor kids (um, all things being equal, poor kids don't do better without lots of higher SES classmates in their schools than they do with lots of high SES classmates in their schools).

I see even greater stupidity in how some IB Cluster parents defend the mess tooth and nail. Over the years, they've become their own worst enemies where Hill middle schools go.

The fact that YOU don't have feeder rights to SH doesn't a "mess"make. Brent isn't the only IB school with high SES, you obnoxious self centered "me-monster". And as the numbers actually show, LT and other SH feeders are improving (and in some cases outpacing Brent). While the number of OOB lottery spots matching in the lottery is falling to near zero. So the fact that you want to believe nothing is changing doesn't mean nothing is changing.

As others have said, and contrary to your belief, you will in fact not be missed.

New to this thread. Brent's scores drop (by Brent standards - which are higher than DCPS's and LT's) in 5th because so many families leave for Latin or Basis.

Which is really what all of this is about. Honestly, even if they could get into SH, Basis and Latin are better anyway. And THAT is what Hill families wanted. DCPS didn't deliver on rigor and quality so charters stepped in and filled a need. Now they offer something better than what DCPS has to offer. Ultimately, it's DCPS's and the Cluster's loss.

Where to begin.

What on earth does it mean to say that Brent's standards are higher than LT's or DCPS? The numbers aren't adjusted for Brent families; you get that right? They are the same for all schools, and LT's scores are higher, and not just in 4th (see below). Why do you assume non-Brent families don't want exceptional outcomes? Is your premise that the poors and dark people accept less good outcomes because they neither know better nor want to improve those outcomes? And how do you think things improve? The only thing better than self centered a-holes with superiority complexes is when they expose their ignorance while espousing those world views.

Brent's scores aren't higher than LT's in 5th or in 4th. I know that Brent parents like to use the "kids leaving in 5th" excuse, but the data doesn't lie. Repeating a falsehood with conviction doesn't make it any truer. I even pasted the scores in a prior post. Take a look; the LT kids outperform your kids.

Why do you think that Latin and Basis are by-right schools for Brent? And why do you think that Latin is mostly Brent; it isn't. That data is public too.

Follow along, my dear. This isn't a DCPS vs Charter discussion. If I thought you had the capacity I'd accuse you of trolling. But I'm betting you sincerely think your comment contributes to the discussion here. It is not as "charters stepped in to solve the problem". Setting aside the gross oversimplification, it does nothing to advance how we get from where we are to improved outcomes. If you think things are set in stone and nothing can and will change then, with all do respect, go somewhere else and let the adults talk. I vehemently disagree with many of the Brent posters. And I object to the veiled racism of some. But it feels to me at least like even those families truly desire to improve outcomes. I just happen to disagree with how they think that is accomplished. You, on the other hand, are a child who screams "charters" and thinks education on the Hill is a static concept.

There is no magic bullet that takes a school from poor to great overnight. I know Brent parents think the inclusion of your kids will accomplish that, but it won't. The path is improved educational outcomes for kids that are there, which in turn yields buy-in from younger kids and IB families, which in turn feeds MS. LT/JO/Peabody families used lottery into Maury because it was an objectively better school. Those families wanted to invest in their IB schools, but there was another Hill school with objectively better educational outcomes. As that school became more IB, those families were willing to give their IB a try. And as educational outcomes improve those families commit. The challenge in talking to people like you is that you seem to ignore data unless it confirms your belief. Just look at your post! You incorrectly state that Brent is better in 4th and only outperformed in 5th. That just isn't so.

No one is arguing that SH is superior to Deal or Latin right now. The issue is whether the trajectory of the feeders and SH itself portent positive things. Many of us think it does. And that is in the absence of you and your Brent friends, not all of whom are going to Latin or Basis (which, by the way, works 100% through their WL and is not a viable curriculum for many kids.)

We get it. You live OOB and want to preserve the pipeline to SH for OOB kids. Some of us want neighborhood schools. We can agree to disagree.

That makes zero sense. How does one preserve OOB for a school with IB preference? And how could you possibly have taken that from all that has been written in this forum? Where did anyone argue against neighborhood schools? I've expended an insane amount of energy trying to talk sense into those of you who see no value or improvement in SH and the feeders. Help me to understand how supporting and defending these schools is designed to keep IB families out? The irony here is fools like you who talk about wanting neighborhood schools but proudly yell about how your kids don't go to IB schools. Go back to yoga.

I note that you don’t deny that you’re OOB.

Few things:
1. IB for SH.
2. Would never have occurred to me to even mention it because as has been said by other posters, you are delusional for having concocted a conspiracy theory where OOB families with zero right to LT or SH somehow crowd out IB families who need only walk into the office and register. By all means explain it.
3. Far from begrudging the OOB population, I appreciate that many of them were willing to commit to the feeders at a time when I, and my neighbors, were not. And because of them my kid has a path and my house is worth more today than it was a decade ago. And when enough IB families enroll then those OOB families will no longer be in attendance, not even sibling preference.

You remind me of an unemployed person who doesn't want to take a job beneath her but sits at her table complaining about immigrants and transplants taking jobs...jobs you would never in a million years want. Maybe you don't understand by-right and IB and the lottery? Seriously. Just reply and let us know and we can explain it to you.

You're getting a little delusional when you accuse schools of being "designed to keep IB students out."

PLEASE everyone, step out of your little bubble and realize you're part of a system that's bigger than you and your family, within a very complex city. If you accept the reality you might come a few steps closer to getting what you want.

^^ Don't want to quote the whole back and forth above. I'm not that PP and my sense is from her arguments that she is actually IB for SH (whether Watkins or LT, I can't tell). I'm the PP who asked what the tangible benefit is of IB when both scores at LT and Brent are at Watkins. I'm IB for Watkins and sent one kid to SH already and another on the way.