Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I like Petworth as much as I like the next all-rowhouse, between the wars DC neighborhood. But it's no more proximate to the White House than Cleveland Park or Tenleytown

If you're a bike commuter it's a hellova better commute downtown from Petworth... Ever tried biking down Connecticut Ave?

Perhaps, but it is the opposite if you commute by metro. The red line is much more convenient.

*when the red line is not having some type of awful incident.

Petworth wins for metro-based commute, because you have both Yellow AND Green trains running. And those lines have many may fewer breakdowns than Red. If I had a nickel for every time I saw a post on PoP about some terrible red line delay/packed platform, etc...

Anonymous wrote:Can I just throw in there, that non High SES parents can be involved and provide resources as well. The original question, as pointed out was very off-putting. Yes, you can make a significant impact on the school by bringing in resources, but the school won't change if you come in and act as if you are better able to help than those with less disposable income. Middle class and lower income parents may also have time to contribute and will surely have useful talents. It becomes a matter of outreach and engagement, which will have to be your first step if you really want to make a difference.

Nah, neither actually equate to any real results.

Many parents are very aware of the school and needs but simply can't be engaged for various reasons. Lower income parents aren't always going to be working your standard 9-5 job or they work more than one job, or they simply focus on other activities. A lot of the lower income parents are pretty young and still very wrapped up in themselves and their own social lives.

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters who claim they "just want more middle class kids," be careful! Middle class kids come with plenty of SPED needs, plenty of anti-social behaviors, and entry of academic challenges, too. You want a school, whether it has a majority of middle class kids or the opposite, to offer a strong SPED program, a visionary leader who sets a proactive agenda with all participants (teachers, staff and students) of non-violence and no-bullying, and a clearly articulated mechanism for differentiated learning in and among classrooms. There are entry of toxic schools filled with middle class kids in this world, please don't deceive yourself. There are also examples in this city of wonderful and supportive schools with middling test scores on average. Wishing that it's as simple as more rich kids doesn't make it so.

There's always going to be an example but that's not necessarily indicative of the overall trend. Sure, those problems exist among middle class kids, but at much lower rates.

Sorry, autocorrect turned my plenty to entry twice!

To all the posters who claim they "just want more middle class kids," be careful! Middle class kids come with plenty of SPED needs, plenty of anti-social behaviors, and entry of academic challenges, too. You want a school, whether it has a majority of middle class kids or the opposite, to offer a strong SPED program, a visionary leader who sets a proactive agenda with all participants (teachers, staff and students) of non-violence and no-bullying, and a clearly articulated mechanism for differentiated learning in and among classrooms. There are entry of toxic schools filled with middle class kids in this world, please don't deceive yourself. There are also examples in this city of wonderful and supportive schools with middling test scores on average. Wishing that it's as simple as more rich kids doesn't make it so.

Anonymous wrote:Can I just throw in there, that non High SES parents can be involved and provide resources as well. The original question, as pointed out was very off-putting. Yes, you can make a significant impact on the school by bringing in resources, but the school won't change if you come in and act as if you are better able to help than those with less disposable income. Middle class and lower income parents may also have time to contribute and will surely have useful talents. It becomes a matter of outreach and engagement, which will have to be your first step if you really want to make a difference.

This is spot on. We're at a charter with a pretty wide mix of SES. We're probably among the highest - but frankly, don't have a lot of time or energy to really make a valuable time commitment as a result of long hours and travel for our jobs. We kick in more money than some of the other parents for school events, etc...but it's not like we're putting thousands of dollars into the PTA. I think that someone who isn't necessarily of high SES who had time and/or passion could make a much bigger positive impact than I can on the school. (Now, I suppose one could argue that low SES parents may not have much time, due to working two jobs, etc...but who knows)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, what is so "urban" about Petworth? Why are you putting down Arlington and Bethesda? You realize those are pretty diverse communities overall. There are lots of apartments and bike share is available.

1) Proximity to downtown (though parts of Arlington are tied here - but those parts are exorbitantly expensive)
2) It's still shooty / stabby
3) It's ethnically diverse

This is what I always find amusing -- looking objectively at an aerial view map, and considering all public transit options, Petworth is no more convenient to the commercial/federal part of DC (aka, "downtown") than many communities in the WoTP Upper Caucasia," might as well be a suburb" Washington.

Don't get me wrong, I like Petworth as much as I like the next all-rowhouse, between the wars DC neighborhood. But it's no more proximate to the White House than Cleveland Park or Tenleytown

If you're a bike commuter it's a hellova better commute downtown from Petworth... Ever tried biking down Connecticut Ave?

Perhaps, but it is the opposite if you commute by metro. The red line is much more convenient.

Can I just throw in there, that non High SES parents can be involved and provide resources as well. The original question, as pointed out was very off-putting. Yes, you can make a significant impact on the school by bringing in resources, but the school won't change if you come in and act as if you are better able to help than those with less disposable income. Middle class and lower income parents may also have time to contribute and will surely have useful talents. It becomes a matter of outreach and engagement, which will have to be your first step if you really want to make a difference.

Bancroft is as far as you get in "flipping" a school where the inboundary demographics aren't fundamentally top-quintile.

That is to say, Brent or Ross could change because all of the lower-income families came from outside of the boundaries and lottery rules made it possible for them simply to not be enrolled on an equal footing because of their out-of-boundary status once demand increases.

Where odds of admission based on sibling and boundary preference put poorer families on an equal or superior footing to those who would seek to "flip" a school, the school only changes incrementally.

And you get something resembling Bancroft. A school in a high-income neighborhood with some poorer residents, which keeps some of the highest income families from coming, but a good number come anyway. There's a decent PTA, active parents, but nothing like JKLMM.

In a setting like Barnard or Powell or West or Raymond or Tubman, etc., you would have to have all of the highest-income families be offered a seat at one school before anyone else can accept and then agree to choose that school over all others. This would then have to be repeated for several years. Instead, the REAL lottery works to offer seats to all members of the in-boundary communities, meaning that this kind of thing really can't happen unless all other communities start shunning the school.

Too bad parents don't stick with Bancroft-- we used to hv in the old days at Ross the same problem-- families crowding for pre-k, k then leaving. It slowly began to turn as more families stayed on. I hear the current Ross parents are frustrated anew as their MS/HS feeder--which for a while looked like it may be promising, officially has a less than desirable options, many leave by 5th.

PP here, I should add that Bancroft is also the only Ward 1 (I think) that feeds to Deal Middle School and Wilson. Yet still our FARMS rate barely budges.

I think Ross is a very unusual case. As earlier posters noted, the neighborhood became wealthy very fast, and that plus families banding together pushed it over the edge to gentrifcation.

As for Powell or any other DCPS elementary in Ward 1, good luck. I say this as a parent for several years at Bancroft, which is similar (boundaries include a wealthy neighborhood; dual language as a selling point).

Bancroft is 71% FARMs right now, so far more gentrified than Powell, Tubman, Bruce Monroe, etc. (all listed in profiles at 99% FARMs, which is incorrect but all the same means they are way behind Bancroft.) We have a great, hard-working PTA. I and many other higher SES parents spend huge amounts of time working to improve the school (from raising money for field trips and extracurriculars, to helping out in our kids' classrooms). But despite all this work, Bancroft's FARMS figure has fallen only a few percent in the 4+ years my family has been at the school.

Why? Several reasons. One, despite Mount Pleasant's wealth, our boundaries still include a lot of low income families (in apartment buildings mostly). The rest of Ward 1 has even more poor families and thinking you can flip a school to non-Title I in this area is probably completely unrealistic, no matter how much parents organize. Two, higher SES families come to Bancroft in droves for PK3 knowing they will move in PK4 (WOTP or to charters). This means they take spots from families who might have stayed. Three, other families stay a couple years longer, but still bail because while they may talk a good talk about wanting diversity and in some cases have even been very involved with "improving" the school, in their heart they really want to be at a higher SES charter or WOTP school rather than at a school that is still mostly low income Latino families.

I think they leave because of a combination of fear of the unknown (will my kid be challenged etc.), other options being so easy (Eaton has many Mt P families), and pure snobbishness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, what is so "urban" about Petworth? Why are you putting down Arlington and Bethesda? You realize those are pretty diverse communities overall. There are lots of apartments and bike share is available.

1) Proximity to downtown (though parts of Arlington are tied here - but those parts are exorbitantly expensive)
2) It's still shooty / stabby
3) It's ethnically diverse

This is what I always find amusing -- looking objectively at an aerial view map, and considering all public transit options, Petworth is no more convenient to the commercial/federal part of DC (aka, "downtown") than many communities in the WoTP Upper Caucasia," might as well be a suburb" Washington.

Don't get me wrong, I like Petworth as much as I like the next all-rowhouse, between the wars DC neighborhood. But it's no more proximate to the White House than Cleveland Park or Tenleytown

If you're a bike commuter it's a hellova better commute downtown from Petworth... Ever tried biking down Connecticut Ave?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is stating what exactly these Petworth schools are missing that would make them "great." Everyone is working under the presumption that these schools are lacking things that would make them great, but no one seems to know what that is. Middle-class children? Does that mean you want the low-income children displaced to other schools?

And the post about how low income family families feel embarrassed or uncomfortable is condescending and ignorant.

I'm the PP who wrote about my frustration with my long time in DC watching these issues play out. I don't necessarily agree with a few of the last posts, or at least think they are not articulated very well.

You said that no one is stating exactly what is missing from these schools. We are - we said they need the kids of high SES families. Every study in the world knows that that is the biggest correlation with school outcome (and improves the scores of the low SES kids to boot). You ask whether we want low-income children displaced. No - in fact, if you read my post, you'll see i mentioned that all of these crappy performing schools are under enrolled. Garrison (my IB school) was about to be closed. I suspect you could double the size of the school, fill it entirely with gentrifying richer families, and presto, the school now has the balance shifted to be a better performing school and continue to attract high SES families going forward.

It's not a perfect or pretty discussion. But there seems to be only two options: status quo; or let the marginally annoying and marginally offensive gentrifiers have their way and the school possibly improves. I'd rather the second.

Ok, so parents want more middle class kids. That still doesn't change the fact that this thread presumes that these schools are lacking things that middle class kids need/want. What are those things (aside from higher test scores)?

I just want more middle class kids. That's it. The other things come along with that: less classroom disruption; more kids at the same educational preparedness level; stronger PTA; less racial and SES tension directed at your kid.

I went to a gifted school for middle school. The facility was the dumpiest, oldest school in our town. The gym was from the 1940s and not regulation sizes. The library was just a few bookshelves in an old classroom. And there were as many portables as there were regular classrooms. The gym change rooms were an old classroom cut in half - half for girls, half for boys. Obviously back then we didn't have any electronic teaching tools. Probably a couple old tvs with vcrs, and we spent a lot of time watching film reels. I don't think there was a PTA. There was a soccer field but no other outdoor resources. No cafeteria, no vending machines. We all brown bagged every day and they pulled out loose benches in the gym for us to eat. We had smart kids who came from all over town, so the SES was fairly diverse (though, it being an upper middle class suburb, no one was "poor" like we see in DC). We had good teachers because it was a plum job - teaching kids who love learning. The school was amazing and had great results. Obviously an extreme example, but the point is that the only input was decent students. Everything else is unnecessary.

Sounds a bit like Murch. Did they convert a boys' bathroom into the nurses office too? lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok, so parents want more middle class kids. That still doesn't change the fact that this thread presumes that these schools are lacking things that middle class kids need/want. What are those things (aside from higher test scores)?

I just want more middle class kids. That's it. The other things come along with that: less classroom disruption; more kids at the same educational preparedness level; stronger PTA; less racial and SES tension directed at your kid.

I went to a gifted school for middle school. The facility was the dumpiest, oldest school in our town. The gym was from the 1940s and not regulation sizes. The library was just a few bookshelves in an old classroom. And there were as many portables as there were regular classrooms. The gym change rooms were an old classroom cut in half - half for girls, half for boys. Obviously back then we didn't have any electronic teaching tools. Probably a couple old tvs with vcrs, and we spent a lot of time watching film reels. I don't think there was a PTA. There was a soccer field but no other outdoor resources. No cafeteria, no vending machines. We all brown bagged every day and they pulled out loose benches in the gym for us to eat. We had smart kids who came from all over town, so the SES was fairly diverse (though, it being an upper middle class suburb, no one was "poor" like we see in DC). We had good teachers because it was a plum job - teaching kids who love learning. The school was amazing and had great results. Obviously an extreme example, but the point is that the only input was decent students. Everything else is unnecessary.

I completely agree with you. Where this thread has lost me is all the talk of holding principals and teachers "accountable." Accountable for what? Dragging middle class families from their homes and forcing to them enroll? The overall tone is that the schools need to do something that they're not currently doing.