Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read most of the responses but my kid used to be at a title 1 and is now at a lottery school with 6% farms.
Let me tell you, it’s day and night.
The school is better if the vast majority of parents helps it, even if by making sure their kids are ready to learn.

Not DC I assume? I don’t know of a single lottery school in DC with a farm rate that low.

YY? It has just 5% at risk.

They kick them all out

Latin MS has 7% at-risk. Those are the two lowest I am aware of.

Is at risk the same as FARMs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read most of the responses but my kid used to be at a title 1 and is now at a lottery school with 6% farms.
Let me tell you, it’s day and night.
The school is better if the vast majority of parents helps it, even if by making sure their kids are ready to learn.

Not DC I assume? I don’t know of a single lottery school in DC with a farm rate that low.

YY? It has just 5% at risk.

They kick them all out

Latin MS has 7% at-risk. Those are the two lowest I am aware of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read most of the responses but my kid used to be at a title 1 and is now at a lottery school with 6% farms.
Let me tell you, it’s day and night.
The school is better if the vast majority of parents helps it, even if by making sure their kids are ready to learn.

Not DC I assume? I don’t know of a single lottery school in DC with a farm rate that low.

YY? It has just 5% at risk.

They kick them all out

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read most of the responses but my kid used to be at a title 1 and is now at a lottery school with 6% farms.
Let me tell you, it’s day and night.
The school is better if the vast majority of parents helps it, even if by making sure their kids are ready to learn.

Not DC I assume? I don’t know of a single lottery school in DC with a farm rate that low.

YY? It has just 5% at risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read most of the responses but my kid used to be at a title 1 and is now at a lottery school with 6% farms.
Let me tell you, it’s day and night.
The school is better if the vast majority of parents helps it, even if by making sure their kids are ready to learn.

Not DC I assume? I don’t know of a single lottery school in DC with a farm rate that low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm saying is take your money and kids and go. DC isn't at 700,000 residents and flush with cash because of Upper Upper. It's people who moved in, live in places like Navy Yard, and would love it if you took your little Brett Kavanaughs out to whatever's past chevy chase.

Agree. DC has a budget surplus because of the young people (~20-35) who live here and DO NOT have children.

Families with kids generally consume far more city resources (schools, parks, recreation classes, dependent tax deductions) than people without. The city really doesn't care if you are here or not. "Keeping families in the city" is just not a metric that matters. Further, the city knows that the children of families in Upper NW are highly likely not to return to the city to live post-college. The ones who stay are the high-needs kids. They need to get those kids to grade level so they can earn a living, and not wind up on TANF/SNAP/Medicaid.

"Closing the achievement' gap is as much about workforce development as anything else.

None of this is actually correct. Mayor Bowser stated emphatically in her last state of the city address, making it workable to raise a family in DC is absolutely a priority of city government. Many offices in city government are working on policy changes explicitly to retain families with children. Most of the measures being discussed are aimed at increasing the number of large condos and apartments in the city (3 bedrooms and bigger). For example, new restrictions on subdividing row houses into more than 2 units. Those are explicitly designed to increase the amount of available housing for families. Other initiatives include investment in free pre-K, kids ride free, and expanded parks and rec programs for kids. DC policy makers explicitly talk about not wanting to be a city of childless adults.

And no, this is not just about services for low income folks. The city knows that many of the people who are raising kids in the city are middle and upper income folks. From the DC auditor's blog:

"When we look at children of all ages, only the higher-income group has, on net, added children. The total number of lower-income and middle-income children has remained about the same between the two five-year periods that ended in 2010 and 2014. This means that higher-income children now make up a bigger portion of all children in the city."

The goal is to have all kinds of families stay in DC.

This might be true, but as a Ward 3 parent I don’t feel the city is doing anything to keep me in DC. Example no. 1, would be the free pre-k that isn’t available at my in-bound school. Another example would me being shut out of swim lessons on Saturdays at the Wilson pool for three sessions now. I get the Imagination Library books though, but I honestly feel like the city would put an income restriction on the program if they could.

Rich people do not need free PreK. I also think you misunderstand life. Community is want you make it. What have you done that DC would want to keep you? There are lovely preschools in Ward 3 for your kids to attend, you will need to pay though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm saying is take your money and kids and go. DC isn't at 700,000 residents and flush with cash because of Upper Upper. It's people who moved in, live in places like Navy Yard, and would love it if you took your little Brett Kavanaughs out to whatever's past chevy chase.

Agree. DC has a budget surplus because of the young people (~20-35) who live here and DO NOT have children.

Families with kids generally consume far more city resources (schools, parks, recreation classes, dependent tax deductions) than people without. The city really doesn't care if you are here or not. "Keeping families in the city" is just not a metric that matters. Further, the city knows that the children of families in Upper NW are highly likely not to return to the city to live post-college. The ones who stay are the high-needs kids. They need to get those kids to grade level so they can earn a living, and not wind up on TANF/SNAP/Medicaid.

"Closing the achievement' gap is as much about workforce development as anything else.

None of this is actually correct. Mayor Bowser stated emphatically in her last state of the city address, making it workable to raise a family in DC is absolutely a priority of city government. Many offices in city government are working on policy changes explicitly to retain families with children. Most of the measures being discussed are aimed at increasing the number of large condos and apartments in the city (3 bedrooms and bigger). For example, new restrictions on subdividing row houses into more than 2 units. Those are explicitly designed to increase the amount of available housing for families. Other initiatives include investment in free pre-K, kids ride free, and expanded parks and rec programs for kids. DC policy makers explicitly talk about not wanting to be a city of childless adults.

And no, this is not just about services for low income folks. The city knows that many of the people who are raising kids in the city are middle and upper income folks. From the DC auditor's blog:

"When we look at children of all ages, only the higher-income group has, on net, added children. The total number of lower-income and middle-income children has remained about the same between the two five-year periods that ended in 2010 and 2014. This means that higher-income children now make up a bigger portion of all children in the city."

The goal is to have all kinds of families stay in DC.

This might be true, but as a Ward 3 parent I don’t feel the city is doing anything to keep me in DC. Example no. 1, would be the free pre-k that isn’t available at my in-bound school. Another example would me being shut out of swim lessons on Saturdays at the Wilson pool for three sessions now. I get the Imagination Library books though, but I honestly feel like the city would put an income restriction on the program if they could.

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read most of the responses but my kid used to be at a title 1 and is now at a lottery school with 6% farms.
Let me tell you, it’s day and night.
The school is better if the vast majority of parents helps it, even if by making sure their kids are ready to learn.

Anonymous wrote:This thread has gone off the rails. No way would I send my kid to Coolidge or Roosevelt unless they measurably improve. They will need to bring in serious test in tracking for us to consider these schools. My friend’s kids go to McKinley Tech and they say they are bored and not challenged at all. My own kid is at Wilson and not very happy. He finds most of the classes too easy and 9th grade was a joke. I sort of wish/wonder if we should have moved to the suburbs. Should have known better than to put any faith in DCPS. Good luck y’all with your pipe dreams of toughing it out at Coolidge or equivalent. The only schools the chancellor was considering for his son were Walls or Wilson. I wonder why he didn’t put him in Coolidge or Roosevelt. Also, the previous chancellor’s neighborhood school was Dunbar but no way was he going to let his daughter go there. Food for thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notice how you describe the child as high performing and the school as low performing? Yeah, that's the crux of it.

The high performing kids will still be high performing at another school.

Not if the class is full of disruptive kids three grade levels behind who can’t be disciplined because racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm saying is take your money and kids and go. DC isn't at 700,000 residents and flush with cash because of Upper Upper. It's people who moved in, live in places like Navy Yard, and would love it if you took your little Brett Kavanaughs out to whatever's past chevy chase.

Agree. DC has a budget surplus because of the young people (~20-35) who live here and DO NOT have children.

Families with kids generally consume far more city resources (schools, parks, recreation classes, dependent tax deductions) than people without. The city really doesn't care if you are here or not. "Keeping families in the city" is just not a metric that matters. Further, the city knows that the children of families in Upper NW are highly likely not to return to the city to live post-college. The ones who stay are the high-needs kids. They need to get those kids to grade level so they can earn a living, and not wind up on TANF/SNAP/Medicaid.

"Closing the achievement' gap is as much about workforce development as anything else.

None of this is actually correct. Mayor Bowser stated emphatically in her last state of the city address, making it workable to raise a family in DC is absolutely a priority of city government. Many offices in city government are working on policy changes explicitly to retain families with children. Most of the measures being discussed are aimed at increasing the number of large condos and apartments in the city (3 bedrooms and bigger). For example, new restrictions on subdividing row houses into more than 2 units. Those are explicitly designed to increase the amount of available housing for families. Other initiatives include investment in free pre-K, kids ride free, and expanded parks and rec programs for kids. DC policy makers explicitly talk about not wanting to be a city of childless adults.

And no, this is not just about services for low income folks. The city knows that many of the people who are raising kids in the city are middle and upper income folks. From the DC auditor's blog:

"When we look at children of all ages, only the higher-income group has, on net, added children. The total number of lower-income and middle-income children has remained about the same between the two five-year periods that ended in 2010 and 2014. This means that higher-income children now make up a bigger portion of all children in the city."

The goal is to have all kinds of families stay in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what I'm saying is take your money and kids and go. DC isn't at 700,000 residents and flush with cash because of Upper Upper. It's people who moved in, live in places like Navy Yard, and would love it if you took your little Brett Kavanaughs out to whatever's past chevy chase.

Agree. DC has a budget surplus because of the young people (~20-35) who live here and DO NOT have children.

Families with kids generally consume far more city resources (schools, parks, recreation classes, dependent tax deductions) than people without. The city really doesn't care if you are here or not. "Keeping families in the city" is just not a metric that matters. Further, the city knows that the children of families in Upper NW are highly likely not to return to the city to live post-college. The ones who stay are the high-needs kids. They need to get those kids to grade level so they can earn a living, and not wind up on TANF/SNAP/Medicaid.

"Closing the achievement' gap is as much about workforce development as anything else.

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read most of the responses but my kid used to be at a title 1 and is now at a lottery school with 6% farms.
Let me tell you, it’s day and night.
The school is better if the vast majority of parents helps it, even if by making sure their kids are ready to learn.