Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't lively?

more time than not they aren't black

PP gets it. Historically the residents of SP have been middle and upper middle class of various races in nearly equal amounts. Truly a DC Unicorn. I hope SPs demographic fate doesnt end up mirroring WOTP.

Depends on how up market it goes, those wishes for continued price appreciation and basically hoping to whiten the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't lively?

more time than not they aren't black

PP gets it. Historically the residents of SP have been middle and upper middle class of various races in nearly equal amounts. Truly a DC Unicorn. I hope SPs demographic fate doesnt end up mirroring WOTP.

This isn't entirely true. SP was all white until the court struck down the covenants. It stayed mostly white until the early 60s when white flight left openings for the black middle and upper middle class fleeing the urban blight of the city's core saw the better housing stock and area. It turned mostly black with some jewish for the next 30-40 years before the recent trends started. Most people moving in now are white or mixed race couples.

If SP has been diverse since the sixties--so five or so decades--then by this measure, PP was indeed correct to say that historically SP has been mixed.

Or you could say it as transitional that started as X transitioned to Y and is now reverting back to X. Like much of the city as the urban comes back into vogue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't lively?

more time than not they aren't black

PP gets it. Historically the residents of SP have been middle and upper middle class of various races in nearly equal amounts. Truly a DC Unicorn. I hope SPs demographic fate doesnt end up mirroring WOTP.

This isn't entirely true. SP was all white until the court struck down the covenants. It stayed mostly white until the early 60s when white flight left openings for the black middle and upper middle class fleeing the urban blight of the city's core saw the better housing stock and area. It turned mostly black with some jewish for the next 30-40 years before the recent trends started. Most people moving in now are white or mixed race couples.

If SP has been diverse since the sixties--so five or so decades--then by this measure, PP was indeed correct to say that historically SP has been mixed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't lively?

more time than not they aren't black

PP gets it. Historically the residents of SP have been middle and upper middle class of various races in nearly equal amounts. Truly a DC Unicorn. I hope SPs demographic fate doesnt end up mirroring WOTP.

This isn't entirely true. SP was all white until the court struck down the covenants. It stayed mostly white until the early 60s when white flight left openings for the black middle and upper middle class fleeing the urban blight of the city's core saw the better housing stock and area. It turned mostly black with some jewish for the next 30-40 years before the recent trends started. Most people moving in now are white or mixed race couples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't lively?

more time than not they aren't black

PP gets it. Historically the residents of SP have been middle and upper middle class of various races in nearly equal amounts. Truly a DC Unicorn. I hope SPs demographic fate doesnt end up mirroring WOTP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't lively?

more time than not they aren't black

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

There are still homes listed here under a mil. We bought recently and find the neighborhood to be quite warm and friendly!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New listing on market in colonial Village Needs work but im still shocked it’s priced so low. I guess we are a new market .

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/8157-E-Beach-Dr-NW-20012/home/10020834

This is a foreclosure sale that is owned by bank. At least, that is what my realtor said.

It sold for 815k....we live nearby and peeked in. It definitely needs a lot of work

Crice. over 100k over list. Insanity.

+1. A realtor's comment said there's a lot of water damage and mold in the house. Surprised at what it sold for considering.

Anonymous wrote:Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't lively?

Its unfortunate that what made Shepard Park, Shepard park will be replaced with people who can afford $1.25 million dollar homes and up.

So much for the lively culture of the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New listing on market in colonial Village Needs work but im still shocked it’s priced so low. I guess we are a new market .

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/8157-E-Beach-Dr-NW-20012/home/10020834

This is a foreclosure sale that is owned by bank. At least, that is what my realtor said.

It sold for 815k....we live nearby and peeked in. It definitely needs a lot of work

Crice. over 100k over list. Insanity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New listing on market in colonial Village Needs work but im still shocked it’s priced so low. I guess we are a new market .

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/8157-E-Beach-Dr-NW-20012/home/10020834

This is a foreclosure sale that is owned by bank. At least, that is what my realtor said.

It sold for 815k....we live nearby and peeked in. It definitely needs a lot of work

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to Redfin, my renovated 4 bedroom, 3.5 bath, corner lot in Shepherd Park jumped value this month to $589k! Cha-ching! Kidding. My immediate neighbors have recently sold for $980k. I’m curious how RF’s algorithm can’t separate neighborhoods in its value assesssment.

It probably doesn't know it was renovated, but also, it's just an algorithm. A realtor could give you a better estimate.

Redfin tells me my 3/3.5 with finished attic SP home is up in value almost $200K from when we bought 5 years ago in the 700-800K range. However, I don't buy it. Even with a few improvements we've made. If we were to list, we'd probably do so for about $100-120K over what we paid.

Anonymous wrote:According to Redfin, my renovated 4 bedroom, 3.5 bath, corner lot in Shepherd Park jumped value this month to $589k! Cha-ching! Kidding. My immediate neighbors have recently sold for $980k. I’m curious how RF’s algorithm can’t separate neighborhoods in its value assesssment.

It probably doesn't know it was renovated, but also, it's just an algorithm. A realtor could give you a better estimate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question for the previous posters; why should schools results be adjusted for demographics? We are measuring a deliverable pact between tearchers and studants. Yes some times it is the teachers failing and sometime it is the students failing but isn’t it failure nevertheless? The scores measure failure and successes.

The idea that it is a great school with great teachers and it is only the kids that are below standard seems..... like you are missing the point. I hate this modern push to measure different people differently while they scream treat us equally.

What would make people happy, declaring SP a great school because it tries hard regardless of results? At what point is it ok to measure people by just results? Can we start spotting short players a couple of points in the NBA?

+1

Well, one major reason for disaggregating results by race is to uncover patterns of inequality within schools and school districts, relating to both achievement and resources. So if you have a diverse school but there's a lot of tracking that aligns racially (for lots of reasons besides malice) and those kids are sitting in classrooms with new or bad (less expensive) teachers and they're just wasting time while the beloved AP teacher who is excellent is only teaching white kids, disaggregating is a way to see that. As for measuring growth and not just "success," the point of caring about growth or other metrics beyond proficiency is to recognize teachers, students and schools who make progress even though kids don't all have the same starting line. This isn't just about schools that serve low income kids who might start school behind - in many cases (not all! the tests have gotten harder) "proficiency" is not that high a bar. By and large, if you get a bucket of rich white kids or really just rich kids from this area in your classroom, they're going to be "proficient" even if they peel potatoes all year. A growth score can expose those pockets of stagnation.

Also, a valid growth metric is a better test-based incentive/accountability measure for educators than proficiency because it rewards moving all kids forward. Proficiency can create a perverse incentive to focus on kids right under the bar, let kids above the bar stagnate and write off kids who are too far behind. Not that teachers would think that was good, but if you are going to use these metrics to evaluate people you have to be realistic about how they work.

A lot depends on what you really want a "good" school to do for your specific kid and what your goals are for their education and character development. More data is usually better.