Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

So where are the other kids coming from who are choosing Anacostia HS?

This is the part that actually might not be true. How do you know that the outcome for an upper income kid may actually be stifled by a less challenging school?

This. It’s pretty obvious that kid coming out of a poorly performing school with majority below grade level is not going to do as well or reach their full potential as coming out of a higher performing school with majority above grade level.

This is especially true in DCPS where teaching, especially middle school and up, is to the lowest common denominator since there is no tracking of all subjects.

Parents at these schools are definitely supplementing a lot to make up for deficits. They just don’t let it be known as public info to all.

My kids attended a Title 1 elementary, and I don't know of any of the upper income kids that did formal supplementing like Mathnasium (not saying it didn't happen, but I don't think it was prevalent). The majority of kids at the school were not at grade level, but there was still a solid cohort getting 4s and 5s on their CAPE. Do I think my kids could have learned more at a different school? Yes. Absolutely. Was I sometimes frustrated by it? Sure. But do I think they were stifled in a way that hurt their long term trajectory? No. For me, I don't think that there needs to be a race to get through content. They've taken accelerated math in MS, they're curious, they read a lot of novels (which is also pushed by the MS), and they like school most of the time. They've also learned a lot by not being in a socioeconomically homogenous environment--some of it good, and some of it is tough, but they seem well grounded despite growing up with relative privilege. They'll have time in HS to take a lot more advanced content, and I think their foundation is solid for them to do that. Obviously, that is not a universal experience for every family, and I'm not speaking from a place of having a student with a learning disability or a social anxiety disorder for example, but this idea that every family will be stuck supplementing endlessly has not been our experience, nor has it been the experience of most of the families we know in similar situations to ours.

Anecdotal

Tell us which middle school your kid is at and their objective standardized test scores and percentages. Elementary is low stakes. Middle and higher, stakes much higher. Also it is additive that each year kid is not leaning as much adds up quickly.

Also it’s not either/or. There are good performing schools with a mixture of diverse kids and income. In fact, you could argue the popular immersion charters are much more diverse in both than title 1 schools which many is very homogenous.

Socioeconomics aside, most people are seeking a better option than what's available to them by right. The vast majority of middle and high school students opt out of their IB school.

At the high school level, Jackson-Reed has a 65% IB participation rate. The next highest IB participation rate is MacArthur, with 28%. Every other school is lower than that, with Anacostia at the bottom: only 6% of students zoned for Anacostia actually attend the school.

At the middle school level, Oyster-Adams, Hardy, and Deal are all above 75%. The next highest is John-Francis at 40%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

This is the part that actually might not be true. How do you know that the outcome for an upper income kid may actually be stifled by a less challenging school?

This. It’s pretty obvious that kid coming out of a poorly performing school with majority below grade level is not going to do as well or reach their full potential as coming out of a higher performing school with majority above grade level.

This is especially true in DCPS where teaching, especially middle school and up, is to the lowest common denominator since there is no tracking of all subjects.

Parents at these schools are definitely supplementing a lot to make up for deficits. They just don’t let it be known as public info to all.

My kids attended a Title 1 elementary, and I don't know of any of the upper income kids that did formal supplementing like Mathnasium (not saying it didn't happen, but I don't think it was prevalent). The majority of kids at the school were not at grade level, but there was still a solid cohort getting 4s and 5s on their CAPE. Do I think my kids could have learned more at a different school? Yes. Absolutely. Was I sometimes frustrated by it? Sure. But do I think they were stifled in a way that hurt their long term trajectory? No. For me, I don't think that there needs to be a race to get through content. They've taken accelerated math in MS, they're curious, they read a lot of novels (which is also pushed by the MS), and they like school most of the time. They've also learned a lot by not being in a socioeconomically homogenous environment--some of it good, and some of it is tough, but they seem well grounded despite growing up with relative privilege. They'll have time in HS to take a lot more advanced content, and I think their foundation is solid for them to do that. Obviously, that is not a universal experience for every family, and I'm not speaking from a place of having a student with a learning disability or a social anxiety disorder for example, but this idea that every family will be stuck supplementing endlessly has not been our experience, nor has it been the experience of most of the families we know in similar situations to ours.

Anecdotal

Tell us which middle school your kid is at and their objective standardized test scores and percentages. Elementary is low stakes. Middle and higher, stakes much higher. Also it is additive that each year kid is not leaning as much adds up quickly.

Also it’s not either/or. There are good performing schools with a mixture of diverse kids and income. In fact, you could argue the popular immersion charters are much more diverse in both than title 1 schools which many is very homogenous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

This is the part that actually might not be true. How do you know that the outcome for an upper income kid may actually be stifled by a less challenging school?

This. It’s pretty obvious that kid coming out of a poorly performing school with majority below grade level is not going to do as well or reach their full potential as coming out of a higher performing school with majority above grade level.

This is especially true in DCPS where teaching, especially middle school and up, is to the lowest common denominator since there is no tracking of all subjects.

Parents at these schools are definitely supplementing a lot to make up for deficits. They just don’t let it be known as public info to all.

My kids attended a Title 1 elementary, and I don't know of any of the upper income kids that did formal supplementing like Mathnasium (not saying it didn't happen, but I don't think it was prevalent). The majority of kids at the school were not at grade level, but there was still a solid cohort getting 4s and 5s on their CAPE. Do I think my kids could have learned more at a different school? Yes. Absolutely. Was I sometimes frustrated by it? Sure. But do I think they were stifled in a way that hurt their long term trajectory? No. For me, I don't think that there needs to be a race to get through content. They've taken accelerated math in MS, they're curious, they read a lot of novels (which is also pushed by the MS), and they like school most of the time. They've also learned a lot by not being in a socioeconomically homogenous environment--some of it good, and some of it is tough, but they seem well grounded despite growing up with relative privilege. They'll have time in HS to take a lot more advanced content, and I think their foundation is solid for them to do that. Obviously, that is not a universal experience for every family, and I'm not speaking from a place of having a student with a learning disability or a social anxiety disorder for example, but this idea that every family will be stuck supplementing endlessly has not been our experience, nor has it been the experience of most of the families we know in similar situations to ours.

Anecdotal

Tell us which middle school your kid is at and their objective standardized test scores and percentages. Elementary is low stakes. Middle and higher, stakes much higher. Also it is additive that each year kid is not leaning as much adds up quickly.

Also it’s not either/or. There are good performing schools with a mixture of diverse kids and income. In fact, you could argue the popular immersion charters are much more diverse in both than title 1 schools which many is very homogenous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

This is the part that actually might not be true. How do you know that the outcome for an upper income kid may actually be stifled by a less challenging school?

This. It’s pretty obvious that kid coming out of a poorly performing school with majority below grade level is not going to do as well or reach their full potential as coming out of a higher performing school with majority above grade level.

This is especially true in DCPS where teaching, especially middle school and up, is to the lowest common denominator since there is no tracking of all subjects.

Parents at these schools are definitely supplementing a lot to make up for deficits. They just don’t let it be known as public info to all.

My kids attended a Title 1 elementary, and I don't know of any of the upper income kids that did formal supplementing like Mathnasium (not saying it didn't happen, but I don't think it was prevalent). The majority of kids at the school were not at grade level, but there was still a solid cohort getting 4s and 5s on their CAPE. Do I think my kids could have learned more at a different school? Yes. Absolutely. Was I sometimes frustrated by it? Sure. But do I think they were stifled in a way that hurt their long term trajectory? No. For me, I don't think that there needs to be a race to get through content. They've taken accelerated math in MS, they're curious, they read a lot of novels (which is also pushed by the MS), and they like school most of the time. They've also learned a lot by not being in a socioeconomically homogenous environment--some of it good, and some of it is tough, but they seem well grounded despite growing up with relative privilege. They'll have time in HS to take a lot more advanced content, and I think their foundation is solid for them to do that. Obviously, that is not a universal experience for every family, and I'm not speaking from a place of having a student with a learning disability or a social anxiety disorder for example, but this idea that every family will be stuck supplementing endlessly has not been our experience, nor has it been the experience of most of the families we know in similar situations to ours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

This is the part that actually might not be true. How do you know that the outcome for an upper income kid may actually be stifled by a less challenging school?

This. It’s pretty obvious that kid coming out of a poorly performing school with majority below grade level is not going to do as well or reach their full potential as coming out of a higher performing school with majority above grade level.

This is especially true in DCPS where teaching, especially middle school and up, is to the lowest common denominator since there is no tracking of all subjects.

Parents at these schools are definitely supplementing a lot to make up for deficits. They just don’t let it be known as public info to all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maury parent here. Agree that it's by this time in fourth when absolutely everyone is talking about it. Going through this now. Just know that what the kids says/wants is not always the same as what the parent is planning.

My 3rd grader is at L-T and came home on Tuesday saying that there was a Latin Open House that evening. I don't know if that's true (I don't have a 4th grader), but I'm pretty sure that those of you thinking 3rd graders know nothing about the lottery/think everyone is going to the feeder are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

This is the part that actually might not be true. How do you know that the outcome for an upper income kid may actually be stifled by a less challenging school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

The difference is when upper income families leave, they take their resources, and often the time they have to volunteer and be advocates for the school, with them, and there is a real cumulative effect as many families do that, especially as title 1 schools can quickly teeter between having solid or insufficient parent engagement. The other difference is that the upper income family’s child (presuming the school has reasonable leadership and good teachers) is likely to do well at that school or nearly anywhere, while the lower income child may be benefited from being at a school that is more resourced than their in-bounds option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

I don't know about that. My kid went to a title 1 school for elementary, and there was this kind of judgement on upper income parents not to lottery out. But when lower income families lotteried into a better school, no one said anything (because of course they should be trying to find the best educational path for their child).

Anonymous wrote:the pp was not saying participating in the lottery was elitist or classist. they were saying that the way some people fully write off schools that are not super popular and competitive to get a spot at in the lottery and/or schools with lower student test scores as bad schools to be avoided at all
cost can be driven by anxiety and bias…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is when the kids (mostly because of their parents) portray a school to be much worse than it actually is, causing the kids who will likely go to that school unnecessary anxiety. Reality is fine, exaggeration and rumor are not.

+1 this! But we’ve also used that as an opportunity to talk about perceptions and racism—and now that my kid is at the MS and is happy there and getting a good education (and not commuting across town), they get to judge for themselves the quality of the school. The friends who insisted that kids shouldn’t go to this MS because it’s “bad” also get to see that my kid and their friends are largely happy and thriving there—and I wonder if they’ll ever question why their parents were so adamant about the school being bad.

This is great to hear. We do talk about it this way with our kids as well… and we also bring in elitism and classism along with racism. We talk about bias, how some parents get anxiety about schools and catastrophize, and basically just tell them they should give things a chance and make up their own minds instead of listening to rumors that actually aren’t based in reality. And we talk to families that actually have kids at the school. These conversations have come up quite a bit because we come from one of the “top” elementary schools where less than half freak out about the middle school, and then later in middle school, there is the freak out about high school, etc. Then I toured the schools myself and laughed at how ridiculous and exaggerated a lot of these perceptions and rumors are.

Anonymous wrote:Maury parent here. Agree that it's by this time in fourth when absolutely everyone is talking about it. Going through this now. Just know that what the kids says/wants is not always the same as what the parent is planning.