Anonymous wrote:

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

Let's see through your "statistics". I claimed that my kids test about in the top 5-10% in tests in which nation-wide data are indicated. There are about 60 kids per grade. I am claiming that about 10% of them (6) test about in the top 10% nation-wide. (I'm also happy to include among their peers students who test in the top 20%.) I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how this is compatible with a majority of students testing below grade level. Second exercise, look at the PARCC scores for L-T and acknowledge how this actually fits the school's data.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

So having refuted your first claim, let's talk about the idea that I would come here on an anonymous forum boasting about my kids performance. What's not useful is your pathetic contributions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

Let's see through your "statistics". I claimed that my kids test about in the top 5-10% in tests in which nation-wide data are indicated. There are about 60 kids per grade. I am claiming that about 10% of them (6) test about in the top 10% nation-wide. (I'm also happy to include among their peers students who test in the top 20%.) I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how this is compatible with a majority of students testing below grade level. Second exercise, look at the PARCC scores for L-T and acknowledge how this actually fits the school's data.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

So having refuted your first claim, let's talk about the idea that I would come here on an anonymous forum boasting about my kids performance. What's not useful is your pathetic contributions.

Wow people in the other thread talking about the vibe at L-T should come check out this condescending and weirdly angry poster (whose kids are both top 10% in the nation, obviously, despite only one of them having taken the PARCC). This might be the reason some people find the parent community clique-y and not very welcoming. Apparently if your kid is not also top 10% (again, based on nothing for the younger child except the PP’s assertions) you can’t be part of their kids friend group.

^ oh sorry, I see she will also include kids in the top 20%. Phew. Again, what this is based on for her kid below 3rd, unclear. The tests at Mathnasium and Kumon?

Anyway you seem like a delight, no doubt anyone would enjoy going to school with your children where I’m sure you are definitely not weirdly intense and competitive!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

Let's see through your "statistics". I claimed that my kids test about in the top 5-10% in tests in which nation-wide data are indicated. There are about 60 kids per grade. I am claiming that about 10% of them (6) test about in the top 10% nation-wide. (I'm also happy to include among their peers students who test in the top 20%.) I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how this is compatible with a majority of students testing below grade level. Second exercise, look at the PARCC scores for L-T and acknowledge how this actually fits the school's data.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

So having refuted your first claim, let's talk about the idea that I would come here on an anonymous forum boasting about my kids performance. What's not useful is your pathetic contributions.

Wow people in the other thread talking about the vibe at L-T should come check out this condescending and weirdly angry poster (whose kids are both top 10% in the nation, obviously, despite only one of them having taken the PARCC). This might be the reason some people find the parent community clique-y and not very welcoming. Apparently if your kid is not also top 10% (again, based on nothing for the younger child except the PP’s assertions) you can’t be part of their kids friend group.

Anonymous wrote:

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

Let's see through your "statistics". I claimed that my kids test about in the top 5-10% in tests in which nation-wide data are indicated. There are about 60 kids per grade. I am claiming that about 10% of them (6) test about in the top 10% nation-wide. (I'm also happy to include among their peers students who test in the top 20%.) I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out how this is compatible with a majority of students testing below grade level. Second exercise, look at the PARCC scores for L-T and acknowledge how this actually fits the school's data.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

So having refuted your first claim, let's talk about the idea that I would come here on an anonymous forum boasting about my kids performance. What's not useful is your pathetic contributions.

This can’t be true though. You can have kids that are “well above grade level” at a school like L-T and then say that they don’t stand out at all and that they have many peers doing as well. Statistically, this doesn’t work. About half of L-T students test below grade level. About half are at or above grade level. If the PP’s kids are WELL above grade level, they are doing better than the vast majority of their classmates. Based on PARCC scores.

So either the PP is overestimating her kid’s abilities (which is ok, lots of people view their children through rose-colored glasses) or she is overestimating the percentage of the rest of the class who is at the same level. Either way, it’s not that useful if a data point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

WTF. She literally said her kids weren’t outliers at the school. Also, they absolutely would not be middle of the pack at a suburban school; that’s absurd. In an AAP program? Perhaps. But OP has a 15 month old who has absolutely no idea whether her kids will be AAP types or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were in the same place ten or so years ago. It's important to realize that there is no perfect solution, that there are various pros/cons. You decide what's important to your family and what might work better for your particular child (this is harder when you have multiple children with different needs).

We thought that for us, staying in Capitol Hill would be better. Yes, for SURE the kids did not receive as good an education. But they were in a nurturing environment that, despite some hiccups, allowed them to have a happy childhood. The local friends on the block, the bike rides to school, then being able to walk to school on their own--those were important to me.

I was not interested in making my kids study for AAP tests (and yes, you are not supposed to study, but I know for a fact people do). I wanted my kids to grow up in a more urban environment (I'm not talking about urban as code for diversity, I'm talking about being able to get around the city on your own). I think some aspects of diversity are overrated, and your kids might not necessarily become friends with kids of other SES backgrounds (which I think is the bigger gap than racial differences, from what I've seen). But still, getting along with people different from them in some way is an important skill. (But, again, I think at this point the suburbs may be more diverse in the true sense of that word.)

I feel like Capitol Hill allowed us to have that small town experience (SOTH for kiddo soccer, the kid musical events around the neighborhood) surrounded by people who similarly wanted to stay. I am sure someone will come and tell me they live in a suburb that has all of that--and maybe we didn't look hard enough. But so far I have no regrets.

For sure, middle school years are challenging. But so far we've made it work, and I have not regretted it. (But, you know, maybe I'll regret it in high school. Who knows.)

I think it's important to decide what's best for your family and then not worry about FOMO. Just remember that there is no perfect school out there. My expensive private high school had some terrible math teachers.

If you have a very bright kid, they will read a lot, take music lessons, participate in sports. They will sometimes be bored in school, but it won't take away from their brightness.

If you have a kid who is slow to mature, they will not be shamed and will be allowed to grow at their own pace. Sometimes you'll worry that they are being ignored, and you may need to step in yourself or with a tutor.

If you have a kid who is exactly on grade, they'll be happy and thrive.

If you have a kid with serious behavioral challenges, that's the toughest situation of all, but I'm not sure if moving to suburbs would really help.

This is one of the most thoughtful and accurate posts I have read in a long time. We thought about our Hill lives very similarly and actually valued very similar things but opted to leave. It was the right decision for us and we are very happy with where we landed but the balance could have tipped the other direction with different kids, and honestly if we liked our specific house and block more!

I agree, this is a fantastic post and does a beautiful job capturing how our family feels. We live up in Petworth and our oldest is at DCI and our younger kids are at a DCI feeder. We always thought we would move to the suburbs once we hit middle school and in fact took a long, careful look at the suburbs a few years ago.

For us, the trade-offs just didn't make sense to our family. Yes, the academics and extracurricular offerings were better, for sure. But there were so many things that living in DC offered my kids that the suburbs couldn't offer.

For us, the thing that stood out most prominently was the number of mental health concerns that we heard in talking to parents of teenage girls (in particular) in the suburbs. Not that mental health concerns don't exist for teenage girls in DC and not that every teenage girl in the suburb faces mental health challenges. But it is top of mind for our family and our three daughters. For our family, minimizing the pressure cooker environment (while also making sure our girls are appropriately challenged) is worth the trade-off......But I totally recognize that is not the trade-off every family makes, and that's totally fine. It is all about what it right for your family and your kids. You will make it work.

You made it work because you literally won a lottery. Those who don’t face different choices. I am making it work but absolutely wish we had thought harder about chosing a neighborhood with established IB schools through HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. My children are at L-T. They are well above grade level. Only the older one has had to do standardized testing, but they have never tested below 90% nationwide when such data were indicated, and are typically around 96-98%. They have many peers in the school and are not academically bored. Perhaps most importantly they have strong, stimulating friendships.

For Pre-K I wouldn't even give the matter a second thought, assuming you can get in. For elementary, in the earlier grades I've sometimes had questions whether they were going fast enough for them not to be bored. But just seeing the level that my kids are at right now, despite Covid, removed those questions for me entirely.

There might be a critical mass below which some opportunities are missing, but if so the current L-T student-group is not close to it. (Indeed, I would be more worried about L-T if your kid had learning needs, per the discussion in a different thread.)

Dial it down. You have bright kids testing above grade level, sounds like everything is fine but maybe just dial it down a little bit. Your kids would probably be considered middle of the pack at most high SES suburban schools, and a lot of your perception that they are "way" above grade level stems from being in a school where only 40-60% of kids are at or above grade level. Yes, that's excellent for DCPS and especially for a school that still has a sizable FARMS population. L-T has every reason to be proud. But please understand your kids aren't like super outlier geniuses. It's just that the bar in DCPS is crazy low. Your frame of reference is skewed by the generally low academic standards overall in the district.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were in the same place ten or so years ago. It's important to realize that there is no perfect solution, that there are various pros/cons. You decide what's important to your family and what might work better for your particular child (this is harder when you have multiple children with different needs).

We thought that for us, staying in Capitol Hill would be better. Yes, for SURE the kids did not receive as good an education. But they were in a nurturing environment that, despite some hiccups, allowed them to have a happy childhood. The local friends on the block, the bike rides to school, then being able to walk to school on their own--those were important to me.

I was not interested in making my kids study for AAP tests (and yes, you are not supposed to study, but I know for a fact people do). I wanted my kids to grow up in a more urban environment (I'm not talking about urban as code for diversity, I'm talking about being able to get around the city on your own). I think some aspects of diversity are overrated, and your kids might not necessarily become friends with kids of other SES backgrounds (which I think is the bigger gap than racial differences, from what I've seen). But still, getting along with people different from them in some way is an important skill. (But, again, I think at this point the suburbs may be more diverse in the true sense of that word.)

I feel like Capitol Hill allowed us to have that small town experience (SOTH for kiddo soccer, the kid musical events around the neighborhood) surrounded by people who similarly wanted to stay. I am sure someone will come and tell me they live in a suburb that has all of that--and maybe we didn't look hard enough. But so far I have no regrets.

For sure, middle school years are challenging. But so far we've made it work, and I have not regretted it. (But, you know, maybe I'll regret it in high school. Who knows.)

I think it's important to decide what's best for your family and then not worry about FOMO. Just remember that there is no perfect school out there. My expensive private high school had some terrible math teachers.

If you have a very bright kid, they will read a lot, take music lessons, participate in sports. They will sometimes be bored in school, but it won't take away from their brightness.

If you have a kid who is slow to mature, they will not be shamed and will be allowed to grow at their own pace. Sometimes you'll worry that they are being ignored, and you may need to step in yourself or with a tutor.

If you have a kid who is exactly on grade, they'll be happy and thrive.

If you have a kid with serious behavioral challenges, that's the toughest situation of all, but I'm not sure if moving to suburbs would really help.

This is one of the most thoughtful and accurate posts I have read in a long time. We thought about our Hill lives very similarly and actually valued very similar things but opted to leave. It was the right decision for us and we are very happy with where we landed but the balance could have tipped the other direction with different kids, and honestly if we liked our specific house and block more!

I agree, this is a fantastic post and does a beautiful job capturing how our family feels. We live up in Petworth and our oldest is at DCI and our younger kids are at a DCI feeder. We always thought we would move to the suburbs once we hit middle school and in fact took a long, careful look at the suburbs a few years ago.

For us, the trade-offs just didn't make sense to our family. Yes, the academics and extracurricular offerings were better, for sure. But there were so many things that living in DC offered my kids that the suburbs couldn't offer.

For us, the thing that stood out most prominently was the number of mental health concerns that we heard in talking to parents of teenage girls (in particular) in the suburbs. Not that mental health concerns don't exist for teenage girls in DC and not that every teenage girl in the suburb faces mental health challenges. But it is top of mind for our family and our three daughters. For our family, minimizing the pressure cooker environment (while also making sure our girls are appropriately challenged) is worth the trade-off......But I totally recognize that is not the trade-off every family makes, and that's totally fine. It is all about what it right for your family and your kids. You will make it work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were in the same place ten or so years ago. It's important to realize that there is no perfect solution, that there are various pros/cons. You decide what's important to your family and what might work better for your particular child (this is harder when you have multiple children with different needs).

We thought that for us, staying in Capitol Hill would be better. Yes, for SURE the kids did not receive as good an education. But they were in a nurturing environment that, despite some hiccups, allowed them to have a happy childhood. The local friends on the block, the bike rides to school, then being able to walk to school on their own--those were important to me.

I was not interested in making my kids study for AAP tests (and yes, you are not supposed to study, but I know for a fact people do). I wanted my kids to grow up in a more urban environment (I'm not talking about urban as code for diversity, I'm talking about being able to get around the city on your own). I think some aspects of diversity are overrated, and your kids might not necessarily become friends with kids of other SES backgrounds (which I think is the bigger gap than racial differences, from what I've seen). But still, getting along with people different from them in some way is an important skill. (But, again, I think at this point the suburbs may be more diverse in the true sense of that word.)

I feel like Capitol Hill allowed us to have that small town experience (SOTH for kiddo soccer, the kid musical events around the neighborhood) surrounded by people who similarly wanted to stay. I am sure someone will come and tell me they live in a suburb that has all of that--and maybe we didn't look hard enough. But so far I have no regrets.

For sure, middle school years are challenging. But so far we've made it work, and I have not regretted it. (But, you know, maybe I'll regret it in high school. Who knows.)

I think it's important to decide what's best for your family and then not worry about FOMO. Just remember that there is no perfect school out there. My expensive private high school had some terrible math teachers.

If you have a very bright kid, they will read a lot, take music lessons, participate in sports. They will sometimes be bored in school, but it won't take away from their brightness.

If you have a kid who is slow to mature, they will not be shamed and will be allowed to grow at their own pace. Sometimes you'll worry that they are being ignored, and you may need to step in yourself or with a tutor.

If you have a kid who is exactly on grade, they'll be happy and thrive.

If you have a kid with serious behavioral challenges, that's the toughest situation of all, but I'm not sure if moving to suburbs would really help.

This is one of the most thoughtful and accurate posts I have read in a long time. We thought about our Hill lives very similarly and actually valued very similar things but opted to leave. It was the right decision for us and we are very happy with where we landed but the balance could have tipped the other direction with different kids, and honestly if we liked our specific house and block more!