Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'd listened to you ten years ago lady, we'd be long gone from the Hill. We scraped together every dollar we had to by in-boundary for Brent.

My advice for OP is the opposite. Stand outside your schools of interest and drop-off and get a feel for the scene, to help you decide what you can live with. Even drop in on PTA meetings if you have the time. easily done and lots to learn. Search for real estate by school boundaries.

Some of us who've been on the Hill for a long time have seen dear friends bail for the burbs because they bought on the wrong side of a street. They thought they'd bought IB for in-boundary for Maury when they'd actually bought for Payne or Miner. The result was years of braving bad school commutes up to Inspired Teaching, Stokes or wherever. Not worth it. Live with the creaky stairs.

We are not at stokes but I’d take that over any Capitol Hill school.

Not buying it. Stokes isn't better than Brent or Maury. Even it were, who wants to commute half an hour to a school through evil traffic on North Capitol if there's a good school within a few blocks of home.

DP but I believe both Inspired and Stokes preform same or better than Brent when you compare apples to apples. Agree with commute but wanted to contend your first point.

DCPS can break down all they want with the stats to at risk, special needs, etc...so certain schools do a better job at serving these students. Honestly I could care less about that. If my child is advance, what I care about is peer group and I’m looking at the total percentage of kids scoring 4 on PARCC. 3 on PARCC isn’t even at grade level, it’s approaching grade level. Brent way outperforms based on this criteria.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

This seems to be entirely race and/or SES based.

There are two reasons why that might be:
1) People unfairly judge schools based on the background of the children attending.
2) People fairly judge schools based on what's actually happening: are the kids learning, are they safe and happy, is there an overall positive vibe to the school? Richer parents have more choice, by choosing where to live (within or outside of the Hill/DC), choosing to go private, or by going to charter (because they are on average more knowledgeable and flexible about transport, though poorer parents go charter as well). Therefore, when a school is doing well, richer parents will use their choice and drive up the share of white/high SES kids in that school.

If you think #1 applies, then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, then others figure it's OK, and things cascade.

If you think #2 applies. then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, they like it and stay and other parents hear good things and come and stay too.

Both obviously matter, but after nearly a decade in various Hill schools, I think #2 is the more important story.

I'm not following PP and I've been on the Hill for a long time. From where I sit, the main problem is, the achievement gap between affluent families (vs. truly rich) and poor ones in this particular city is a chasm, yet DCPS offers no formal GT services. One result is that unless a PTA is raising the dough for extra staff in classrooms (teachers aides, floating senior teachers) most parents will have bailed from a school by the upper grades.

I don't want most of my kids longtime pals leaving in the upper grades, or my advanced learner to get bored, so I choose Brent. Our school's student body is overwhelmingly UMC. Parents are not to blame for Hill parents choosing Brent, Maury, Peabody etc, given the nature of multi-generational poverty in this country and longtime DCPS policy and practices The fact that poor kids do better in particular schools is wonderful, but doesn't do much for us - the achievement gap remains vast and weak support for advanced learners remains a huge problem in DCPs. Most of us need six-figure PTAs to stick with an ES, and honors classes to stick with a MS.

FFS - the fact that you not only see this as a problem IS the problem. Your "solution" involves knocking home the kid born on third base who thinks he hit a triple, with no regard of getting the other kids to bat.

NP. You can serve both communities. Some schools do it very well. Some schools do it very poorly (e.g. Watkins).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'd listened to you ten years ago lady, we'd be long gone from the Hill. We scraped together every dollar we had to by in-boundary for Brent.

My advice for OP is the opposite. Stand outside your schools of interest and drop-off and get a feel for the scene, to help you decide what you can live with. Even drop in on PTA meetings if you have the time. easily done and lots to learn. Search for real estate by school boundaries.

Some of us who've been on the Hill for a long time have seen dear friends bail for the burbs because they bought on the wrong side of a street. They thought they'd bought IB for in-boundary for Maury when they'd actually bought for Payne or Miner. The result was years of braving bad school commutes up to Inspired Teaching, Stokes or wherever. Not worth it. Live with the creaky stairs.

We are not at stokes but I’d take that over any Capitol Hill school.

Not buying it. Stokes isn't better than Brent or Maury. Even it were, who wants to commute half an hour to a school through evil traffic on North Capitol if there's a good school within a few blocks of home.

DP but I believe both Inspired and Stokes preform same or better than Brent when you compare apples to apples. Agree with commute but wanted to contend your first point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'd listened to you ten years ago lady, we'd be long gone from the Hill. We scraped together every dollar we had to by in-boundary for Brent.

My advice for OP is the opposite. Stand outside your schools of interest and drop-off and get a feel for the scene, to help you decide what you can live with. Even drop in on PTA meetings if you have the time. easily done and lots to learn. Search for real estate by school boundaries.

Some of us who've been on the Hill for a long time have seen dear friends bail for the burbs because they bought on the wrong side of a street. They thought they'd bought IB for in-boundary for Maury when they'd actually bought for Payne or Miner. The result was years of braving bad school commutes up to Inspired Teaching, Stokes or wherever. Not worth it. Live with the creaky stairs.

We are not at stokes but I’d take that over any Capitol Hill school.

Not buying it. Stokes isn't better than Brent or Maury. Even it were, who wants to commute half an hour to a school through evil traffic on North Capitol if there's a good school within a few blocks of home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

This seems to be entirely race and/or SES based.

There are two reasons why that might be:
1) People unfairly judge schools based on the background of the children attending.
2) People fairly judge schools based on what's actually happening: are the kids learning, are they safe and happy, is there an overall positive vibe to the school? Richer parents have more choice, by choosing where to live (within or outside of the Hill/DC), choosing to go private, or by going to charter (because they are on average more knowledgeable and flexible about transport, though poorer parents go charter as well). Therefore, when a school is doing well, richer parents will use their choice and drive up the share of white/high SES kids in that school.

If you think #1 applies, then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, then others figure it's OK, and things cascade.

If you think #2 applies. then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, they like it and stay and other parents hear good things and come and stay too.

Both obviously matter, but after nearly a decade in various Hill schools, I think #2 is the more important story.

I'm not following PP and I've been on the Hill for a long time. From where I sit, the main problem is, the achievement gap between affluent families (vs. truly rich) and poor ones in this particular city is a chasm, yet DCPS offers no formal GT services. One result is that unless a PTA is raising the dough for extra staff in classrooms (teachers aides, floating senior teachers) most parents will have bailed from a school by the upper grades.

I don't want most of my kids longtime pals leaving in the upper grades, or my advanced learner to get bored, so I choose Brent. Our school's student body is overwhelmingly UMC. Parents are not to blame for Hill parents choosing Brent, Maury, Peabody etc, given the nature of multi-generational poverty in this country and longtime DCPS policy and practices The fact that poor kids do better in particular schools is wonderful, but doesn't do much for us - the achievement gap remains vast and weak support for advanced learners remains a huge problem in DCPs. Most of us need six-figure PTAs to stick with an ES, and honors classes to stick with a MS.

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

This seems to be entirely race and/or SES based.

There are two reasons why that might be:
1) People unfairly judge schools based on the background of the children attending.
2) People fairly judge schools based on what's actually happening: are the kids learning, are they safe and happy, is there an overall positive vibe to the school? Richer parents have more choice, by choosing where to live (within or outside of the Hill/DC), choosing to go private, or by going to charter (because they are on average more knowledgeable and flexible about transport, though poorer parents go charter as well). Therefore, when a school is doing well, richer parents will use their choice and drive up the share of white/high SES kids in that school.

If you think #1 applies, then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, then others figure it's OK, and things cascade.

If you think #2 applies. then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, they like it and stay and other parents hear good things and come and stay too.

Both obviously matter, but after nearly a decade in various Hill schools, I think #2 is the more important story.

I'm not following PP and I've been on the Hill for a long time. From where I sit, the main problem is, the achievement gap between affluent families (vs. truly rich) and poor ones in this particular city is a chasm, yet DCPS offers no formal GT services. One result is that unless a PTA is raising the dough for extra staff in classrooms (teachers aides, floating senior teachers) most parents will have bailed from a school by the upper grades.

I don't want most of my kids longtime pals leaving in the upper grades, or my advanced learner to get bored, so I choose Brent. Our school's student body is overwhelmingly UMC. Parents are not to blame for Hill parents choosing Brent, Maury, Peabody etc, given the nature of multi-generational poverty in this country and longtime DCPS policy and practices The fact that poor kids do better in particular schools is wonderful, but doesn't do much for us - the achievement gap remains vast and weak support for advanced learners remains a huge problem in DCPs. Most of us need six-figure PTAs to stick with an ES, and honors classes to stick with a MS.

FFS - the fact that you not only see this as a problem IS the problem. Your "solution" involves knocking home the kid born on third base who thinks he hit a triple, with no regard of getting the other kids to bat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

This seems to be entirely race and/or SES based.

There are two reasons why that might be:
1) People unfairly judge schools based on the background of the children attending.
2) People fairly judge schools based on what's actually happening: are the kids learning, are they safe and happy, is there an overall positive vibe to the school? Richer parents have more choice, by choosing where to live (within or outside of the Hill/DC), choosing to go private, or by going to charter (because they are on average more knowledgeable and flexible about transport, though poorer parents go charter as well). Therefore, when a school is doing well, richer parents will use their choice and drive up the share of white/high SES kids in that school.

If you think #1 applies, then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, then others figure it's OK, and things cascade.

If you think #2 applies. then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, they like it and stay and other parents hear good things and come and stay too.

Both obviously matter, but after nearly a decade in various Hill schools, I think #2 is the more important story.

I'm not following PP and I've been on the Hill for a long time. From where I sit, the main problem is, the achievement gap between affluent families (vs. truly rich) and poor ones in this particular city is a chasm, yet DCPS offers no formal GT services. One result is that unless a PTA is raising the dough for extra staff in classrooms (teachers aides, floating senior teachers) most parents will have bailed from a school by the upper grades.

I don't want most of my kids longtime pals leaving in the upper grades, or my advanced learner to get bored, so I choose Brent. Our school's student body is overwhelmingly UMC. Parents are not to blame for Hill parents choosing Brent, Maury, Peabody etc, given the nature of multi-generational poverty in this country and longtime DCPS policy and practices The fact that poor kids do better in particular schools is wonderful, but doesn't do much for us - the achievement gap remains vast and weak support for advanced learners remains a huge problem in DCPs. Most of us need six-figure PTAs to stick with an ES, and honors classes to stick with a MS.

FFS - the fact that you not only see this as a problem IS the problem. Your "solution" involves knocking home the kid born on third base who thinks he hit a triple, with no regard of getting the other kids to bat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

This seems to be entirely race and/or SES based.

There are two reasons why that might be:
1) People unfairly judge schools based on the background of the children attending.
2) People fairly judge schools based on what's actually happening: are the kids learning, are they safe and happy, is there an overall positive vibe to the school? Richer parents have more choice, by choosing where to live (within or outside of the Hill/DC), choosing to go private, or by going to charter (because they are on average more knowledgeable and flexible about transport, though poorer parents go charter as well). Therefore, when a school is doing well, richer parents will use their choice and drive up the share of white/high SES kids in that school.

If you think #1 applies, then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, then others figure it's OK, and things cascade.

If you think #2 applies. then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, they like it and stay and other parents hear good things and come and stay too.

Both obviously matter, but after nearly a decade in various Hill schools, I think #2 is the more important story.

I'm not following PP and I've been on the Hill for a long time. From where I sit, the main problem is, the achievement gap between affluent families (vs. truly rich) and poor ones in this particular city is a chasm, yet DCPS offers no formal GT services. One result is that unless a PTA is raising the dough for extra staff in classrooms (teachers aides, floating senior teachers) most parents will have bailed from a school by the upper grades.

I don't want most of my kids longtime pals leaving in the upper grades, or my advanced learner to get bored, so I choose Brent. Our school's student body is overwhelmingly UMC. Parents are not to blame for Hill parents choosing Brent, Maury, Peabody etc, given the nature of multi-generational poverty in this country and longtime DCPS policy and practices The fact that poor kids do better in particular schools is wonderful, but doesn't do much for us - the achievement gap remains vast and weak support for advanced learners remains a huge problem in DCPs. Most of us need six-figure PTAs to stick with an ES, and honors classes to stick with a MS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

This seems to be entirely race and/or SES based.

There are two reasons why that might be:
1) People unfairly judge schools based on the background of the children attending.
2) People fairly judge schools based on what's actually happening: are the kids learning, are they safe and happy, is there an overall positive vibe to the school? Richer parents have more choice, by choosing where to live (within or outside of the Hill/DC), choosing to go private, or by going to charter (because they are on average more knowledgeable and flexible about transport, though poorer parents go charter as well). Therefore, when a school is doing well, richer parents will use their choice and drive up the share of white/high SES kids in that school.

If you think #1 applies, then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, then others figure it's OK, and things cascade.

If you think #2 applies. then the reason schools increase their high SES share is just because a few rich parents send their kids to a school, they like it and stay and other parents hear good things and come and stay too.

Both obviously matter, but after nearly a decade in various Hill schools, I think #2 is the more important story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's how I'd sort Cap Hill by-right schools, your mileage may vary:

*** Elementary Schools ***

YES
(1) Brent
(2) Maury
(3) Peabody (preK-3 to K)

MAYBE
(4) Ludlow-Taylor
(5) Watkins (1st to 5th)

NO
(6) JO Wilson
(7) Payne
(8) Miner


*** Middle Schools ***

YES
(1) Stuart Hobson

MAYBE
(2) Jefferson

NO
(3) Eliot-Hine

*** High School **

NO
(1) Eastern

This seems to be entirely race and/or SES based.

Pretty much. Same with the advice to stand outside at 3:15 - many schools have kids that will be in aftercare, but I guess it helps to check out the SAHP crews.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ludlow Taylor to Stuart Hobson without question. (Most elementary schools are good, but most middles have a long way to go.)

Maybe. We have several friends bailing on LT in the upper grades due to lack of challenge. If your kid is just a toddler, the school's demographics may have changed enough by the upper grades for you to be happy with the experience.

Interesting...we are IB for LT/SH and my upper ele kid doesn't attend because when he started, LT wasn't what it is now, not by a long shot. We have many neighbors who have kids PS-1st who are there and extremely happy. And we also have many friends who plan on sending their kids to SH next year and are excited about it. We are in a charter that goes through middle so haven't looked as closely as some others may have, but I know SH is getting a lot of positive buzz both for their honors programming and their arts. I suspect LT's upper ele is still largely OOB but that it will change over the next few years and the younger crowd moves up.

Agree with PP that if you can stomach lottery or a move for middle that Brent certainly has the best reputation on the hill. We have friends at Watkins who feel their child is quite behind due to lack of rigor and structure.

That might have been true 5 - 10 years ago, but not any more. It's a great school, but I don't think anyone would say it's the "best" school anymore. Which can only be a good thing!

If I had the choice to move anywhere on the Hill and my kid was just 3-4, I'd pick the house first and school second, out of any of the good options we are lucky enough to have now, and worry about middle school later. If my kid was older and MS were closer in time I would focus more on middle school and look for something zoned for Stuart Hobson.

As a long-time Brent parent, I would agree with the above statement. My youngest is having a fine experience, but it is no where close to what the experience my oldest child had. I have always hated this one upmanship that happens on the Hill. You are so right it is a great thing that there are so many good choices for parents on the Hill. Why do we have to tear down the choices of others to make ourselves feel better?