Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the bolded statement reads as incredibly privileged. it should be about providing everyone at all levels with great schools. (while improving the middle schools could use more attention, my overall impression of bowser is that she does for the most part care about kids in dc.)

Incredibly privileged people like us on Capitol Hill (read many Federal employees) deserve neighborhood middle and high schools most of us are OK with for our tax dollars. Unfortunately, we're almost as far from having them as we were nearly 20 years ago, when my spouse and I bought our first property in the neighborhood.

Our overall impression is that Bowser could absolutely care less if UMC families with school-age kids, particularly whites, bail on city schools, and the District itself for that matter. Fenty cared, Gray, too. Not this short-sighted mayor.

Being OK with is such a BS target. You have MS and HS available to you. Attend them. They will become OK enough for you.

You first, mate.

Anonymous wrote:White Watkins and Stuart Hobson parent leaders essentially treat other white parents on the Hill like racists who refuse to send their upper elementary grades and middle school-age children to majority black and brown schools. They're equity focused vs. rigor minded in the sanctimonious sense. Their political beliefs, and myopic drive to desegregate schools through the preservation of mixed-ability classrooms in DCPS middle schools, trump all. In short, they're bullies to be avoided where possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Capitol Cluster School, Peabody, Watkins, Stuart Hobson, still a cluster spread over 3 campuses. https://www.capitolhillclusterschool.org/

It really isn't. When it was an actual cluster it was three schools with one administration. SH was split off some time ago. Other than calling it a "cluster" please tell me how SH is in any way related to P/W? Bonus question, how is SH any more connected to P/W than LT or JO, which also feed to SH?

The only people who cling to the cluster concept are the PTA, who seem to enjoy having access to more money and power. It actually holds back SH. So weel done, "Cluster" PTA.

+1 our kids attend an SH feeder that is not part of the “Cluster” Snd people who still use this terminology are alienating. I don’t think it’s the primary reason so many families go charter/private/move, but it doesn’t help.

A persistent problem on the Hill is this kind of insular attitude about schools, FYI. You encounter similar attitudes from longtime families whose kids attend or attended SWS or CHMS. Even some families at some of the boundary schools behave this way. It’s this attitude like “we built this, you can’t have it.” It’s counterproductive. These are public schools. You should want people with young kids, people who recently moved here, people who lottery in from OOB to feel welcome, because they are part of your community now. Acting proprietary and exclusive doesn’t improve the stuff that needs to be fixed. And there is plenty that needs to be fixed.

+1 my kids are at L-T, which I actually think is extremely welcoming of new families in general. I find it off-putting that SH does fundraising with Watkins and asks Peabody/Watkins kids to be in their school musical (not so shockingly, funded by their joint PTA) but not L-T kids. (For the record, L-T is much much closer to SH than Watkins, so this obviously isn't a logistical issue... it's a Watkins feeling like they own SH issue.) It also seems incredibly short-sighted since L-T is the school with the exploding population of UMC kids whose buy-in could completely change the demographics of SH if Watkins buy-in remained constant. It's like the Watkins PTA wrote of JO and L-T kids as the unwashed masses years ago and haven't even realized that L-T is now more IB/gentrified than Watkins.

I have no idea if what PP wrote is accurate. If so, the "Cluster" PTO and SH administration should all resign en masse tomorrow. WTF???!!! There are 3 ES that feed into SH. The challenge for improving SH is to get IB kids to stay IB. And it would appear that the way in which SH (and their PTA) decided to do reach out is to ignore 2/3 of the feeders? Including the one that is by far the most well respected in terms of academic outcomes???!!! No wonder SH has been unable to get traction if this is how the administration and formal parent groups behave.

It's definitely true. The Cluster PTA helps fund the shows and they are billed as Cluster productions and tickets are sold at the Cluster schools and feature cameos from Peabody/Watkins kids. See, for instance: https://mobile.twitter.com/shmsdramaplayer/status/1060720278555295745/photo/1 or https://mobile.twitter.com/shmsdramaplayer/status/1130226100842520576/photo/1. They have never once reached out to L-T and when an L-T teacher asked about including L-T kids the year before COVID, they basically got the brush off (though some younger siblings of SH kids at SWS & their friends were included in one production). I don't actually blame the Cluster PTA at all and I'm glad they're willing to fund the arts and I get why they'd angle for spots for their own kids, but if they can't see why this is alienating to other parents/kids who are zoned for SH, well...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Capitol Cluster School, Peabody, Watkins, Stuart Hobson, still a cluster spread over 3 campuses. https://www.capitolhillclusterschool.org/

It really isn't. When it was an actual cluster it was three schools with one administration. SH was split off some time ago. Other than calling it a "cluster" please tell me how SH is in any way related to P/W? Bonus question, how is SH any more connected to P/W than LT or JO, which also feed to SH?

The only people who cling to the cluster concept are the PTA, who seem to enjoy having access to more money and power. It actually holds back SH. So weel done, "Cluster" PTA.

+1 our kids attend an SH feeder that is not part of the “Cluster” Snd people who still use this terminology are alienating. I don’t think it’s the primary reason so many families go charter/private/move, but it doesn’t help.

A persistent problem on the Hill is this kind of insular attitude about schools, FYI. You encounter similar attitudes from longtime families whose kids attend or attended SWS or CHMS. Even some families at some of the boundary schools behave this way. It’s this attitude like “we built this, you can’t have it.” It’s counterproductive. These are public schools. You should want people with young kids, people who recently moved here, people who lottery in from OOB to feel welcome, because they are part of your community now. Acting proprietary and exclusive doesn’t improve the stuff that needs to be fixed. And there is plenty that needs to be fixed.

+1 my kids are at L-T, which I actually think is extremely welcoming of new families in general. I find it off-putting that SH does fundraising with Watkins and asks Peabody/Watkins kids to be in their school musical (not so shockingly, funded by their joint PTA) but not L-T kids. (For the record, L-T is much much closer to SH than Watkins, so this obviously isn't a logistical issue... it's a Watkins feeling like they own SH issue.) It also seems incredibly short-sighted since L-T is the school with the exploding population of UMC kids whose buy-in could completely change the demographics of SH if Watkins buy-in remained constant. It's like the Watkins PTA wrote of JO and L-T kids as the unwashed masses years ago and haven't even realized that L-T is now more IB/gentrified than Watkins.

I have no idea if what PP wrote is accurate. If so, the "Cluster" PTO and SH administration should all resign en masse tomorrow. WTF???!!! There are 3 ES that feed into SH. The challenge for improving SH is to get IB kids to stay IB. And it would appear that the way in which SH (and their PTA) decided to do reach out is to ignore 2/3 of the feeders? Including the one that is by far the most well respected in terms of academic outcomes???!!! No wonder SH has been unable to get traction if this is how the administration and formal parent groups behave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Capitol Cluster School, Peabody, Watkins, Stuart Hobson, still a cluster spread over 3 campuses. https://www.capitolhillclusterschool.org/

It really isn't. When it was an actual cluster it was three schools with one administration. SH was split off some time ago. Other than calling it a "cluster" please tell me how SH is in any way related to P/W? Bonus question, how is SH any more connected to P/W than LT or JO, which also feed to SH?

The only people who cling to the cluster concept are the PTA, who seem to enjoy having access to more money and power. It actually holds back SH. So weel done, "Cluster" PTA.

+1 our kids attend an SH feeder that is not part of the “Cluster” Snd people who still use this terminology are alienating. I don’t think it’s the primary reason so many families go charter/private/move, but it doesn’t help.

A persistent problem on the Hill is this kind of insular attitude about schools, FYI. You encounter similar attitudes from longtime families whose kids attend or attended SWS or CHMS. Even some families at some of the boundary schools behave this way. It’s this attitude like “we built this, you can’t have it.” It’s counterproductive. These are public schools. You should want people with young kids, people who recently moved here, people who lottery in from OOB to feel welcome, because they are part of your community now. Acting proprietary and exclusive doesn’t improve the stuff that needs to be fixed. And there is plenty that needs to be fixed.

+1 my kids are at L-T, which I actually think is extremely welcoming of new families in general. I find it off-putting that SH does fundraising with Watkins and asks Peabody/Watkins kids to be in their school musical (not so shockingly, funded by their joint PTA) but not L-T kids. (For the record, L-T is much much closer to SH than Watkins, so this obviously isn't a logistical issue... it's a Watkins feeling like they own SH issue.) It also seems incredibly short-sighted since L-T is the school with the exploding population of UMC kids whose buy-in could completely change the demographics of SH if Watkins buy-in remained constant. It's like the Watkins PTA wrote of JO and L-T kids as the unwashed masses years ago and haven't even realized that L-T is now more IB/gentrified than Watkins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? The Capitol Cluster School, Peabody, Watkins, Stuart Hobson, still a cluster spread over 3 campuses. https://www.capitolhillclusterschool.org/

It really isn't. When it was an actual cluster it was three schools with one administration. SH was split off some time ago. Other than calling it a "cluster" please tell me how SH is in any way related to P/W? Bonus question, how is SH any more connected to P/W than LT or JO, which also feed to SH?

The only people who cling to the cluster concept are the PTA, who seem to enjoy having access to more money and power. It actually holds back SH. So weel done, "Cluster" PTA.

+1 our kids attend an SH feeder that is not part of the “Cluster” Snd people who still use this terminology are alienating. I don’t think it’s the primary reason so many families go charter/private/move, but it doesn’t help.

A persistent problem on the Hill is this kind of insular attitude about schools, FYI. You encounter similar attitudes from longtime families whose kids attend or attended SWS or CHMS. Even some families at some of the boundary schools behave this way. It’s this attitude like “we built this, you can’t have it.” It’s counterproductive. These are public schools. You should want people with young kids, people who recently moved here, people who lottery in from OOB to feel welcome, because they are part of your community now. Acting proprietary and exclusive doesn’t improve the stuff that needs to be fixed. And there is plenty that needs to be fixed.

Anonymous wrote:the defensiveness of some of the charter school parents posting on this thread is interesting to me

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but the fact remains that the most of the 60 plus white kids are still Watkins grads. They came up through Peabody and Watkins, vs. other SH feeders and DCPS elementary schools that don't feed into SH. There's still loyalty to SH among Cluster families, built on the belief that the school is as good a middle choice as BASIS or Latin, within in-name-only Cluster pyramid.

There's also an unfortunate reluctance to scrutinize SH's academic deficiencies within the white parent group, along with the lack of socioeconomic and racial diversity among students. Where are the Asian students, where is the Latino cohort, where are the UMC AA students? The insularity of the arch liberal UMC group at SH is a drag. Advocating for more honors classes isn't on their agenda.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but the fact remains that the most of the 60 plus white kids are still Watkins grads. They came up through Peabody and Watkins, vs. other SH feeders and DCPS elementary schools that don't feed into SH. There's still loyalty to SH among Cluster families, built on the belief that the school is as good a middle choice as BASIS or Latin, within in-name-only Cluster pyramid.

There's also an unfortunate reluctance to scrutinize SH's academic deficiencies within the white parent group, along with the lack of socioeconomic and racial diversity among students. Where are the Asian students, where is the Latino cohort, where are the UMC AA students? The insularity of the arch liberal UMC group at SH is a drag. Advocating for more honors classes isn't on their agenda.