Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

The shared PTA predates adding LT and JO as feeders to SH. They also share an LSAT. SWS also has participated in the musical — they were part of the cluster, along with CH Montessori, as preschools for years before the preschools were split up. I’m not particularly defending the Cluster model — it was set up in the 80s and is probably a solution for another time. But it’s not like the current parents set it up to exclude LT and JO.

Thanks Captain Obvious. No one was questioning why there was a connection when the schools were actually connected with a shared admin, etc. After SWS split from Peabody it was de facto also still part of that community. But JO and LT have fed into SH for a very long time (10 years at this point?). There is no reason or excuse or explanation for it now.

Perhaps it is an subconscious response to all the over the top LT parents on here who try to force meme the idea that LT is, first, far better than Watkins and, second, just like Brent and Maury now.

I am not IB for LT and I have no kids at LT. I am IB for SH. LT is empirically a better school than P/W and JO. You would have to be delusional not to know that.

What was the point of our post, may I ask? Are you IB for P/W and having a moment of inferiority? Or are you a Brent or Maury family that feels better putting others down, as if another school rising is somehow bad for your perceived superiority?

I am sure all the Watkins families will throw up the doors so that their betters at LT can save them from their demise. Seems to me a lot of people on here are a bit tone deaf. If you want to be part of something, it’s usually not a great strategy to spend your time talking about how awful the group is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

The shared PTA predates adding LT and JO as feeders to SH. They also share an LSAT. SWS also has participated in the musical — they were part of the cluster, along with CH Montessori, as preschools for years before the preschools were split up. I’m not particularly defending the Cluster model — it was set up in the 80s and is probably a solution for another time. But it’s not like the current parents set it up to exclude LT and JO.

Thanks Captain Obvious. No one was questioning why there was a connection when the schools were actually connected with a shared admin, etc. After SWS split from Peabody it was de facto also still part of that community. But JO and LT have fed into SH for a very long time (10 years at this point?). There is no reason or excuse or explanation for it now.

Perhaps it is an subconscious response to all the over the top LT parents on here who try to force meme the idea that LT is, first, far better than Watkins and, second, just like Brent and Maury now.

I am not IB for LT and I have no kids at LT. I am IB for SH. LT is empirically a better school than P/W and JO. You would have to be delusional not to know that.

What was the point of our post, may I ask? Are you IB for P/W and having a moment of inferiority? Or are you a Brent or Maury family that feels better putting others down, as if another school rising is somehow bad for your perceived superiority?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

The shared PTA predates adding LT and JO as feeders to SH. They also share an LSAT. SWS also has participated in the musical — they were part of the cluster, along with CH Montessori, as preschools for years before the preschools were split up. I’m not particularly defending the Cluster model — it was set up in the 80s and is probably a solution for another time. But it’s not like the current parents set it up to exclude LT and JO.

Thanks Captain Obvious. No one was questioning why there was a connection when the schools were actually connected with a shared admin, etc. After SWS split from Peabody it was de facto also still part of that community. But JO and LT have fed into SH for a very long time (10 years at this point?). There is no reason or excuse or explanation for it now.

Perhaps it is an subconscious response to all the over the top LT parents on here who try to force meme the idea that LT is, first, far better than Watkins and, second, just like Brent and Maury now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a huge issue -- the fact that outside of a few places in Mount Pleasant "diversity" in DCPS just means combining black intergenerational poverty and upper middle class white kids. That isn't at all what real diversity means in 21st century America. Modern diversity involves all kinds of upwardly mobile and working class first generation immigrants, black UMC, etc. Those groups all head out to the suburbs for exactly the same reasons UMC white parents are tarred as "racists" for doing so.

Some of the MCPS high schools have real diversity - Wheaton HS, Kennedy HS, Blair non-magnet, Northwood HS.
They are lower ranked than the Bethesda high schools but still pretty decent. I wish DCPS could somehow pull off something similar.

Some of the charters in DC have real diversity too.

Which charter has this kind of diversity in HS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a huge issue -- the fact that outside of a few places in Mount Pleasant "diversity" in DCPS just means combining black intergenerational poverty and upper middle class white kids. That isn't at all what real diversity means in 21st century America. Modern diversity involves all kinds of upwardly mobile and working class first generation immigrants, black UMC, etc. Those groups all head out to the suburbs for exactly the same reasons UMC white parents are tarred as "racists" for doing so.

Some of the MCPS high schools have real diversity - Wheaton HS, Kennedy HS, Blair non-magnet, Northwood HS.
They are lower ranked than the Bethesda high schools but still pretty decent. I wish DCPS could somehow pull off something similar.

Some of the charters in DC have real diversity too.

Not the view of the Cluster’s parent leadership at any level. Things could change, but bit soon.

Anonymous wrote:

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...

The shared PTA predates adding LT and JO as feeders to SH. They also share an LSAT. SWS also has participated in the musical — they were part of the cluster, along with CH Montessori, as preschools for years before the preschools were split up. I’m not particularly defending the Cluster model — it was set up in the 80s and is probably a solution for another time. But it’s not like the current parents set it up to exclude LT and JO.

Thanks Captain Obvious. No one was questioning why there was a connection when the schools were actually connected with a shared admin, etc. After SWS split from Peabody it was de facto also still part of that community. But JO and LT have fed into SH for a very long time (10 years at this point?). There is no reason or excuse or explanation for it now.

Every spring, some IB 4th grade parents EotP make a show of considering SH over BASIS, Latin etc.

They do this out of politeness to the tiny number of their longtime fellow ES parents who prefer the by-right MS to a charter, private or move to the burbs.

Same with Jefferson Academy and Eliot-Hine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Capitol Hill schools, how is Stuart Hobson? Is it markedly better than Elliot Hines? Competitive with Deal and schools like that?

Are you tuning in from outer space? Search Stuart Hobson on DCUM.

I you talk to Cluster parents who planed on sticking with Hobson all along, you'll be told that very good school. If you talk to in-boundary Cluster parents who land at BASIS, Latin 1, possibly Latin 2, privates and the burbs (the majority), you'll get a different opinion.

This is exactly why to ask. One hears incredibly different takes on SH among Hill parents and generally. I guess seeing the argument here I can understand why it's hard to make a call -- no consensus

No, not hard to make a call. Asking is neither here nor there. Positive reviews for SH are invariably the byproduct of lefty politics, and possibly a commitment to drama and brass bands (they do have a decent band and school musicals).

You're white and get into BASIS, and/or Latin 1, for 5th grade, you go. If you don't, maybe you go for a lesser charter, Latin 2, Inspired Teaching, CH Montessori, Two Rivers. If you wind up without an appealing charter option and you're AA, Asian or Latino, you penny pinch for a private or move. You go with SH only if you don't get into BASIS or Latin 1, can't afford a private, and are determined not to move. Those are your MS options EotP.

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...

The shared PTA predates adding LT and JO as feeders to SH. They also share an LSAT. SWS also has participated in the musical — they were part of the cluster, along with CH Montessori, as preschools for years before the preschools were split up. I’m not particularly defending the Cluster model — it was set up in the 80s and is probably a solution for another time. But it’s not like the current parents set it up to exclude LT and JO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a huge issue -- the fact that outside of a few places in Mount Pleasant "diversity" in DCPS just means combining black intergenerational poverty and upper middle class white kids. That isn't at all what real diversity means in 21st century America. Modern diversity involves all kinds of upwardly mobile and working class first generation immigrants, black UMC, etc. Those groups all head out to the suburbs for exactly the same reasons UMC white parents are tarred as "racists" for doing so.

Some of the MCPS high schools have real diversity - Wheaton HS, Kennedy HS, Blair non-magnet, Northwood HS.
They are lower ranked than the Bethesda high schools but still pretty decent. I wish DCPS could somehow pull off something similar.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a huge issue -- the fact that outside of a few places in Mount Pleasant "diversity" in DCPS just means combining black intergenerational poverty and upper middle class white kids. That isn't at all what real diversity means in 21st century America. Modern diversity involves all kinds of upwardly mobile and working class first generation immigrants, black UMC, etc. Those groups all head out to the suburbs for exactly the same reasons UMC white parents are tarred as "racists" for doing so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Capitol Hill schools, how is Stuart Hobson? Is it markedly better than Elliot Hines? Competitive with Deal and schools like that?

Are you tuning in from outer space? Search Stuart Hobson on DCUM.

I you talk to Cluster parents who planed on sticking with Hobson all along, you'll be told that very good school. If you talk to in-boundary Cluster parents who land at BASIS, Latin 1, possibly Latin 2, privates and the burbs (the majority), you'll get a different opinion.

This is exactly why to ask. One hears incredibly different takes on SH among Hill parents and generally. I guess seeing the argument here I can understand why it's hard to make a call -- no consensus

It's also because educated parents can supplement themselves during ECE and elementary, especially early elementary. They can read to their kids every night. They know basic phonics, so if a kid isn't taught that ph sounds like f, a parent can teach him. They can teach their kid how to carry a one in addition if their teacher didn't explain it well.

At some point in early to middle ES, they start signing their kids up for Mathnasium or some other math program because, while they may know the math involved, the way it's taught is quite different. In some cases, in early elementary school, almost no math is taught. Parents figure this out and "supplement."

As the kids get older...parents don't know how to teach them chemistry or physics or geometry or a foreign language they may have studied but have almost totally forgotten. Or their kids are studying a language they never studied.

And the parents realize...they just can't do it anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the elementary schools are good enough, then why wouldn’t the middle and high schools be good enough? It would be the same children from elementary.

Because the ES kids peel off starting in 5th (BASIS, Latin, private, parochial) and then again in 6th. The reality of ES on the Hill is that ECE is very strong but parents who really wanted to buy in realize in upper ES that the academics are lackluster and behavioral issues get much worse as hormones kick in. At that point a lot of parents who wanted to buy in can't take the risk. In all fairness I think this is also the reality at several HCS as well. This is the fundamental challenge facing DCPS/Charters and education in general. How much (if at all) wills schools cater to or even care about high performing kids? What does "equity" mean?