Ugh.

This. SH is actually going downhill. They scrapped honors English this school year and last, after a decade of offering it, on the grounds that the PARCC test wasn't given during the pandemic.

They could easily have given entering students a home-grown ELA assessment to make intelligent placements. They couldn't be bothered so your middle schooler winds up in ELA class with a bunch of students who can barely read. Not clear if honors English will be restored in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an obtuse exchange. You've all lost the forest for the trees.

SH isn't worth the fuss, not remotely. Let the SH admins and parent organization favor their counterparts at Watkins. Not relevant. The rest of us will be off to charters no matter who they do or don't favor.

What an obtuse response. It isn't relevant to you because you plan to not attend. It is relevant to people who are, or may, attend. Are you so self centered that you can't understand that the world doesn't revolve around you? Or why it matters that SH doesn't embrace and deepen relationships with its feeder schools?

Nevermind, we already know. Yes, you are that self centered. Carry on.

P.S. Love that someone who is years away from MS has such fixed opinions on things he doesn't yet have experience with. How very DCUM.

“Years away” lol.

Very common for a parent if young children go myopically say this without realizing how quickly the years pass without meaningful changes at the MS level.

How old are your children?

Dream on where obtuse responses go. We stuck with our DCPS from ECE through 5th grade (not a Hobson feeder but we're IB for SH).

We recently tried SH for 6th after striking out in the Latin and BASIS lotteries two years in a row. We bailed on SH at mid-year in 6th for a spot that opened up in a parochial school (as I posted pages back).

The reality is that the number of UMC Hill families who plan on SH and stick with the plan through 8th grade remains tiny. As far as I know, almost all of the UMC families at SH with us had hoped for BASIS or Latin.

Anonymous wrote:What an obtuse exchange. You've all lost the forest for the trees.

SH isn't worth the fuss, not remotely. Let the SH admins and parent organization favor their counterparts at Watkins. Not relevant. The rest of us will be off to charters no matter who they do or don't favor.

What an obtuse response. It isn't relevant to you because you plan to not attend. It is relevant to people who are, or may, attend. Are you so self centered that you can't understand that the world doesn't revolve around you? Or why it matters that SH doesn't embrace and deepen relationships with its feeder schools?

Nevermind, we already know. Yes, you are that self centered. Carry on.

P.S. Love that someone who is years away from MS has such fixed opinions on things he doesn't yet have experience with. How very DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Just weighing in as a family in this situation, and this is spot on. And it's really the way that behavioral issues interact with academics that pushes you to start looking at charters. Our kid is mostly on grade level academically, maybe a little above grade level in ELA. But not an academic superstar. But one of the main things she has going for her in a DCPS elementary is that she is attentive, a good listener, has strong emotional regulation skills, and no behavioral concerns. As we progress in elementary, what this means is that she is used as an emotional regulator in some groups (assigned to pairs and groups with kids who struggle with these things, in the hopes she will be a tempering influence) or is left to her own devices while teachers focus on kids who need more one-to-one help with behavioral issues, since she can function independently without help.

At first this doesn't seem like such a bad thing. I recognize many of the kids with bigger issues are dealing with issues my child had never dealt with. I also think it's positive for her to learn to work independently, and to learn to work with different kinds of people. But the situation gets more pronounced past ECE, as some of the other kids with her emotiona/behavioral skills leave for other schools. This makes it harder for her to make friends because where in younger grades she would have gravitated to the other quiet, studious kids in class, she might not find another such kid in mid-to-late elementary. And we start to worry that what was benign neglect may actually hold her back, especially as we get closer to middle school. It was one thing when she was one of the early readers in class, and could sit and read or work on writing while the teachers provided intensive phonics help to other kids. But now she needs to be refining writing and critical thinking skills, and it doesn't feel like that's happening at schools. We're supplementing, but that takes time away from other activities, including just playing and building friendships.

We're not going to make it past 4th in DCPS and there is no way our kid is going to SH. It's not the right environment for her and I think both academically and socially, she will do much better in an environment where there are more kids who are working at her level academically and not struggling with basic behavioral expectations. I don't expect a school with no behavioral problems. But we have the option, through the lottery or by moving, to send her to a school where the majority of kids have basic emotional regulation skills. I'm no longer convinced we can find that in DCPS at the MS and HS level.

fighting over scraps

What an obtuse exchange. You've all lost the forest for the trees.

SH isn't worth the fuss, not remotely. Let the SH admins and parent organization favor their counterparts at Watkins. Not relevant. The rest of us will be off to charters no matter who they do or don't favor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you acknowledge that Watkins and SH are excluding the other feeder schools?

You accuse other posters of being tone deaf while implying that Watkins PTA should be able to “throw up the doors” to SH… which, you know, is not their actual school any more than it is JO and LT’s school?

She lacks the self-awareness to comprehend what she did there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the Watkins PTA is unintentionally making fewer LT kids take a chance on SH, do you think they shouldn’t care? Watkins would be better off if more LT kids stayed and vice versa. I would have thought that was obvious. Who cares which school is better?

Your are of course, correct. But PP to whom you are responding isn't trying to solve for improving SH or in boundary engagement. They've made it clear this is all about preserving their feelings. As long as they feel more special than others, that's the point of the exercise. Anyone who wants to be included in their special club needs to do it in a way that preserves their feelings of superiority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you acknowledge that Watkins and SH are excluding the other feeder schools?

You accuse other posters of being tone deaf while implying that Watkins PTA should be able to “throw up the doors” to SH… which, you know, is not their actual school any more than it is JO and LT’s school?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the Watkins PTA is unintentionally making fewer LT kids take a chance on SH, do you think they shouldn’t care? Watkins would be better off if more LT kids stayed and vice versa. I would have thought that was obvious. Who cares which school is better?

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’m curious what you meant by “just like Brent and Maury now” especially with the undertone that that would be absurd to suggest. Maury’s IB percentage is insane and the school is busting so that % isn’t high because the school is artificially small. In that sense, Maury is way ahead of the other two. LT is actually only a few percent behind Brent. In terms of test scores, LT’s were better this time without even accounting for demographics in ELA; and worse in math, though basically equivalent broken down by demographics. So, in that sense, it seems LT is roughly equivalent to the other two schools. Facilities wise, LT is not as nice as brand new Maury, but much nicer than about to be renovated Brent. Now, if what you mean by “just like” is “as white,” then no… LT is not just like the other two because it remains actually racially diverse, at least for now. It is not T1, it has a very involved PTO with a budget of $140K this year and it’s plurality white… If you’re still scoffing at the notion that LT is just like the other two schools, ask yourself what you’re really looking for.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you acknowledge that Watkins and SH are excluding the other feeder schools?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Show me where anyone said P/W or JO were "awful"? Your obvious inferiority complex makes you incapable of rational thought. LT is a better school with better educational outcomes. That is a "fact". No one said that makes P/W or JO kids bad people or less capable. But the outcomes are better.

What's funny about your reply is that this mini-drama started when someone defended Captain Obvious (who was defending the Cluster status quo) by saying LT parents were "force memeing" (whatever that means) that LT was a better school than P/W. First, LT is a better school, and second, that poster took a shot at LT. I did not such thing.

You need to work on your self confidence lady.