Anonymous wrote:We were on the Hill with a toddler and moved to the burbs because we didn't want to have to play a lottery to get into reasonable schools. It was just too much uncertainty with kids draining out of neighborhood schools as early as 4th grade.

We're now in Arlington and our kids walk to elementary school with 98% of their classmates, a situation very similar to what they had on the Hill. But the difference is that we already know that they can also walk to middle and high school. No treks across the city. No uncertainty. No disruption of friend groups, though still student mixing as elementary and middle schools combine.

I won't say it's perfect, but we just couldn't bring ourselves to commit to a neighborhood where the schools wouldn't commit to us. (See DC lottery losers who have to move quickly to another house outside the Hill in time for middle school.)

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

There is nothing wrong with this post. The tone is fine and it provides relevant information about bright kids doing well at that school. The "dial it down" person is working through her own issues by attacking PP over nothing. But it's derailing this thread so, if it's OK to say this, I hope the first PP stops engaging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

But... you ARE boasting about your kids performance, as well as boasting about your school. I mean, I'm not saying you don't have reason to be proud or that L-T isn't a good school. But your tone absolutely is boastful/bragging. If you aren't aware of that, maybe take this as a lesson and consider how you talk about academic performance generally, because your posts are very off-putting.

I thought she sounded fine. Sorry your kid is a dunce. Sheesh.

My kid tests above grade level and "in the top 10%" on iReady/Map at a Hill elementary where we, too, feel that the kids are bright.

The PP was being arrogant, condescending, and was 100% boasting about her kids in a frankly embarrassing way. There is a way to make this argument, but this isn't it.

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in DC (Capitol Hill area) and are the parents of a 15 month old. We won't be able to enter the PK3 lottery until 2025, so this is still some time off for us, but the big question that I have been wondering about as we look at DC public schools and decide whether we should stay or move to the suburbs is this--

How much does it really matter what percentage of a school's students are at grade level for reading/math?

I ask because I noticed that even the better schools in DC have large percentages of students not at grade level. We are in-bound to Ludlow-Taylor which has maybe 40-60% at grade level. Nearby Maury seems to be at about 75% I might be off somewhat with the precise percentages but the point is that these are not the 90-95%+ figures at a number of schools in the suburbs.

I've taught, though only at the college level, and even then it was pretty difficult for me to manage dealing with a class that not had obviously bright students but also students who obviously lacked the foundation to be in college (and mixing them together wasn't good for anyone). I know primary/secondary education is not college. I know that tracking is bad for students who are then stuck in the lower tracks (and in my own experience attending a racially mixed school district in suburban NJ, the higher tracks were almost all white while the lower tracks were almost all minorities, which was also not good).

I've also seen various articles/studies saying that it doesn't really matter where one goes to college. Taking my home state of NJ, there was once a study showing that controlling for SAT scores, etc., folks who went to Rutgers earned just as much as those who went to Princeton. I wonder if the same is true for elementary schools through high schools generally (controlling for all factors that schools can't control such as socioeconomic factors, the parents' degree of education, etc., etc.).

Putting my question again--how much is it going to matter if my child goes to a school in DC where say 50% are at grade level vs. a school in the suburbs where 95% are at grade level?

I know socioeconomic factors is the big elephant in the room, and I should also mention that in addition to having our child having solid academics, we also want him to learn from a wide diversity of folks from all sorts of backgrounds (he is himself a mixed kid, and his mother is an immigrant).

Thanks for any thoughts/comments you can share!

Oh honey. You can accept it now or sacrifice years of your child’s early education years to try to “be the change.” Either way you will end up like almost everyone I know: moving to a better school district or going private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also a not yet PK parent. It's my understanding that DCPS doesn't have G&T. At what grade level does there become an option for more advanced classes (e.g. honors)? Does that not happen until you get to AP classes in high school?

Depends on where you are. You will find more honors tracking at Deal/Hardy than at other middle schools in the city. Honors tracking has actually been a big bone of contention at two of the Hill middles (Stuart Hobson and Jefferson) where there is debate as to whether tracking is actually happening or not. You will become familiar with the phrase "honors for all" which is another way of saying a school doesn't actually track but does (or claims to) offer challenging curriculum.

One reason a lot of families outside the JR triangle try to lottery into BASIS or Latin for middle school is because of dissatisfaction with tracking and honors offerings in DCPS. Latin is not even considered "honors track" (BASIS is generally considered to be more challenging on math in particular, based on very strong test scores), but there is a self-selection there -- families figure that kids who bothered to lottery into Latin are more likely to be academic-focused and getting support at home than kids in DCPS middle schools. I think this is almost certainly true.

At the high school level, JR offers lots of AP classes and honors tracking. Then you have the application schools. But you are not guaranteed a spot at an application high school even if your grades and test scores are very high -- there are too many qualified students and not enough spots. Outside of JR, there are some DCPS that offer AP/IB programming and honors, but their test scores are not very good and many people question whether these schools are actually offering these more advanced tracks when so many students at these schools are testing below, or well below, grade level -- how does Eastern actually offer an IB diploma when there are so few students in the IB program, because how are these students getting an IB class experience with so few peers? Valid questions.

So the question of advanced academic programs in DC go far beyond the districts' opposition to G&T programming (which runs counter to to DCPS's commitment to equity). The poor DCPS offerings past middles school outside of one school triangle tend to drive families with high performing kids (of all races, by the way) out of DCPS because there's just little evidence that these kids will be challenged or have the kinds of opportunities that you would expect a college-track student to have. Some number of families navigate this in the public school system in DC via charters and the application high schools, but not everyone gets lucky with spots at those schools. So you also have a brain drain where many of the district's most academically focused and successful students wind up leaving the system altogether, heading to suburban districts or going into private, by the time they are in middle school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also a not yet PK parent. It's my understanding that DCPS doesn't have G&T. At what grade level does there become an option for more advanced classes (e.g. honors)? Does that not happen until you get to AP classes in high school?

Depends on where you are. You will find more honors tracking at Deal/Hardy than at other middle schools in the city. Honors tracking has actually been a big bone of contention at two of the Hill middles (Stuart Hobson and Jefferson) where there is debate as to whether tracking is actually happening or not. You will become familiar with the phrase "honors for all" which is another way of saying a school doesn't actually track but does (or claims to) offer challenging curriculum.

One reason a lot of families outside the JR triangle try to lottery into BASIS or Latin for middle school is because of dissatisfaction with tracking and honors offerings in DCPS. Latin is not even considered "honors track" (BASIS is generally considered to be more challenging on math in particular, based on very strong test scores), but there is a self-selection there -- families figure that kids who bothered to lottery into Latin are more likely to be academic-focused and getting support at home than kids in DCPS middle schools. I think this is almost certainly true.

At the high school level, JR offers lots of AP classes and honors tracking. Then you have the application schools. But you are not guaranteed a spot at an application high school even if your grades and test scores are very high -- there are too many qualified students and not enough spots. Outside of JR, there are some DCPS that offer AP/IB programming and honors, but their test scores are not very good and many people question whether these schools are actually offering these more advanced tracks when so many students at these schools are testing below, or well below, grade level -- how does Eastern actually offer an IB diploma when there are so few students in the IB program, because how are these students getting an IB class experience with so few peers? Valid questions.

So the question of advanced academic programs in DC go far beyond the districts' opposition to G&T programming (which runs counter to to DCPS's commitment to equity). The poor DCPS offerings past middles school outside of one school triangle tend to drive families with high performing kids (of all races, by the way) out of DCPS because there's just little evidence that these kids will be challenged or have the kinds of opportunities that you would expect a college-track student to have. Some number of families navigate this in the public school system in DC via charters and the application high schools, but not everyone gets lucky with spots at those schools. So you also have a brain drain where many of the district's most academically focused and successful students wind up leaving the system altogether, heading to suburban districts or going into private, by the time they are in middle school.

Anonymous wrote:Also a not yet PK parent. It's my understanding that DCPS doesn't have G&T. At what grade level does there become an option for more advanced classes (e.g. honors)? Does that not happen until you get to AP classes in high school?

Anonymous wrote:Also a not yet PK parent. It's my understanding that DCPS doesn't have G&T. At what grade level does there become an option for more advanced classes (e.g. honors)? Does that not happen until you get to AP classes in high school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

But... you ARE boasting about your kids performance, as well as boasting about your school. I mean, I'm not saying you don't have reason to be proud or that L-T isn't a good school. But your tone absolutely is boastful/bragging. If you aren't aware of that, maybe take this as a lesson and consider how you talk about academic performance generally, because your posts are very off-putting.

I thought she sounded fine. Sorry your kid is a dunce. Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

But... you ARE boasting about your kids performance, as well as boasting about your school. I mean, I'm not saying you don't have reason to be proud or that L-T isn't a good school. But your tone absolutely is boastful/bragging. If you aren't aware of that, maybe take this as a lesson and consider how you talk about academic performance generally, because your posts are very off-putting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably MAP or iReady testing administered by the school.