Anonymous wrote:This is hardly a DC issue. Schools are funded by taxes so in every area of this country, better schools are in better neighborhoods. You get a free education in this country but it's definitely not equal to that of others' if you don't live in a great neighborhood.

So you obviously know nothing about DC schools since you got this completely backward. I'm curious, why did you post this without even bothering to check your facts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP You sound really naive. A school is only as good as the kids and parents who attend. Rich families in DC almost always are highly educated and high income. Hey have stable
Lives and prioritize enrichment, reading and education for those kids. If all those rich families from ward 3 moved eat of the river tomorrow then yes the wards 7 and 8 would have top schools. New buildings, new trends or even top teachers have very little impact on outcomes. 95% of it comes
From the home.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. It is well known high SES correlates to high test scores.

It's well known, but denied by DCPS administrators, who continue, despite the fact that that the influence of SES is evident in the data that they have personally collected.

This is the legacy of Rhee and Henderson. Will it change with a new Chancellor? Hard to know. It's a compelling idea to think that administrators have the power to "turn the schools around" just by hiring the right teachers and imposing the proper teaching methods. It would make them feel like heros, if it worked, but it doesn't and never has.

Anonymous wrote:This is hardly a DC issue. Schools are funded by taxes so in every area of this country, better schools are in better neighborhoods. You get a free education in this country but it's definitely not equal to that of others' if you don't live in a great neighborhood.

Not buying that argument at all in DC. Taxes are not localized within DC like in states and there's no reason why WOTP schools should be better resourced than EOTR schools. The per student model is even across school and there are additional at-risk funds and federal Title I funds available to less affluent school communities, but there are other disparities obvious and subtle. Facilities are adequate to excellent in affluent communities and most of the poorest quality facilities are in communities of need. Affluent schools attract and retain top teachers, get high levels of parent involvement (both $$ and out of school support), and the students do not come to school with the additional burden of poverty, housing instability, food insecurity, etc. DC has overlooked facility needs at many of its poorest schools but that's only one sign of inequality.

In Connecticut for example, Hartford collects less tax revenue to fund schools than Greenwich, which can thus provide greater funding for public education and exacerbate statewide inequity. CCJEF v. Rell in Connecticut is a long running case challenging this very issue in civil litigation and the matter currently awaits decision. The case challenges the structural inequality of having statewide mandatory universal schooling funding by such a wide range of municipalities with varying funding capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I once read that DC student population is over 50% poverty

The schools are always going to suck. Studies show once you pass 40% poverty the whole area is screwed

So the only thing we can do is have charters and concentrated areas of high SES so 25% of the schools are decent and 75% suck

If you spread everything equally 100% of the schools in DC would suck

That is also why people leave DC are choose private. There are just too many poor young people in the area

It is closer to 70% - if you consider qualifying for free meals poor.

This perspective ignores the fact that DC is rapidly gentrifying. I don't know the year over year rate of change for FARMS, but I'd imagine that there are rapid decreases in FARMS and other metrics.

I don't think having "charters and concentrated areas of high SES"--effectively maintaining areas of concentrated poverty--is the answer for an equitable and fair education system. However, I also don't like the idea of city-wide schools. I know some don't like the idea of a 10% set-aside for disadvantaged students, but that seems to at least go a little way towards evening the playing field.

Also keep in mind that if low SES kids don't do well--e.g., they get pregnant as teens, enter the prison system, etc.--we'll all be paying for it in the end, in one form or another.

Yes DC is gentrifying but the immigrant/Latino population continues to grow as well and the percentages of economically at risk are not projected to change very much (e.g. from 75% to 68%) over the next ten years.

I am not hte PP who said the only answer is leaving DC or going private. We can't just throw our hands up over this.

Also you can't use FARMS as a proxy anymore because of the community eligibility. The OSSE numbers for disadvantaged students (available city-wide and by school) are more accurate -- include TANF, homeless, and so forth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I once read that DC student population is over 50% poverty

The schools are always going to suck. Studies show once you pass 40% poverty the whole area is screwed

So the only thing we can do is have charters and concentrated areas of high SES so 25% of the schools are decent and 75% suck

If you spread everything equally 100% of the schools in DC would suck

That is also why people leave DC are choose private. There are just too many poor young people in the area

It is closer to 70% - if you consider qualifying for free meals poor.

This perspective ignores the fact that DC is rapidly gentrifying. I don't know the year over year rate of change for FARMS, but I'd imagine that there are rapid decreases in FARMS and other metrics.

I don't think having "charters and concentrated areas of high SES"--effectively maintaining areas of concentrated poverty--is the answer for an equitable and fair education system. However, I also don't like the idea of city-wide schools. I know some don't like the idea of a 10% set-aside for disadvantaged students, but that seems to at least go a little way towards evening the playing field.

Also keep in mind that if low SES kids don't do well--e.g., they get pregnant as teens, enter the prison system, etc.--we'll all be paying for it in the end, in one form or another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny how people on this site think $800k is affordable for a home....

It's not 800K. We paid $350K for one bedroom + den (practically a 2-bed) inbound for Horace Mann. It's a matter of choice. We traded space in favor of better education. Do your homework, there's plenty on non-fancy condos in the area, on Mass Ave, and one building on the south side of Cathedral Ave. and New Mexico. Rent rates in those buildings are not bad either.

Of course you share with AU students, which makes you wonder why investing in education is meant to be a good investment.

Plus, Mann gets you Hardy instead of Deal.

We want Hardy, instead of Deal. A much smoother transition to middle school from Horace Mann.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny how people on this site think $800k is affordable for a home....

It's not 800K. We paid $350K for one bedroom + den (practically a 2-bed) inbound for Horace Mann. It's a matter of choice. We traded space in favor of better education. Do your homework, there's plenty on non-fancy condos in the area, on Mass Ave, and one building on the south side of Cathedral Ave. and New Mexico. Rent rates in those buildings are not bad either.

Of course you share with AU students, which makes you wonder why investing in education is meant to be a good investment.

Can you point me to a similar listing please? I'm interested in such a 1BR + den for $350k! NP here.

Just now on the market, in bound for Horace Mann, and larger than ours (2 bedroom), for $349,000.
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Washington-DC-20016/443344_zpid/66139_rid/38.939092,-77.076355,38.924687,-77.090088_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I once read that DC student population is over 50% poverty

The schools are always going to suck. Studies show once you pass 40% poverty the whole area is screwed

So the only thing we can do is have charters and concentrated areas of high SES so 25% of the schools are decent and 75% suck

If you spread everything equally 100% of the schools in DC would suck

That is also why people leave DC are choose private. There are just too many poor young people in the area

It is closer to 70% - if you consider qualifying for free meals poor.

According to OSSE, in 2015 74.9% of students in DC, charter and DCPS, were economically disadvantaged. That's huge - and means we need to do mroe, and earlier to help these kids. If we wait until PK3 it's already late.

OTOH there is some encouraging data on the early education front. See this story from the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/08/26/low-income-kindergartners-are-closing-the-achievement-gap-reversing-a-decades-old-trend/

Anonymous wrote:I once read that DC student population is over 50% poverty

The schools are always going to suck. Studies show once you pass 40% poverty the whole area is screwed

So the only thing we can do is have charters and concentrated areas of high SES so 25% of the schools are decent and 75% suck

If you spread everything equally 100% of the schools in DC would suck

That is also why people leave DC are choose private. There are just too many poor young people in the area

It is closer to 70% - if you consider qualifying for free meals poor.

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of the "good schools" were not at all good 10 years ago. Find the next "great school" by ignoring overall test scores and visit and get a feel. For example, Garrison, Bancroft, Marie Reed, Thompson, and many others NOT in W3 are even BETTER experiences for younger kids because there is often a very good dual language component; there is true diversity, culturally, racially and economically; they are free and not overcrowded. It's been a while since mine were in K, but when they attended Ross ES (now waitlists forever), no one wanted to attend. You bring up a school by committing to the community. Venture out, be a change maker, and your kids will also have a very rewarding experience that will give them a real world glimpse of the world forever.

I agree! Same experience with our IB school Brent.

I once read that DC student population is over 50% poverty

The schools are always going to suck. Studies show once you pass 40% poverty the whole area is screwed

So the only thing we can do is have charters and concentrated areas of high SES so 25% of the schools are decent and 75% suck

If you spread everything equally 100% of the schools in DC would suck

That is also why people leave DC are choose private. There are just too many poor young people in the area

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hardly a DC issue. Schools are funded by taxes so in every area of this country, better schools are in better neighborhoods. You get a free education in this country but it's definitely not equal to that of others' if you don't live in a great neighborhood.

No. This is not how it works. DC is all one district, each school gets equal funding. It's who is in these schools that's makes the difference

+1.

In fact, DC is in a parallel universe, where worse school get MORE funding, not less.

And they still underperform.

Next excuse.

Anonymous wrote:This is hardly a DC issue. Schools are funded by taxes so in every area of this country, better schools are in better neighborhoods. You get a free education in this country but it's definitely not equal to that of others' if you don't live in a great neighborhood.

No. This is not how it works. DC is all one district, each school gets equal funding. It's who is in these schools that's makes the difference

This is hardly a DC issue. Schools are funded by taxes so in every area of this country, better schools are in better neighborhoods. You get a free education in this country but it's definitely not equal to that of others' if you don't live in a great neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:I am so frustrated. Why is it that you have to spend close to a million dollars, or more, on a home, just so your kid can get a quality education without paying $30,000 a year? It's as if a child doesn't deserve a good education, unless their parents make a certain amount of money, & can afford to live in "the right neighborhood". This seems to be the case in DC, MD, & VA.

I consider us a middle class family, if that exists anymore, & Great Schools gives every school in the neighborhoods that we can afford an average of a "4". We can't afford the neighborhoods ranking schools 7 and up.

I'm sorry, but I just believe whether you make $1,000,000 a year, or $30,000 a year, each child deserves the best.

My rant for the day.

Greatschools? Just say no! FYI, Greatschools rates Banneker as a 10, Tubman as an 8, Thomson as a 7, Brent and Cleveland as a 6, and Leckie, Maury and Waykins as a 5.