Anonymous wrote:Also, I wouldn’t even remotely claim that L-T is a “more desirable” school than Brent for the preferences of an average UMC white family. That said, if I had an AA kid? I would absolutely prefer L-T for a host of reasons.

Anonymous wrote:Brent’s PARCC scores this year sucked for a school as affluent as them. Ludlow-Taylor, still a T1 school this year and in a less affluent part of the same basic neighborhood, had a higher percentage of 4s and 5s in one of math or English (cant remember which)... Not adjusted for anything or for one demographic, but overall. That’s actually pretty shocking.

Anonymous wrote:OK, you don't hear stories of families leaving Brent for Ludlow. Selling their Brent District homes to buy up on the Stanton Park neighborhood in their shock and disgust. Sounds like you're a little lonely in your shock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

One metric which DC calculates but doesn't disseminate nearly as widely as in-boundary rate (percentage of kids that come from within the school's boundaries) is the "capture rate" of a school (percentage of kids from a school's boundaries that choose to attend that public school). I would argue that focusing on in-boundary rates appears to be (and, for some, may indeed be) exclusionary. A focus on a school's capture rate focuses on the degree to which a geographic community believes their local school will serve their kids' needs. (With the proliferation of charters in the city, I'd posit that its relatively easy for most families, even those with low social capital and/or mobility, to avoid DCPS.) If a school had enough capacity, it could have a very high capture rate while still allowing people from outside the boundaries to attend. (That's a pipe dream for Brent right now, of course.)

All this is to say, some of the PP may be saying "I'm so glad that my neighbors are choosing to attend this local school" rather than "I'm so glad that our school doesn't other people in" when they say they are excited by the high IB rate. Talking about capture rate (Brent's is pretty darn high) is a better way to make that distinction, and I just wish DCPS would put that out there more.

They put it right on the DCPS school profiles. Maybe instead they should paint it on the school's awnings?

That can't be a metric in a city-wide rating system as it is irrelevant to city-wide DCPS schools, application high schools, DCPS alternative schools and charters.

You missed the point. PP is arguing for the use of capture rate rather than IB rate. Capture rate is not on the DCPS profiles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

One metric which DC calculates but doesn't disseminate nearly as widely as in-boundary rate (percentage of kids that come from within the school's boundaries) is the "capture rate" of a school (percentage of kids from a school's boundaries that choose to attend that public school). I would argue that focusing on in-boundary rates appears to be (and, for some, may indeed be) exclusionary. A focus on a school's capture rate focuses on the degree to which a geographic community believes their local school will serve their kids' needs. (With the proliferation of charters in the city, I'd posit that its relatively easy for most families, even those with low social capital and/or mobility, to avoid DCPS.) If a school had enough capacity, it could have a very high capture rate while still allowing people from outside the boundaries to attend. (That's a pipe dream for Brent right now, of course.)

All this is to say, some of the PP may be saying "I'm so glad that my neighbors are choosing to attend this local school" rather than "I'm so glad that our school doesn't other people in" when they say they are excited by the high IB rate. Talking about capture rate (Brent's is pretty darn high) is a better way to make that distinction, and I just wish DCPS would put that out there more.

They put it right on the DCPS school profiles. Maybe instead they should paint it on the school's awnings?

That can't be a metric in a city-wide rating system as it is irrelevant to city-wide DCPS schools, application high schools, DCPS alternative schools and charters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

One metric which DC calculates but doesn't disseminate nearly as widely as in-boundary rate (percentage of kids that come from within the school's boundaries) is the "capture rate" of a school (percentage of kids from a school's boundaries that choose to attend that public school). I would argue that focusing on in-boundary rates appears to be (and, for some, may indeed be) exclusionary. A focus on a school's capture rate focuses on the degree to which a geographic community believes their local school will serve their kids' needs. (With the proliferation of charters in the city, I'd posit that its relatively easy for most families, even those with low social capital and/or mobility, to avoid DCPS.) If a school had enough capacity, it could have a very high capture rate while still allowing people from outside the boundaries to attend. (That's a pipe dream for Brent right now, of course.)

All this is to say, some of the PP may be saying "I'm so glad that my neighbors are choosing to attend this local school" rather than "I'm so glad that our school doesn't other people in" when they say they are excited by the high IB rate. Talking about capture rate (Brent's is pretty darn high) is a better way to make that distinction, and I just wish DCPS would put that out there more.

Anonymous wrote:What's not cool is this goofy new rating system. Where's the credit for 100% in-boundary K classes? Where's the credit for more than 80% in-boundary this school year, up from around 5% in-boundary 20 years ago? Yes, that's right. No credit. No good.

Anonymous wrote:Fair enough. But then some of us in the Brent District who've been following developments at both schools are left wondering if the new ranking system is simply silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Ross parents really must have something better to do. We're rolling our eyes over our 4-stars at Brent. Maybe the 4 stars will help us cope with crowding! We could use some help on that front. Rumor has it that we're getting two more trailers in AUgust.

For all the hand wringing over Brent's feeder, Jefferson scored a respectable 3 stars. Obvious room for improvement but probably better result than many in Brent community would have assumed

Very impressive showing from Brent alums now at Jefferson (and their parents) at the last Brent PTA meeting. The kids (7 of them?) and their parents were genuinely enthusiastic about their experiences at Jefferson, both academically and socially. I think 17 or 18 from last year's Brent 5th grade class are there now. I just wish more Brent families had been in attendance to hear the kids and their parents talk. And it seemed like the leveled homerooms which went to their four core classes together and mixed electives was a good way to straddle the divide in preparation for kids entering without completely walling kids off.