Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actual data shows that Brent and Maury have much higher levels of neighborhood buy in - their IB percentages are much higher. Watkins, LT and JO are not neighborhood schools. People leave before they even get to SH. So you have elementary schools that are not serving the neighborhood and a middle school that isn’t either. If the Hill elementary schools fed into one middle school, Watkins, JO and LT would all benefit, because parents would see a long term path for their kids.

You’re kidding yourself if you think schools do not benefit from having families with resources attend them.

You people are exhausting. No one said schools don't benefot from having resources. What has been said a million times in this thread and others is that Brent families aren't the only ones with resources. Your post illustrates your god complex; without you SH can't succeed.

Do you see the difference?

They truly don't.

I know you are right, but I just can't give up on them yet. P.S. I heart you, PP.

Anonymous wrote:As a family IB to SH (presently at SWS) I for one wish Brent and/or Maury fed into SH.

The changes at LT are really and will no doubt be lasting, but I don't think they're reflected in the upper grades yet.

If my kids were younger I'd feel differently, but as a parent staring middle school in the face, I'd be lying to assert that SH is my first or even second choice. I'm glad to have it as a backup but at this stage simply do not know if we'll move for middle school.

Based on what? Test scores? Improvement of classes as they move up? Reenrollment? By every measurable metric LT is outperforming Brent...other than whiteness or "perception" as seen through the eyes of SWS. I'm going to suggest that someone who thinks a citywide school ES that is 70% white and only 10% FARMs is in no way a unicorn might in fact be the poster child for precisely the behaviors and mentality with which many of us take issue.

What do you mean when you write that you "don't think they're reflected in the upper grades yet"? The data doesn't support your "thinking". Is that cause you took a tour of LT and saw there are more brown people on the 3rd floor than the first? Because you saw there were more brown people than white people, and you are used to SWS? Help me out here.

It's not just LT that feeds into SH.

Anonymous wrote:As a family IB to SH (presently at SWS) I for one wish Brent and/or Maury fed into SH.

The changes at LT are really and will no doubt be lasting, but I don't think they're reflected in the upper grades yet.

If my kids were younger I'd feel differently, but as a parent staring middle school in the face, I'd be lying to assert that SH is my first or even second choice. I'm glad to have it as a backup but at this stage simply do not know if we'll move for middle school.

You say this yet a PP pointed out:

On ELA Ludlow Taylor's 5th grade outscored Brent's 5th grade last year 69 to 59 and it's 4th grade outscored 64 to 55

On Math Brent scored higher mostly due to its 3rd grade scores 79 to 39. LT scored higher in 5th grade math 46 to 41, and 4th grade scored higher 50 to 41

So what would change if tomorrow they switched out the LT 5th grade for Brent?

What I read is that the people asking to change the feeders want who look like them and have the same income level, but more the former.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks who buy houses and disregard publicly available school data -- and are then angry or shocked by their lack of 'options' as middle school approaches get no sympathy from me.

If only things were that simple.

When we bought in-boundary for the Cluster a decade ago, the data on SH seemed promising for this expectant mother.

But then, whoops...

SWS and Logan suddenly got their own buildings and left.
Maury and Brent attracted more high SES families than Watkins.
Watkins' planned renovation took many years longer than expected.
A bunch of charters sprang up (mainly language immersion programs, but also BASIS and ITS) that creamed off a big chunk of the supposedly Watkins and SH bound families.
SH added Ludlow and JO Wilson as feeders. Neither has attracted many high SES families to the upper grades.

We're not asking for sympathy, but you might want to think twice before judging us for changing our minds about the Cluster.

Signed
Parent somewhat surprised and very disappointed that SH is still only around one quarter IB a decade on.

Please look at actual data and then get back to me.

If you look at publicly available data the # of kids peeling off by 5th is a problem most pronounced at...Brent. Maurey is also high on that list. You know what isn't? Ludlow. Also pretty low on that list is Watkins and JO. So the issue here is that Brent and Maurey families leave because they don't feel they have a path. Now that's a fair observation and concern. But what amuses me to no end is how those families conflate their lack of path with SH and its feeders' trajectories. The data doesn't lie. If you dig further into the data you will see median home prices in the SH feeder schools catchment areas have skyrocketed in the last 10 years. And the data for schools just doesn't track with your world view.

My point is....

1, You haven't "seen it all before". The demographic, enrollment and financial trends simply have not been previously seen in DC or on the Hill. Just because you and your next door neighbor keep having the same conversation doesn't make it so. Data doesn't lie.
2. You are either lying to yourself of willfully ignorant when you say things like "LT hasn't improved". % of economically disadvantaged is down. Scores are way up (at Brent levels in some cases). The 5th grade enrollment is about the same as 1st. Data doesn't lie.
3. Your reference to ITS and Basis is sad and funny. Just because you and your neighbor "know" they are better school doesn't make it so. ITS's scores lag behind LT's. In fact their scores are pretty marginal, especially when adjusted for the demographic in attendance. If you look at publicly available data on where those families live you will see that SH catchment isn't a large driver. And Basis seems to be blowing through their waitlist (compared to Latin, the other "HRCS" that begins in 5th). It is a very specific educational model that isn't for everyone, so the idea that it can replace SH or any DCPS is funny. So yet again the data doesn't match your "knowledge". Now if you prioritize white and high SES over educational outcomes then I guess you are correct. But I remain confused by those of you that cite data when it suits your needs, and when it doesn't you talk about "culture" and "feel". Data doesn't lie.
4. There is no "Cluster"!!! SH is a MS...period. LT, JO and Watkins feed in. This idea that somehow Watkins is the true feeder and LT and JO (combined enrollment 868) are interlopers is just confusing. And the frequent references to SWS and Logan being part of the cluster (or "suddenly getting their own buildings) illustrates your dated view of educational systems on the Hill.
5. You don't have to go to SH or any school. But rest assured, the fact that you and your neighbor are not attending is a loss that SH and other SH feeders can well afford to absorb.

Actual data shows that Brent and Maury have much higher levels of neighborhood buy in - their IB percentages are much higher. Watkins, LT and JO are not neighborhood schools. People leave before they even get to SH. So you have elementary schools that are not serving the neighborhood and a middle school that isn’t either. If the Hill elementary schools fed into one middle school, Watkins, JO and LT would all benefit, because parents would see a long term path for their kids.

You’re kidding yourself if you think schools do not benefit from having families with resources attend them.

You people are exhausting. No one said schools don't benefot from having resources. What has been said a million times in this thread and others is that Brent families aren't the only ones with resources. Your post illustrates your god complex; without you SH can't succeed.

Do you see the difference?

They truly don't.

Anonymous wrote:As a family IB to SH (presently at SWS) I for one wish Brent and/or Maury fed into SH.

The changes at LT are really and will no doubt be lasting, but I don't think they're reflected in the upper grades yet.

If my kids were younger I'd feel differently, but as a parent staring middle school in the face, I'd be lying to assert that SH is my first or even second choice. I'm glad to have it as a backup but at this stage simply do not know if we'll move for middle school.

Another family IB for SH and I completely agree.

As a family IB to SH (presently at SWS) I for one wish Brent and/or Maury fed into SH.

The changes at LT are really and will no doubt be lasting, but I don't think they're reflected in the upper grades yet.

If my kids were younger I'd feel differently, but as a parent staring middle school in the face, I'd be lying to assert that SH is my first or even second choice. I'm glad to have it as a backup but at this stage simply do not know if we'll move for middle school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks who buy houses and disregard publicly available school data -- and are then angry or shocked by their lack of 'options' as middle school approaches get no sympathy from me.

If only things were that simple.

When we bought in-boundary for the Cluster a decade ago, the data on SH seemed promising for this expectant mother.

But then, whoops...

SWS and Logan suddenly got their own buildings and left.
Maury and Brent attracted more high SES families than Watkins.
Watkins' planned renovation took many years longer than expected.
A bunch of charters sprang up (mainly language immersion programs, but also BASIS and ITS) that creamed off a big chunk of the supposedly Watkins and SH bound families.
SH added Ludlow and JO Wilson as feeders. Neither has attracted many high SES families to the upper grades.

We're not asking for sympathy, but you might want to think twice before judging us for changing our minds about the Cluster.

Signed
Parent somewhat surprised and very disappointed that SH is still only around one quarter IB a decade on.

Please look at actual data and then get back to me.

If you look at publicly available data the # of kids peeling off by 5th is a problem most pronounced at...Brent. Maurey is also high on that list. You know what isn't? Ludlow. Also pretty low on that list is Watkins and JO. So the issue here is that Brent and Maurey families leave because they don't feel they have a path. Now that's a fair observation and concern. But what amuses me to no end is how those families conflate their lack of path with SH and its feeders' trajectories. The data doesn't lie. If you dig further into the data you will see median home prices in the SH feeder schools catchment areas have skyrocketed in the last 10 years. And the data for schools just doesn't track with your world view.

My point is....

1, You haven't "seen it all before". The demographic, enrollment and financial trends simply have not been previously seen in DC or on the Hill. Just because you and your next door neighbor keep having the same conversation doesn't make it so. Data doesn't lie.
2. You are either lying to yourself of willfully ignorant when you say things like "LT hasn't improved". % of economically disadvantaged is down. Scores are way up (at Brent levels in some cases). The 5th grade enrollment is about the same as 1st. Data doesn't lie.
3. Your reference to ITS and Basis is sad and funny. Just because you and your neighbor "know" they are better school doesn't make it so. ITS's scores lag behind LT's. In fact their scores are pretty marginal, especially when adjusted for the demographic in attendance. If you look at publicly available data on where those families live you will see that SH catchment isn't a large driver. And Basis seems to be blowing through their waitlist (compared to Latin, the other "HRCS" that begins in 5th). It is a very specific educational model that isn't for everyone, so the idea that it can replace SH or any DCPS is funny. So yet again the data doesn't match your "knowledge". Now if you prioritize white and high SES over educational outcomes then I guess you are correct. But I remain confused by those of you that cite data when it suits your needs, and when it doesn't you talk about "culture" and "feel". Data doesn't lie.
4. There is no "Cluster"!!! SH is a MS...period. LT, JO and Watkins feed in. This idea that somehow Watkins is the true feeder and LT and JO (combined enrollment 868) are interlopers is just confusing. And the frequent references to SWS and Logan being part of the cluster (or "suddenly getting their own buildings) illustrates your dated view of educational systems on the Hill.
5. You don't have to go to SH or any school. But rest assured, the fact that you and your neighbor are not attending is a loss that SH and other SH feeders can well afford to absorb.

Actual data shows that Brent and Maury have much higher levels of neighborhood buy in - their IB percentages are much higher. Watkins, LT and JO are not neighborhood schools. People leave before they even get to SH. So you have elementary schools that are not serving the neighborhood and a middle school that isn’t either. If the Hill elementary schools fed into one middle school, Watkins, JO and LT would all benefit, because parents would see a long term path for their kids.

You’re kidding yourself if you think schools do not benefit from having families with resources attend them.

You people are exhausting. No one said schools don't benefot from having resources. What has been said a million times in this thread and others is that Brent families aren't the only ones with resources. Your post illustrates your god complex; without you SH can't succeed.

Do you see the difference?

Anonymous wrote:Why didn’t they split the LSAT and PTA to match the leadership structure (independent principals)?

They probably should. I served on both PTA and LSAT when there was one principal. At that time there was some flex in moving discretionary principal's budget across the campuses. Since that isn't the case now, they should probably split but middle school PTAs are never a draw. The LSAT absolutely should split, I believe.

Anonymous wrote:20-25% in-boundary for the last 15 years is what's unacceptable.

Parents' perceptions of schools are as relevant as test scores and programming. Arguably, Brent students would do better on the PARCC if the school didn't offer five specials, rather than fewer like the other Hill DCPS ES. Brent parents must like five specials (the norm in JKLM), even if they come at the expense of slightly depressed PARCC scores for the demographic.

It's also true that Brent and Maury attract and retain most IB parents through 4th grade, while Ludlow doesn't yet. The fact that Ludlow's on its 3rd principal in five years hasn't been ideal. On current trends, Ludlow will continue to come along, catching up to Maury eventually on the IB buy-in front. But pretending that most IB parents ARE sold on Ludlow for the upper grades simply because they SHOULD BE gets us nowhere.

A decade back, I thought that that most IB parents would be enrolling their 11 year olds at SH by 2018. Yet only around 1/4 of them, 1/3 tops, are doing this. Yes, the school is improving, but not nearly fast enough for most. DCPS and fellow parents can't order them to enroll, or to move to the burbs either. Parents must be incentivized to feel excited about a school to enroll and stay.

With political will, two DCPS Hill middle schools could have worked.

Ummm, no, they aren't!!!!!! While appreciate you putting your ignorance down for all to see...jeez lady. Hard data that indicates how well the population is doing and how well it improves is much more important. But yet again there's another Brent parent making my point for me. What you care about is that children who look just like you. Which is why you believe that no school can succeed without Brent.

If Brent is retaining kids through 4th then why are their scores dropping? Your claim that it is because there are too many specials is..."special. I would suggest to you that it might be because the advantages of the upper middle class start to fade in 4th. Kids who grew up with camps and coaches and parents reading to them every night (and full stomachs) get caught by kids who had the benefit of quality education from PS up. If you look at the actual data you will see that Brent's scores in 3rd relative the SH feeders start to fade in 4th. But hey, you don't care about data; you care about "feel". Of course IB isn't important when you are talking about Latin and Basis; then it's about educational outcomes. Hmmmmmm....

IB kids enrolling is the next step. Step one is kids in feeders rising into SH; and that is happening now. When cohorts with good educational outcomes rise to the MS then IB parents commit to those good educational outcomes, etc. I'm simply confused by your occasional cite to data whilest you willfully ignore all available data that doesn't suit your needs. You cannot argue that the data indicates that "nothing has changed". I mean, you can, but it just makes you look silly.

But hey, I get it, you are IB for Brent and you are scared. You have a little school that has performed well and nothing has changed for your MS trajectory. And you are watching poors and dark skinned people in other Hill schools outperform your snowflakes. And you think you have some god given right to what those poor people are taking from you. The redistricting wasn't "fair". People didn't appropriately value your whiteness and high SES-ness. And you are bitter. May I suggest, however, that at this point the whining about SH and the feeders isn't going to help your cause. You would be better served trying to figure out how to improve your IB MS. I mean, if you feel better complaining about SH while you pine for an alternate reality that has it as your IB MS go on with your bad self.

P.S. There's something else you and your neighbors seem not to have noticed. The IB population for the SH feeders has gotten wealthier, more educated and more politically connected. There was a time when our Ward 6 rep's office actually told a meeting of neighbors from north of H that we should try and talk to our rep (she didn't know her district went to Florida). She could get away with that because it was really only the Brent-like areas that voted or had connections. Those days are over, my dear. We have money and big mouths and we quite like the trajectory of SH. So while you whine and complain both about being excluded and the abject failure of SH, we are looking at data and trajectories and encouraged. 5 years from now SH will still be my IB MS and the gains from LT and Watkins and JO will be feeding into that MS.

What's you plan?

Why didn’t they split the LSAT and PTA to match the leadership structure (independent principals)?

Anonymous wrote:To he pp who says:

“4. There is no "Cluster"!!! SH is a MS...period. LT, JO and Watkins feed in. This idea that somehow Watkins is the true feeder and LT and JO (combined enrollment 868) are interlopers is just confusing.”

When you google DC cluster school, a website comes up that includes Peabody, Watkins, and SH. Don’t they share an LSAT and a PTA as well? I get that LT and JO now feed into SH, but “the cluster” seems to continue to exist. That is why this is still confusing!

Yes, that is correct. Peabody, Watkins and SH share an LSAT and PTA and are collectively the Capitol Hill Cluster schools. They shared a principal until three years ago. SWS and Cap Hill Montessori were also in the cluster when they were preschools only. Though the other poster is also correct, SH serves other elementary schools, and students from those schools are not interlopers!

To he pp who says:

“4. There is no "Cluster"!!! SH is a MS...period. LT, JO and Watkins feed in. This idea that somehow Watkins is the true feeder and LT and JO (combined enrollment 868) are interlopers is just confusing.”

When you google DC cluster school, a website comes up that includes Peabody, Watkins, and SH. Don’t they share an LSAT and a PTA as well? I get that LT and JO now feed into SH, but “the cluster” seems to continue to exist. That is why this is still confusing!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks who buy houses and disregard publicly available school data -- and are then angry or shocked by their lack of 'options' as middle school approaches get no sympathy from me.

If only things were that simple.

When we bought in-boundary for the Cluster a decade ago, the data on SH seemed promising for this expectant mother.

But then, whoops...

SWS and Logan suddenly got their own buildings and left.
Maury and Brent attracted more high SES families than Watkins.
Watkins' planned renovation took many years longer than expected.
A bunch of charters sprang up (mainly language immersion programs, but also BASIS and ITS) that creamed off a big chunk of the supposedly Watkins and SH bound families.
SH added Ludlow and JO Wilson as feeders. Neither has attracted many high SES families to the upper grades.

We're not asking for sympathy, but you might want to think twice before judging us for changing our minds about the Cluster.

Signed
Parent somewhat surprised and very disappointed that SH is still only around one quarter IB a decade on.

Please look at actual data and then get back to me.

If you look at publicly available data the # of kids peeling off by 5th is a problem most pronounced at...Brent. Maurey is also high on that list. You know what isn't? Ludlow. Also pretty low on that list is Watkins and JO. So the issue here is that Brent and Maurey families leave because they don't feel they have a path. Now that's a fair observation and concern. But what amuses me to no end is how those families conflate their lack of path with SH and its feeders' trajectories. The data doesn't lie. If you dig further into the data you will see median home prices in the SH feeder schools catchment areas have skyrocketed in the last 10 years. And the data for schools just doesn't track with your world view.

My point is....

1, You haven't "seen it all before". The demographic, enrollment and financial trends simply have not been previously seen in DC or on the Hill. Just because you and your next door neighbor keep having the same conversation doesn't make it so. Data doesn't lie.
2. You are either lying to yourself of willfully ignorant when you say things like "LT hasn't improved". % of economically disadvantaged is down. Scores are way up (at Brent levels in some cases). The 5th grade enrollment is about the same as 1st. Data doesn't lie.
3. Your reference to ITS and Basis is sad and funny. Just because you and your neighbor "know" they are better school doesn't make it so. ITS's scores lag behind LT's. In fact their scores are pretty marginal, especially when adjusted for the demographic in attendance. If you look at publicly available data on where those families live you will see that SH catchment isn't a large driver. And Basis seems to be blowing through their waitlist (compared to Latin, the other "HRCS" that begins in 5th). It is a very specific educational model that isn't for everyone, so the idea that it can replace SH or any DCPS is funny. So yet again the data doesn't match your "knowledge". Now if you prioritize white and high SES over educational outcomes then I guess you are correct. But I remain confused by those of you that cite data when it suits your needs, and when it doesn't you talk about "culture" and "feel". Data doesn't lie.
4. There is no "Cluster"!!! SH is a MS...period. LT, JO and Watkins feed in. This idea that somehow Watkins is the true feeder and LT and JO (combined enrollment 868) are interlopers is just confusing. And the frequent references to SWS and Logan being part of the cluster (or "suddenly getting their own buildings) illustrates your dated view of educational systems on the Hill.
5. You don't have to go to SH or any school. But rest assured, the fact that you and your neighbor are not attending is a loss that SH and other SH feeders can well afford to absorb.

Actual data shows that Brent and Maury have much higher levels of neighborhood buy in - their IB percentages are much higher. Watkins, LT and JO are not neighborhood schools. People leave before they even get to SH. So you have elementary schools that are not serving the neighborhood and a middle school that isn’t either. If the Hill elementary schools fed into one middle school, Watkins, JO and LT would all benefit, because parents would see a long term path for their kids.

You’re kidding yourself if you think schools do not benefit from having families with resources attend them.

Anonymous wrote:A little less reading, less math, and less test prep than schools offering fewer specials. Controversial to offer 5.

Specials is the 45 minute chunk in a day to have things like music, PE, art etc right?

You want to take that away for test prep?

You do know that some places have specials and their students pass their state testing? Why not push for better education during the rest of the day rather than take away specials?

Schools can’t win. Some parents say there is too much test focus. Some say take away the 45 minutes of non core subject work and focus back on core subjects and tests. Yikes.

DC parents, y’all can have both good test scores and specials. Why are you selling yourself short?