Hill Middle Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of us on the Hill would care less what the overall proficiency rate of a particular neighborhood middle school might be IF said program offered a full menu of well-taught, at-grade level classes for 6th-8th grades for science, math, social studies and English. Parents also want a full menu of above grade-level classes for 8th grade and foreign languages taught at appropriates levels for most students (with an opt out of policy for advanced language students receiving instruction outside of school).

With those academic offerings, supported by reasonable and transparent standards for admission to honors/intensified classes, IB parents would flock to those schools in short order. That's what would be "helpful." Anything less and most parents won't bite, indefinitely. Really no more to say.

I agree with most of this, but think the weird focus some posters have on opting out of foreign languages if they get outside instruction is bizarre. Schools have no obligation to accommodate that and most parents don't care.

Public schools have no obligation to force students who speak, read and write languages well into beginning languages classes either. That's what BASIS does, aggressively. Thankfully, DCPS doesn't In MoCo, Arlington and Fairfax, 6th-12th graders are given the option of placing out of required languages classes if they have the skills. Apparently, many suburban parents do care. Hint: advanced language skills are prized by colleges.

[Anonymous]

Give us break. Spend the dough, fund the honors classes where they're in demand, build it and they will come, fast. DCPS could easily stop pouring tens of millions of dollars into fancy renovations of MS and HS buildings that remain half empty years after their Taj Majal renovations (e.g. EH and Jefferson). NYC doesn't pour money into buildings as Band-Aid treatment for what ails schools. They pour it into programming.

[Anonymous]

If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

That's not necessarily true. If well designed, consolidating the Hill into one or two MS could raise standards while also avoiding over-enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of us on the Hill would care less what the overall proficiency rate of a particular neighborhood middle school might be IF said program offered a full menu of well-taught, at-grade level classes for 6th-8th grades for science, math, social studies and English. Parents also want a full menu of above grade-level classes for 8th grade and foreign languages taught at appropriates levels for most students (with an opt out of policy for advanced language students receiving instruction outside of school).

With those academic offerings, supported by reasonable and transparent standards for admission to honors/intensified classes, IB parents would flock to those schools in short order. That's what would be "helpful." Anything less and most parents won't bite, indefinitely. Really no more to say.

I agree with most of this, but think the weird focus some posters have on opting out of foreign languages if they get outside instruction is bizarre. Schools have no obligation to accommodate that and most parents don't care.

Public schools have no obligation to force students who speak, read and write languages well into beginning languages classes either. That's what BASIS does, aggressively. Thankfully, DCPS doesn't In MoCo, Arlington and Fairfax, 6th-12th graders are given the option of placing out of required languages classes if they have the skills. Apparently, many suburban parents do care. Hint: advanced language skills are prized by colleges.

I think kids should be able to place into higher levels of languages via tests. But I think if you place out of whatever the school can offer, you can absolutely just start an additional new language and don't need to be excused entirely. I don't care which way schools handle this and I completely disagree that this specifically is a priority of most parents deciding whether to send their kids to SH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

This is absurd as a barrier to change. Deal got whiter and overcrowded, but that's not a problem apparently because it's UNW. Treating use of an IB school by the IB population as a "sensitive" political problem is crazy and feeds into the sort of consideration being normalized, which it shouldn't be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

I appreciate this post, and the post a few prior with regards to actually thinking about funding. For those on here saying 'just fund it/build it and they will come' have probably not participated on a school LSAT, gone to budget townhalls, met with council members, or followed how school funding is allocated. Principals have very limited control on what they can/can't fund, and this year (and the next few) are going to be tough with budget cuts. The city as a whole is having to rethink it's budget with less people working downtown post COVID, and the extra $$ schools got due to COVID running out. There is also a new funding model which provides more funds to schools with higher special education numbers and higher at risk numbers which I think is a good thing. I would also argue that spending money on new facilities (like Jefferson and EH) is an important investment - shows the kids and families they are valued, and also makes sure they have schools not just with up to date facilities for new course offerings, but also that they have schools with the bare minimum like plumbing/toilets that work, roofs that don't leak, etc.
While funding and policy does not change overnight, enrollment can change quickly, which then impacts funding, staffing, etc. I just pulled up Eliot Hine data as an example (couldn't find it for this year) - and enrollment has grown significantly. I know many 5th grade families from the feeders (ourselves included) who did not lottery in 4th and will be at EH this fall, so I wouldn't be surprised if the enrollment continues to grow.
2016-2017 - 200 students
2020-2021 - 291 students
2021-2022 - 317 students
All that to say, I appreciate the attention to how complex this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

So your argument is we should not improve schools by making obvious logistical changes because the neighborhood kids might actually use them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I occasionally think this board has some pro-school choice “trolls.”. Anything positive about traditional public schools or that some in-bound families might actually be choosing them over charters, it is ripped apart.

I don't see that at all. You are conflating "school choice" with anti-DCPS. The DCPS system allows for choice even within DCPS so the construct that somehow choice=/DCPS makes no sense. My impression is that 98% of families in DC just want to send their kids to good schools that are good fits for their kids. The charter vs DCPS silliness is perpetuated by a small group of people with axes to grind (see, people still complaining about Michelle Rhee).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

So your argument is we should not improve schools by making obvious logistical changes because the neighborhood kids might actually use them?

We should improve schools by making a plan that is sustainable in the long term, rather than taking a seemingly obvious short-term approach that tees up obvious problems soon thereafter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

That's not necessarily true. If well designed, consolidating the Hill into one or two MS could raise standards while also avoiding over-enrollment.

No, because the Hill elementaries would increase in size and feed more kids up. They would probably need to carve out a new elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

That's not necessarily true. If well designed, consolidating the Hill into one or two MS could raise standards while also avoiding over-enrollment.

No, because the Hill elementaries would increase in size and feed more kids up. They would probably need to carve out a new elementary.

Just like has happened in UNW?

I'm just baffled by the idea that we shouldn't improve schools because then people would use them. Like, seriously, what? Do you hear yourself? Even if you're just saying this is someone else's argument, treating it as a remotely rational argument is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

That's not necessarily true. If well designed, consolidating the Hill into one or two MS could raise standards while also avoiding over-enrollment.

No, because the Hill elementaries would increase in size and feed more kids up. They would probably need to carve out a new elementary.

Just like has happened in UNW?

I'm just baffled by the idea that we shouldn't improve schools because then people would use them. Like, seriously, what? Do you hear yourself? Even if you're just saying this is someone else's argument, treating it as a remotely rational argument is insane.

Yeah, I agree. Hard to see how a larger number of good middle schools is a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Hill middle schools improved, they woudl suddenly become overcrowded. People would stop trucking to faraway charters and Deal/Hardy. They would have to stop admitting OOB students. The net effect would be a much whiter and higher-income student body and the OOB kids would probably end up at worse schools (or maybe at okayish charters).

If they consolidated high-performing kids in one middle school, it would be so overcrowded that they would have to de-consolidate it after a few years. It's not a workable plan politically or logistically.

What can be done? Work on your elementary school's upper grade offering so that the middle schools of the city are receiving kids as well-prepared as possible. If you're at a feeder or attend a middle school, push for higher quality but with an understanding of the complex and sensitive politics and the budget constraints. This isn't an easy problem.

That's not necessarily true. If well designed, consolidating the Hill into one or two MS could raise standards while also avoiding over-enrollment.

No, because the Hill elementaries would increase in size and feed more kids up. They would probably need to carve out a new elementary.

Just like has happened in UNW?

I'm just baffled by the idea that we shouldn't improve schools because then people would use them. Like, seriously, what? Do you hear yourself? Even if you're just saying this is someone else's argument, treating it as a remotely rational argument is insane.

I'm not saying we shouldn't improve schools FFS. I'm saying it's complicated if you plan more than 5 years in advance. Don't make changes that you'll have to un-do soon thereafter. Take into account not just a higher feeder elementary capture rate, but that IB kids who don't attend feeders will also want to come, and people who don't live on the Hill might move there or stay for middle school when they otherwise wouldn't. It has to be an improvement plan that works for the medium term, that is realistically politically feasible, and that takes into account budget limitations.

[Anonymous]

Improve the 3 current schools. They all have facility space for significantly more kids. None of them admit all that many non-feeder elementary lottery seats now.