Hill Middle Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

Well, right now the MS and HS on the Hill are pretty much failure factories for many students. So if we can only go up from here, why not try something new? Our leaders seem so crippled by the fear that academically advanced kids might start outperforming at-risk students that they'd rather keep the broken system we have right now. And BTW, I would totally be in favor of allocating A LOT more money at this if that's what it took to have good schools and be able to accommodate everyone. Bottom line, we should not be displacing anyone in the current system, but rather try to also retain all those advanced learners who currently flee for charters or private once they hit middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

Well, right now the MS and HS on the Hill are pretty much failure factories for many students. So if we can only go up from here, why not try something new? Our leaders seem so crippled by the fear that academically advanced kids might start outperforming at-risk students that they'd rather keep the broken system we have right now. And BTW, I would totally be in favor of allocating A LOT more money at this if that's what it took to have good schools and be able to accommodate everyone. Bottom line, we should not be displacing anyone in the current system, but rather try to also retain all those advanced learners who currently flee for charters or private once they hit middle school.

Oh please, get over yourself. They're middling. There are far worse middle schools in DCPS and plenty of other cities. Academically advanced kids are already out-performing at-risk kids, that's why we have the concept "at-risk". It's short for "at risk of academic failure". What they don't want is to create one school that's better than the others, probably making the others even worse, watch it crowd up, and then have to zone people out.

There's no way to do this without displacing anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

Well, right now the MS and HS on the Hill are pretty much failure factories for many students. So if we can only go up from here, why not try something new? Our leaders seem so crippled by the fear that academically advanced kids might start outperforming at-risk students that they'd rather keep the broken system we have right now. And BTW, I would totally be in favor of allocating A LOT more money at this if that's what it took to have good schools and be able to accommodate everyone. Bottom line, we should not be displacing anyone in the current system, but rather try to also retain all those advanced learners who currently flee for charters or private once they hit middle school.

Oh please, get over yourself. They're middling. There are far worse middle schools in DCPS and plenty of other cities. Academically advanced kids are already out-performing at-risk kids, that's why we have the concept "at-risk". It's short for "at risk of academic failure". What they don't want is to create one school that's better than the others, probably making the others even worse, watch it crowd up, and then have to zone people out.

There's no way to do this without displacing anyone.

Wow, so you would consider Eastern a success? See, these extremely low expectations are part of the problem ("always could be even worse somewhere else!"). Given the massive amount of per-student funding DCPS should be ashamed of itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

Well, right now the MS and HS on the Hill are pretty much failure factories for many students. So if we can only go up from here, why not try something new? Our leaders seem so crippled by the fear that academically advanced kids might start outperforming at-risk students that they'd rather keep the broken system we have right now. And BTW, I would totally be in favor of allocating A LOT more money at this if that's what it took to have good schools and be able to accommodate everyone. Bottom line, we should not be displacing anyone in the current system, but rather try to also retain all those advanced learners who currently flee for charters or private once they hit middle school.

Oh please, get over yourself. They're middling. There are far worse middle schools in DCPS and plenty of other cities. Academically advanced kids are already out-performing at-risk kids, that's why we have the concept "at-risk". It's short for "at risk of academic failure". What they don't want is to create one school that's better than the others, probably making the others even worse, watch it crowd up, and then have to zone people out.

There's no way to do this without displacing anyone.

Wow, so you would consider Eastern a success? See, these extremely low expectations are part of the problem ("always could be even worse somewhere else!"). Given the massive amount of per-student funding DCPS should be ashamed of itself.

No, I would not consider it a success, but I would not be so rude as to call it a "failure factory" either. As to the costs, yes it is costly to educate a high-SPED, high trauma background population. But those children are entitled to an education nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that the resulting MSes would be far more diverse than they are currently. Where they are, in fact, pretty segregated. They're located in heavily UMC/white areas and yet few from those populations attend. GOOD elementary schools, on the other hand, in the SAME neighborhood are actually diverse. L-T is very diverse. Maury, Watkins, Tyler & Payne are quite diverse, especially be DC standards. But the middle schools would suddenly be more segregated than they are now? Does not compute.

[Anonymous]

Some people on this board want a self-contained school-within-school magnet "honors" strand type program and/or the creation of a separate honors magnet school. That is a non-starter. But I think for a lot of people just a real concerted effort to have more advanced programming at the current middle schools schools would be enough to get them to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

Eliot-Hine I think has a capacity for 850 students, but currently only has around 320. There's plenty of room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The prior post was a response to an earlier post that gentrifiers are allegedly full-stop not welcome at neighborhood schools.

allegedly? It’s spelled out loud and clear in this thread.

[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 has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen. Capitol Hill has *three* middle schools, and only one of them is even close to capacity (SH, the smallest). EH has space for *500* more students. Jefferson has space for *200* more. That's space for 700 students! Besides improving the schools won't mean that families won't go to charters -- lots of families choose charters because they want to be there, not because they are fleeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whenever someone says that, it always sounds like code for DCPS just doesn't really like Capitol Hill and we can't have nice things.

That's really not it. But if "nice things" means "we get what we want for our kids even though it increases racial and income segregation", is that really a nice thing?

Those are your ugly words, not mine. All else equal, why aren't better schools better for ALL kids? Just look at Deal, which benefits a wide range of students, and much more so than any of the MS on the Hill.

Because it's never "all else equal". People here aren't proposing a massive investment in middle schools system-wide that benefits all students. They're proposing a policy that would create one high-performing school that's far less racially and economically integrated, And which would swiftly become overcrowded. The buildings are nowhere near as big as Deal, so they won't be able to stay as diverse. People need to try harder to understand how the interconnecting pieces of the school system and its budget work.

Well, right now the MS and HS on the Hill are pretty much failure factories for many students. So if we can only go up from here, why not try something new? Our leaders seem so crippled by the fear that academically advanced kids might start outperforming at-risk students that they'd rather keep the broken system we have right now. And BTW, I would totally be in favor of allocating A LOT more money at this if that's what it took to have good schools and be able to accommodate everyone. Bottom line, we should not be displacing anyone in the current system, but rather try to also retain all those advanced learners who currently flee for charters or private once they hit middle school.

Oh please, get over yourself. They're middling. There are far worse middle schools in DCPS and plenty of other cities. Academically advanced kids are already out-performing at-risk kids, that's why we have the concept "at-risk". It's short for "at risk of academic failure". What they don't want is to create one school that's better than the others, probably making the others even worse, watch it crowd up, and then have to zone people out.

There's no way to do this without displacing anyone.

Wow, so you would consider Eastern a success? See, these extremely low expectations are part of the problem ("always could be even worse somewhere else!"). Given the massive amount of per-student funding DCPS should be ashamed of itself.

No, I would not consider it a success, but I would not be so rude as to call it a "failure factory" either. As to the costs, yes it is costly to educate a high-SPED, high trauma background population. But those children are entitled to an education nonetheless.

It is a failure when overwhelming majority are so below grade level.

Yes those kids are entitled to education but lowering standards and socially promoting ion a corrupt school system with bloated central office and mismanagement of funds is why they are not being educated appropriately and failing.

[Anonymous]

No, DC is full of transplants and its not remotely clear that gentrifiers are generally unwelcome at schools. I think a lot of people in DC would probably prefer to go to their neighborhood DCPS over a charter school like Basis if DCPS could offer sufficient challenge and some of it is a complex mix of considerations like its more convenient, they really liked their DCPS elementary school, they’ve read material such as the Nikole Hannah-Jones article in the New York Times, they arent sure how they feel about charter schools now that charters are beloved by the far right and not so popular with mainstream liberals, etc.