Is Real Change Even Possible?

[Anonymous]

interesting that this became a granular Hill schools discussion.

[Anonymous]

Well of course, because upper NW already has decent public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS won’t change until people are willing to make policy decisions without the fear of being called “racist.”

Example 1: “Gifted” programs would keep middle and upper income families in neighborhood schools, improving academic outcomes (and providing low income academically advanced children a better education).

Example 2: Feeder patterns that concentrate higher performing elementary schools to improve middle and high schools. Feed all the hill middle schools into one school … magically you have a second Deal. Bet you would get a second Wilson out of that too.

But we can’t do either of those things, because it’s “racist.”

Regarding the suggestion to feed all Hill elementariness into one HS, I think there are other obstacles as well. Currently they feed to three schools and to create a single MS, you'd need a huge building. You need at least two MSs there for space reasons.

Also, while I agree that there is some dogma involved that prevents pushing for more opportunities for high achieving kids on the Hill, I also think you have conflicting goals of a lot of parents in the neighborhood. Even among parents of high achieving kids, you also have this attachment to neighborhood schools and walkability, and when you look at how far apart Jefferson and Eliot-Hine currently are, you can see that a lot of families on the Hill would have to sacrifice walkable school commutes to make this happen. among the UMC families I know who are choosing to attend their IB MS on the Hill, a major selling point is keeping the walkable commutes they've had in elementary which really become part of the culture of the neighborhood, and also help a lot when you have kids in elementary and MS. I think this is one of the reasons that the school where you are seeing the most buy in from IB families presently is Stuart-Hobson -- it's very close to the feeder elementary that also has the most IB buy in in the zone (L-T) and also very close to JOW (still not a ton of IB buy in but improving and likely to make a big jump when they open their new campus in 2026), and that's appealing for families who have gotten used to short walking and biking commutes for the last 6 or 7 years.

Likewise one reason Jefferson has struggled so much with getting buy in is that the feeder with the most IB buy in, Brent, is also the least convenient to that MS campus. But buy in at Amidon-Bowen is improving and that has helped -- families see the benefit of a nearby school and want to keep the vibes going.

I don't think your premise is totally wrong -- I absolutely think the resistance to tracking and better opportunities for higher achieving kids is due to a misguided belief that supporting academic achievers is racist. But specifically regarding the idea of a unified Hill middle school, the resistance may once have been due to misguided equity beliefs, but I don't think it is anymore. As all three Hill MSs have increased their IB buy in, and as the Hill builds off the success of schools like Brent, Maury, and L-T with success at Payne, Chisolm, JOW, and Amidon-Bowen, I think you will continue to see increased buy in at all three MSs. Which might actually lead to a better trajectory than Deal, which has constant issues with overcrowding, if the result is three strong MSs instead of just one.

And this is where "that's racist" will come out. First objection is "too many schools, so we won't have a big enough building." Ok.... feed only the schools that are actually on the Hill into one middle/high school: Watkins, Brent, Maury, LT, Payne. The middle and high school will be excellent, immediately.

Why won't that fly? It's "racist."

[Anonymous]

Sort of. We bailed on Deal two years ago, after 7th grade, feeling burned out on mass chaos.

We were fed up with sloppy teaching and grading, little feedback from teachers, over the top rowdy hallways and cafeteria. We were also nonplussed by no academic tracking outside math and languages, half the bathrooms locked (because they couldn't be policed effectively) and worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:interesting that this became a granular Hill schools discussion.

The Hill folks have a lot to process, I guess! I also think they have seen demographics as the most important factor for a long long time and come at schools with that view.

But there needs to be a discussion about the flaws of DCPS even at the "best" schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS won’t change until people are willing to make policy decisions without the fear of being called “racist.”

Example 1: “Gifted” programs would keep middle and upper income families in neighborhood schools, improving academic outcomes (and providing low income academically advanced children a better education).

Example 2: Feeder patterns that concentrate higher performing elementary schools to improve middle and high schools. Feed all the hill middle schools into one school … magically you have a second Deal. Bet you would get a second Wilson out of that too.

But we can’t do either of those things, because it’s “racist.”

Regarding the suggestion to feed all Hill elementariness into one HS, I think there are other obstacles as well. Currently they feed to three schools and to create a single MS, you'd need a huge building. You need at least two MSs there for space reasons.

Also, while I agree that there is some dogma involved that prevents pushing for more opportunities for high achieving kids on the Hill, I also think you have conflicting goals of a lot of parents in the neighborhood. Even among parents of high achieving kids, you also have this attachment to neighborhood schools and walkability, and when you look at how far apart Jefferson and Eliot-Hine currently are, you can see that a lot of families on the Hill would have to sacrifice walkable school commutes to make this happen. among the UMC families I know who are choosing to attend their IB MS on the Hill, a major selling point is keeping the walkable commutes they've had in elementary which really become part of the culture of the neighborhood, and also help a lot when you have kids in elementary and MS. I think this is one of the reasons that the school where you are seeing the most buy in from IB families presently is Stuart-Hobson -- it's very close to the feeder elementary that also has the most IB buy in in the zone (L-T) and also very close to JOW (still not a ton of IB buy in but improving and likely to make a big jump when they open their new campus in 2026), and that's appealing for families who have gotten used to short walking and biking commutes for the last 6 or 7 years.

Likewise one reason Jefferson has struggled so much with getting buy in is that the feeder with the most IB buy in, Brent, is also the least convenient to that MS campus. But buy in at Amidon-Bowen is improving and that has helped -- families see the benefit of a nearby school and want to keep the vibes going.

I don't think your premise is totally wrong -- I absolutely think the resistance to tracking and better opportunities for higher achieving kids is due to a misguided belief that supporting academic achievers is racist. But specifically regarding the idea of a unified Hill middle school, the resistance may once have been due to misguided equity beliefs, but I don't think it is anymore. As all three Hill MSs have increased their IB buy in, and as the Hill builds off the success of schools like Brent, Maury, and L-T with success at Payne, Chisolm, JOW, and Amidon-Bowen, I think you will continue to see increased buy in at all three MSs. Which might actually lead to a better trajectory than Deal, which has constant issues with overcrowding, if the result is three strong MSs instead of just one.

And this is where "that's racist" will come out. First objection is "too many schools, so we won't have a big enough building." Ok.... feed only the schools that are actually on the Hill into one middle/high school: Watkins, Brent, Maury, LT, Payne. The middle and high school will be excellent, immediately.

Why won't that fly? It's "racist."

It won't fly because five schools is still too many. When you create an "excellent" middle school with an "excellent" high school, the IB capture rate will go way up.

If you think people will be fine with being kicked out of an excellent feeder pattern and reassigned to much worse one, think again. They will oppose this very hard and it won't go through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:interesting that this became a granular Hill schools discussion.

It doesn't have to be. A discussion of Wells and its feeders would be very interesting.

[Anonymous]

I'm one of the people participating in the Hill discussion. I think it's very relevant to OP's question because it's a part of the city that has seen "change" happen very rapidly over the last decade, and is still in the process of changing. So you have a lot of schools and families right in the midst of this question about whether schools can change, what changes are necessary, what happens when people want different kinds of change, etc. These conversations are not being had as much at other schools in other parts of the city because there is less change occurring.

But if you want to discuss DCPS as a whole or how you fix flaws in the curriculum, the administrative approach, etc., do it! Complaining that the conversation is being "taken over" by a discussion about Hill schools doesn't do much to change the conversation, does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. We bailed on Deal two years ago, after 7th grade, feeling burned out on mass chaos.

We were fed up with sloppy teaching and grading, little feedback from teachers, over the top rowdy hallways and cafeteria. We were also nonplussed by no academic tracking outside math and languages, half the bathrooms locked (because they couldn't be policed effectively) and worse.

And you went where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interesting that this became a granular Hill schools discussion.

The Hill folks have a lot to process, I guess! I also think they have seen demographics as the most important factor for a long long time and come at schools with that view.

But there needs to be a discussion about the flaws of DCPS even at the "best" schools.

The question of the thread was, well, do things change for the better in DC? The answer on the Hill is clearly yes, and pretty quickly. The answer is more complicated in other parts of town. Northeast- from RCP east, and north of Union market- is still a disaster, and attempts to encourage IB enrollment haven’t worked that well. Langley has improved, Noyes has improved, and there are multiple good elementary schools across northeast.

Past elementary, everything is really bad. Brookland Middle is an unalloyed disaster. Dunbar should be closed, and would be closed in any suburb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone going on and on about MS IB buy in actually looked at the IB percentages at these schools? Eliot-Hine and Jefferson have been steadily growing over time - both from around 40% IB four years ago to over 50% now. Meanwhile Stuart-Hobson has hovered around 25-30%. At the elementary schools, IB percentages over time largely mirror the middle schools they feed into.

I think you need to look at the IB capture rate rather than the percent of students that are IB.

And also, SH attracts OOB students to its feeders and itself directly *because* it is a desirable school.

Eliot-Hine's boundary participation rate grew from 21% in SY19-20 to 36% in SY24-25. Jefferson's grew from 32% to 36%. Meanwhile, Stuart-Hobson's decreased from 47% to 31%.

Very interesting. And has the total enrollment changed significantly at any of these schools?

Enrollment from SY19-20 to SY24-25

Eliot-Hine: 262 to 432
Jefferson: 353 to 409
Stuart-Hobson: 487 to 460

Grade Specific Students Living in Boundary from SY19-20 to SY24-25

Eliot-Hine: 427 to 606
Jefferson: 443 to 601
Stuart-Hobson: 332 to 414

Grade Specific Students Living In Boundary and Attending Boundary School from SY19-20 to SY24-25

Eliot-Hine: 89 to 219
Jefferson: 142 to 217
Stuart-Hobson: 157 to 128

That's fascinating! I still do think SH is the strongest school of the three, but maybe I'm wrong?

I agree that it's the strongest academically. I don't agree with the narrative that it's because of increasing IB participation.

I don't think that's the reason, but I expected it to go in the same direction.

I wonder how the numbers look if you counted everyone coming from a feeder as IB. Are OOB kids coming in for 6th, or via feeders?

As an EH parent that came from a feeder school, I can anecdotally say that from my experience the 'playground chatter' has changed in the past 10 years from 'transfer out mid-elementary to get into a SH feeder' to parents being happy to stay through 5th and then go to EH. That may account for the decrease in enrollment at SH - as well as the new Latin campus etc, and nothing negative about SH at all. Also I have noticed at EH, and may be true at other middle schools - that there are a number of kids every year who transfer in from a charter school - so they probably always lived in boundary, and then when they transfer in it increases both enrollment and IB numbers.

As for rigor between various DCPS schools, IMO it is hard to totally compare any two schools b/c there are few parents who have experience at multiple schools.

They probably just didn’t get into Latin. Those waitlists are so long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interesting that this became a granular Hill schools discussion.

The Hill folks have a lot to process, I guess! I also think they have seen demographics as the most important factor for a long long time and come at schools with that view.

But there needs to be a discussion about the flaws of DCPS even at the "best" schools.

+1

I think this thread derailed because people were talking about the changes they have seen in a positive direction in the past 10+ years, and how to build off of them (which morphed into demographic changes in the last 10+ years...)

As was said above, more middle schools are offering advanced coursework, literacy instruction has been revamped, and at least at the elementary schools I am familiar with, kids are getting more science instruction than they used to (kids were getting WAY less than they were supposed to).

IMO, if you step way back and look at education, the past few decades and the obsession/focus on prepping kids for standardized testing has kind of broken the system. Especially now that we take a test that no other state uses, so we can't even use the data to see how we are doing relative to other states. So much of what the kids do in school (especially towards the end of the year) is prepping for these test - and the pressure from the top down is horrible. Using data to inform teaching is helpful, but I think tests like iReady or MAP can help with that since they actually show results in real time, and can demonstrate growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS won’t change until people are willing to make policy decisions without the fear of being called “racist.”

Example 1: “Gifted” programs would keep middle and upper income families in neighborhood schools, improving academic outcomes (and providing low income academically advanced children a better education).

Example 2: Feeder patterns that concentrate higher performing elementary schools to improve middle and high schools. Feed all the hill middle schools into one school … magically you have a second Deal. Bet you would get a second Wilson out of that too.

But we can’t do either of those things, because it’s “racist.”

Regarding the suggestion to feed all Hill elementariness into one HS, I think there are other obstacles as well. Currently they feed to three schools and to create a single MS, you'd need a huge building. You need at least two MSs there for space reasons.

Also, while I agree that there is some dogma involved that prevents pushing for more opportunities for high achieving kids on the Hill, I also think you have conflicting goals of a lot of parents in the neighborhood. Even among parents of high achieving kids, you also have this attachment to neighborhood schools and walkability, and when you look at how far apart Jefferson and Eliot-Hine currently are, you can see that a lot of families on the Hill would have to sacrifice walkable school commutes to make this happen. among the UMC families I know who are choosing to attend their IB MS on the Hill, a major selling point is keeping the walkable commutes they've had in elementary which really become part of the culture of the neighborhood, and also help a lot when you have kids in elementary and MS. I think this is one of the reasons that the school where you are seeing the most buy in from IB families presently is Stuart-Hobson -- it's very close to the feeder elementary that also has the most IB buy in in the zone (L-T) and also very close to JOW (still not a ton of IB buy in but improving and likely to make a big jump when they open their new campus in 2026), and that's appealing for families who have gotten used to short walking and biking commutes for the last 6 or 7 years.

Likewise one reason Jefferson has struggled so much with getting buy in is that the feeder with the most IB buy in, Brent, is also the least convenient to that MS campus. But buy in at Amidon-Bowen is improving and that has helped -- families see the benefit of a nearby school and want to keep the vibes going.

I don't think your premise is totally wrong -- I absolutely think the resistance to tracking and better opportunities for higher achieving kids is due to a misguided belief that supporting academic achievers is racist. But specifically regarding the idea of a unified Hill middle school, the resistance may once have been due to misguided equity beliefs, but I don't think it is anymore. As all three Hill MSs have increased their IB buy in, and as the Hill builds off the success of schools like Brent, Maury, and L-T with success at Payne, Chisolm, JOW, and Amidon-Bowen, I think you will continue to see increased buy in at all three MSs. Which might actually lead to a better trajectory than Deal, which has constant issues with overcrowding, if the result is three strong MSs instead of just one.

And this is where "that's racist" will come out. First objection is "too many schools, so we won't have a big enough building." Ok.... feed only the schools that are actually on the Hill into one middle/high school: Watkins, Brent, Maury, LT, Payne. The middle and high school will be excellent, immediately.

Why won't that fly? It's "racist."

It won't fly because five schools is still too many. When you create an "excellent" middle school with an "excellent" high school, the IB capture rate will go way up.

If you think people will be fine with being kicked out of an excellent feeder pattern and reassigned to much worse one, think again. They will oppose this very hard and it won't go through.

It's also geographically nonsensical. If those 5 schools feed into one middle school, are you suggesting that all the schools on the fringes of Ward 6 feed into the same school? So JOW, Miner, Chisolm, Van Ness, and Amidon-Bowen would all go to the same middle school? That makes zero sense. JOW is literally 3 blocks from L-T. Miner is only a little further from Maury. Chisolm and Payne are pretty close as well. Meanwhile Van Ness and Amidon Bowen are way closer to Brent than to any of the other schools they'd be grouped with.

People would call that racist because it literally would be racist. You just cherry-picked the 5 whitest schools and ignored geography in order to group them together. Also Chisolm is actually much more desirable than Watkins at this point but it has a large Hispanic population because of the immersion program. So you can't even argue that you picked the best schools. Just the whitest ones. Good work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well of course, because upper NW already has decent public schools.

What you are focused on is schools having enough kids at or above grade level so classes can actually be taught at grade level.

What you are missing is that even if demographics are such that a school is not overwhelmed by non-academic needs, DCPS still sucks. DCPS does not do a good job of educating its students. It hires lame leaders, who then do a poor job of selecting and/or rewarding the best principals, who are the ones who can select and motivate the best teachers etc etc. DCPS picks crappy curricula and forces schools and teachers to use it. They require way too much testing and stupid Central-produced assignments like Required Curricular Tasks. They don't pay teachers for extra-duty so club and extracurricular offerings are lacking. They do a terrible job of providing sports at the MS and HS levels except for the smallest schools. And they hide rather than acknowledge and attempt to address these weaknesses. The school system runs like it is in perpetual poverty -- there is not enough money to have smaller classes, to have more class offerings, to pay athletic coaches the going rate, etc etc. -- but where is the advocacy of the Chancellor explaining how much money is needed and why and where is the good judgment in getting rid of stupid, wasteful programs aimed at instilling "pride" but that don't build the substance on which a real feeling of accomplishment rests. Yada yada yada.

Sure, stuff changes as demographics change around the city.

But what about systematic change to the way the school system actually does its job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interesting that this became a granular Hill schools discussion.

It doesn't have to be. A discussion of Wells and its feeders would be very interesting.

Was about to say, similar things are happening in Ward 4