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?

Both, though I haven't looked at the numbers.

As a PP noted, you also get Brent kids with a proximity preference who count among the OOB students.

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 agree with the PP who noted that SH and its feeders attract OOB students because it's a strong option, rather than being a strong option because of its IB participation. SH started getting a reputation a few years back as a good DCPS option that was easier to get into than Latin or Basis, and still fairly centrally located (10 minute walk from Union Station). I know a decent number of people who live off the Hill for whom it was their backup if they couldn't get into one of those charters. I also know people who lotteried into an SH feeder in 5th grade to guarantee the option, taking spots vacated by students at these schools who get spots at Latin, Basis, or private.

There's just generally more movement around SH because it's reputation has reached the ears of parents in nearby wards unhappy with their MS options and because it's location makes it a feasible commute from other parts of the city.

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?

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.

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?

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

Anonymous wrote:DCPS middle schools are somewhat better now than 10 years ago. Hardy is tons better. EH and maybe SH are somewhat better. John Francis, Ida Wells, and maybe the planned new Euclid middle school all have potential. Elementary schools in many neighborhoods are also better - think Garrison and Seaton in Shaw, Payne in Hill East, some of the schools in NE DC. Some of it is increased economic diversity in the student body. But it is also a combination of things like a stable administration and reduced teacher turnover that help to improve a school.

Hardy is great now, but only because parents, in conjunction with a couple of officials at DCPS, went to great lengths to get rid of a principal who DCPS had installed. The principal who proved to be so awful fit the mold of DCPS's favored profile and had strong connections to one of the leaders in DCPS. If Hardy had been stuck with him, it would have continued to lose the gains it had made in the decade prior.

OOB enrollment is a function of building capacity minus IB enrollment. It's not irrelevant to school quality, but it is a squirrelly little metric to use as a comparator with other schools, because some schools have more space relative to potential IB population than others.

Total enrollment at EH is way up. Maybe twice as many kids as a decade ago.

There is no proximity preference for middle school, but yes OOB for the Hill middle schools includes kids who live a few blocks outside the boundary. Brent probably should have been zoned to SH 10+ years ago.

Anonymous wrote:DCPS middle schools are somewhat better now than 10 years ago. Hardy is tons better. EH and maybe SH are somewhat better. John Francis, Ida Wells, and maybe the planned new Euclid middle school all have potential. Elementary schools in many neighborhoods are also better - think Garrison and Seaton in Shaw, Payne in Hill East, some of the schools in NE DC. Some of it is increased economic diversity in the student body. But it is also a combination of things like a stable administration and reduced teacher turnover that help to improve a school.

Langley is also way better, and has seen a lot of enrollment growth.

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?

DCPS middle schools are somewhat better now than 10 years ago. Hardy is tons better. EH and maybe SH are somewhat better. John Francis, Ida Wells, and maybe the planned new Euclid middle school all have potential. Elementary schools in many neighborhoods are also better - think Garrison and Seaton in Shaw, Payne in Hill East, some of the schools in NE DC. Some of it is increased economic diversity in the student body. But it is also a combination of things like a stable administration and reduced teacher turnover that help to improve a school.

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%.

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.

I feel like this reaction was defensive… I think both points are valid. More families from feeder elementary schools are choosing to go to their inbounds middle school. Also some families choose to go to the schools because they are viewed as higher quality than where ever they are in bounds for. Also with the strange gerrymandered looking boundaries of some of the Capitol Hill schools, some of the out of bounds kids might actually live right nearby, but have gotten into feeders with proximity preference. So while technically out of bounds, they are still nearby.

Don't mean to be defensive, both metrics are important. But some people don't know that the capture rate metric even exists.

You're right, the Hill boundaries make the concept of in-boundary vs walkable vs near enough all very squishy.