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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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

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.