Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

Miner inbound parent, MC, here: for what it is worth I would love the commute to Minor and Maury-we walk past these schools nearly daily anyways. Also, I would keep my child in-bound if the schools were combined and while the information has not been formally shared with the Miner inbound community, many parents in the same situation I am in feel the same.

I have always hoped my kids would get the chance to go to Maury-but after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of Maury families during the DME meetings, my sentiments are changing. I am sad that this is how my neighbors talk about the children in their neighborhood and community. The entitlement is frankly outrageous and just snobbish. To the poster worried if you combine schools “Our homes won’t fetch top dollar”: let me remind you-this is about children and not home values!!!

Many if not most Miner families have to drive out of my neighborhood for school (which pointed out by another poster on this thread is tragic for in bound Maury, but acceptable for Miner inbound). If Miner got the community/family support that other schools receive, the school would be a much better place, but unfortunately it does not.
That being said: We as a community can be better! We can combine these children and create an inclusive, nurturing, and educational environment that is more equitable for our community.

Another parent here in-bounds for Miner, though my kids are now in HS: totally agree with this. I always thought Maury would have been the ideal school for our kids, and I put it first on the lottery form way back in 2010. We didn’t get in, of course. The way people are taking on here as if their precious school will be infected by Miner kids is gross. Miner and Maury are so close together that a cluster makes much more sense than Peabody/Watkins. Also, don’t pretend that Miner families would be inconvenienced by the “commute.” Lots of Miner families have a shorter walk to Maury than to Miner, my own family included. And for pretty much everyone else, it’s a toss-up.

Thank you, yep. Why are Maury parents declaring that Miner parents do not want to trek the extra few blocks to Maury for the upper grades. The entire discussion from the Maury community is disgusting.

Lol. Let me get this straight. You are IB for Miner, lotteried for Maury, didn’t get in, and refuse to send your kid to Miner. Yet somehow Maury parents are in the wrong for not wanting to send their kids to Miner?

My kids are at Miner. Nice try.

Great, you’re happy at Miner. What’s the problem then?

I would love the opportunity for greater community IB buy-in into Miner and then on to EH. The cluster would bolster it. Without it we are happy, but we are certainly not against it and not for the reasons Maury parents have outlined. My main concern is that Miner has been given zero voice on the matter and Maury parents are answering on our behalf when those answers are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

I'm not sure why the Peabody/Watkins cluster continually gets compared to this Maury/Miner cluster when they are totally different things. Matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor because practically the entire boundary is closer to another school. The Peabody area is close to LT/Brent, the middle area is close to Brent/Tyler, and the SE area is close to Payne. There is only a small area that is actually close to Watkins.

[Anonymous]

Miner does not have the same family support as Maury because-as we have established-the student body is vastly different. More single parents, more non-traditional family set-ups, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

Miner inbound parent, MC, here: for what it is worth I would love the commute to Minor and Maury-we walk past these schools nearly daily anyways. Also, I would keep my child in-bound if the schools were combined and while the information has not been formally shared with the Miner inbound community, many parents in the same situation I am in feel the same.

I have always hoped my kids would get the chance to go to Maury-but after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of Maury families during the DME meetings, my sentiments are changing. I am sad that this is how my neighbors talk about the children in their neighborhood and community. The entitlement is frankly outrageous and just snobbish. To the poster worried if you combine schools “Our homes won’t fetch top dollar”: let me remind you-this is about children and not home values!!!

Many if not most Miner families have to drive out of my neighborhood for school (which pointed out by another poster on this thread is tragic for in bound Maury, but acceptable for Miner inbound). If Miner got the community/family support that other schools receive, the school would be a much better place, but unfortunately it does not.
That being said: We as a community can be better! We can combine these children and create an inclusive, nurturing, and educational environment that is more equitable for our community.

Another parent here in-bounds for Miner, though my kids are now in HS: totally agree with this. I always thought Maury would have been the ideal school for our kids, and I put it first on the lottery form way back in 2010. We didn’t get in, of course. The way people are taking on here as if their precious school will be infected by Miner kids is gross. Miner and Maury are so close together that a cluster makes much more sense than Peabody/Watkins. Also, don’t pretend that Miner families would be inconvenienced by the “commute.” Lots of Miner families have a shorter walk to Maury than to Miner, my own family included. And for pretty much everyone else, it’s a toss-up.

It's not just about the commute to one school or the other -- it's also about having to commute to *both* schools for the many families that have two or more children. This would adversely affect my family, which, frankly, is a good enough reason for me to oppose, but I do also question the wisdom of introducing new obstacles to attendance for the 44% of Miner students who are chronically absent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maury parent here. I too have been dismayed at some of the comments from parents in our school community. I am not excusing any of it, but I do want to remind people that the most outspoken are not always indicative of the community at large. They're just the loudest and most obnoxious.

I am not inherently opposed to the cluster. Frankly, I am awaiting some data, evidence and support that this is a good idea for BOTH Miner and Maury students. At this point, no one seems able to answer critical logistical questions that will have profound impacts on both communities. It's baffling that a recommendation is this close to being given to the Mayor without any of the details of the execution ironed out.

One of my main concerns is the huge increase in school populations that will result in approximately 8 classrooms per grade. No one seems to be talking about this. Both schools will completely lose the school community feel and opportunity to get to know families and children well through the years, which I believe is essential to school success and support. Children will often have to make entirely new friends year after year, because it is likely they will only know a few kids in their classes. This model would make our children's elementary school larger than a lot of high schools and even some small colleges.

Additional questions I believe both school communities need answers to in order to make informed opinions:

Does the current Capitol Hill Cluster school demonstrate the success desired? Why or why not and how is that model different?

How would Miner-Maury cluster school success be measured? Socio-economic and racial equity? Test scores? Achievement? Attendance? IB students enrolled? All of the above and more?

Where is the data on what impact the change to a cluster school would have on both Miner and Maury enrollment?

What impact will a cluster have on school funding?

What will happen to resources like Think Tank and PTA funded TAs currently at Maury? (recognizing that PTA funded resources like this are inherently unfair as well)

What will happen to Miner’s Title 1 status?

What impact would a combined cluster have on universal free school lunch or aftercare currently offered at Miner?

What are the physical building logistics? Neither school is currently equipped to fully accommodate just Pre-K students or just upper-grade students. What kind of timeline would be needed for renovations and reconfiguration? What would happen to the schools in their current state while those renovations are undertaken? Would kids be disrupted multiple times and moved out of the buildings during that process?

What does the Miner community have to say about this proposed change?

Will all classes be mixed ability levels or will there be any class leveling? Combining schools with such varying proficiency levels will have profound impacts on students on both ends of the spectrum. How do you plan to ensure students who are struggling do not fall even further behind and students who are achieving at or above grade level don’t stagnate?

Is this the only recommendation being made to address the Miner-specific concerns or are there other ideas being proposed?

So you’re “dismayed” at fellow parents, but then go on to list the exact same concerns everyone has been raising? Lol. This is very “Maury.”

I can identify at least two topics -- relative crime and home values -- that people have identified as objectionable that this PP has not included. Everything PP listed is a good, objectively reasonable question to my mind. If people are suggesting that any of these are offensive in some way, I think they have left the realm of good faith.

Why are those two things so objectionable and apparently taboo to you? You’re living in some kind of la-la land where not speaking about problems that actually DO matter a great deal to people (safety, economics) somehow makes them disappear. It’s unclear to me why some people think it is socially acceptable to fret about “differentiation” and yet not fret about getting shot or losing home equity.

Not to get too sidetracked, but I specifically said that "people" have identified them as objectionable, not me. My point was just that I've heard people explain why they think those topics/comments are potentially offensive, and I think they could believe that in good faith. But if the post mocking this list of questions was suggesting that these types of questions are offensive or insulting to Miner families, then it does seem like they are just trying to bully people out of raising any questions at all about this idea. Because these questions are all clearly fair and not remotely insulting/offensive, even if you squint.

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day the fact that people are more concerned about the value of their homes than the equity of schools is disgusting. It makes me glad my kid goes to Miner and not Maury. I know that’s not indicative of the community as a whole, but the unwelcoming and frankly discriminatory nature of the Maury commentary is just horrible (and my friends at Maury are as repulsed as I am). Why any of you choose to send your kids to PUBLIC school in Washington, DC is beyond me. Just go private and move to McLean where you clearly would rather be as there are more rich white people there.

For the record the benefits to the Maury Community (in addition to teaching kids about equity and inclusion which they clearly won’t learn at home) include additional funding for title 1 and guaranteed access to PreK. That is of course if you can handle us Miner folks “diluting” your population.

Also how many IB Maury families go to Miner for PreK and then head to Maury for K? A lot. So Miner certainly has some merit, just not enough to actually combine the populations permanently (until middle school of course).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day the fact that people are more concerned about the value of their homes than the equity of schools is disgusting. It makes me glad my kid goes to Miner and not Maury. I know that’s not indicative of the community as a whole, but the unwelcoming and frankly discriminatory nature of the Maury commentary is just horrible (and my friends at Maury are as repulsed as I am). Why any of you choose to send your kids to PUBLIC school in Washington, DC is beyond me. Just go private and move to McLean where you clearly would rather be as there are more rich white people there.

For the record the benefits to the Maury Community (in addition to teaching kids about equity and inclusion which they clearly won’t learn at home) include additional funding for title 1 and guaranteed access to PreK. That is of course if you can handle us Miner folks “diluting” your population.

Also how many IB Maury families go to Miner for PreK and then head to Maury for K? A lot. So Miner certainly has some merit, just not enough to actually combine the populations permanently (until middle school of course).

What makes you think Maury as clustered would be title I eligible?

Why do you think Miner's IB percentage is so low? Why are so many people choosing not to attend Miner even though they live IB? Has the DME or DCPS thought about anything to address those issues?

[Anonymous]

Speaking of middle school...

How many people are planning on blaming DCPS for having their ES and MS *so* *far* *away* and FORCING you to suffer through two different drop offs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

Miner inbound parent, MC, here: for what it is worth I would love the commute to Minor and Maury-we walk past these schools nearly daily anyways. Also, I would keep my child in-bound if the schools were combined and while the information has not been formally shared with the Miner inbound community, many parents in the same situation I am in feel the same.

I have always hoped my kids would get the chance to go to Maury-but after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of Maury families during the DME meetings, my sentiments are changing. I am sad that this is how my neighbors talk about the children in their neighborhood and community. The entitlement is frankly outrageous and just snobbish. To the poster worried if you combine schools “Our homes won’t fetch top dollar”: let me remind you-this is about children and not home values!!!

Many if not most Miner families have to drive out of my neighborhood for school (which pointed out by another poster on this thread is tragic for in bound Maury, but acceptable for Miner inbound). If Miner got the community/family support that other schools receive, the school would be a much better place, but unfortunately it does not.
That being said: We as a community can be better! We can combine these children and create an inclusive, nurturing, and educational environment that is more equitable for our community.

I think this is unfair. I have heard overwhelming sentiment from Maury parents, both in person and on this thread, very supportive of DC giving Miner the resources it needs to get on track (not least a stable administration and strong principal), and absolutely no one saying it's okay for Miner families to have to do X but not Maury families.

We disagree on the merits. Among other things, I think this would hurt enrollment of MC and upper MC kids, at least on the Maury side, and that that would have serious negative follow-on effects for EH, which already lags SH.

I also think the cluster model--irrespective of what schools are paired--would make for a materially worse school environment/community for my kids and family. I love having whole school morning meetings where my kid gets to see a bit of what's in store for him as an older student, I love going in to help out and to class events where I can hit both my kids' classrooms with one trip (and for that matter, love dropping them off at and picking them up from the same place, and I love that there is strong grade-wide community because the normal school size makes it possible to get to know almost everyone in their grade (and ditto with families). We deliberately did not move into the Peabody/Watkins boundary to avoid a cluster model -- and that is a much smaller combined population. And I think fundamentally restructuring the school experience will detract a ton from what is good and working at Maury now. It won't be Maury-for-All, but Maury-for-None.

Why is this comment unfair?
Not to get into the semantics here, but yes-someone did state earlier that if Maury/Miner would combine they would be forced to drive to a different school outside Miner. Please read all 60 plus pages of this thread.
Hypothetically, if the MC and UMC leave Maury they will
happily be replaced with MC and UMC families currently inbound to Miner. I am not sure why everyone thinks that every family inbound for Miner is not MC or UMC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

Miner inbound parent, MC, here: for what it is worth I would love the commute to Minor and Maury-we walk past these schools nearly daily anyways. Also, I would keep my child in-bound if the schools were combined and while the information has not been formally shared with the Miner inbound community, many parents in the same situation I am in feel the same.

I have always hoped my kids would get the chance to go to Maury-but after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of Maury families during the DME meetings, my sentiments are changing. I am sad that this is how my neighbors talk about the children in their neighborhood and community. The entitlement is frankly outrageous and just snobbish. To the poster worried if you combine schools “Our homes won’t fetch top dollar”: let me remind you-this is about children and not home values!!!

Many if not most Miner families have to drive out of my neighborhood for school (which pointed out by another poster on this thread is tragic for in bound Maury, but acceptable for Miner inbound). If Miner got the community/family support that other schools receive, the school would be a much better place, but unfortunately it does not.
That being said: We as a community can be better! We can combine these children and create an inclusive, nurturing, and educational environment that is more equitable for our community.

Another parent here in-bounds for Miner, though my kids are now in HS: totally agree with this. I always thought Maury would have been the ideal school for our kids, and I put it first on the lottery form way back in 2010. We didn’t get in, of course. The way people are taking on here as if their precious school will be infected by Miner kids is gross. Miner and Maury are so close together that a cluster makes much more sense than Peabody/Watkins. Also, don’t pretend that Miner families would be inconvenienced by the “commute.” Lots of Miner families have a shorter walk to Maury than to Miner, my own family included. And for pretty much everyone else, it’s a toss-up.

Thank you, yep. Why are Maury parents declaring that Miner parents do not want to trek the extra few blocks to Maury for the upper grades. The entire discussion from the Maury community is disgusting.

Lol. Let me get this straight. You are IB for Miner, lotteried for Maury, didn’t get in, and refuse to send your kid to Miner. Yet somehow Maury parents are in the wrong for not wanting to send their kids to Miner?

My kids are at Miner. Nice try.

Great, you’re happy at Miner. What’s the problem then?

I would love the opportunity for greater community IB buy-in into Miner and then on to EH. The cluster would bolster it. Without it we are happy, but we are certainly not against it and not for the reasons Maury parents have outlined. My main concern is that Miner has been given zero voice on the matter and Maury parents are answering on our behalf when those answers are wrong.

If you want more Miner buy in, then *do the work* and get your neighbors to attend. It’s just so incredibly hypocritical that you preferred Maury over Miner and then condemn other people who prefer Maury as is. Sour grapes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day the fact that people are more concerned about the value of their homes than the equity of schools is disgusting. It makes me glad my kid goes to Miner and not Maury. I know that’s not indicative of the community as a whole, but the unwelcoming and frankly discriminatory nature of the Maury commentary is just horrible (and my friends at Maury are as repulsed as I am). Why any of you choose to send your kids to PUBLIC school in Washington, DC is beyond me. Just go private and move to McLean where you clearly would rather be as there are more rich white people there.

For the record the benefits to the Maury Community (in addition to teaching kids about equity and inclusion which they clearly won’t learn at home) include additional funding for title 1 and guaranteed access to PreK. That is of course if you can handle us Miner folks “diluting” your population.

Also how many IB Maury families go to Miner for PreK and then head to Maury for K? A lot. So Miner certainly has some merit, just not enough to actually combine the populations permanently (until middle school of course).

I don't know who you are talking too, but I'm not hearing Maury parents say the things you're saying they are. And at this point I've seen more hurtful generalizations and insults about Maury families than Miner families. In just the last couple of posts we are disgusting, repulsive, racist. It might help the quality of the discussion if you didn't assume the worst about Maury parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

I'm not sure why the Peabody/Watkins cluster continually gets compared to this Maury/Miner cluster when they are totally different things. Matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor because practically the entire boundary is closer to another school. The Peabody area is close to LT/Brent, the middle area is close to Brent/Tyler, and the SE area is close to Payne. There is only a small area that is actually close to Watkins.

I’m not sure that’s the only reason though. I’ve also heard complaints that there was a deliberate effort to shut out the concerns of IB parents at Watkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of middle school...

How many people are planning on blaming DCPS for having their ES and MS *so* *far* *away* and FORCING you to suffer through two different drop offs?

MS kids walk or bike to school on their own. Any other questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day the fact that people are more concerned about the value of their homes than the equity of schools is disgusting. It makes me glad my kid goes to Miner and not Maury. I know that’s not indicative of the community as a whole, but the unwelcoming and frankly discriminatory nature of the Maury commentary is just horrible (and my friends at Maury are as repulsed as I am). Why any of you choose to send your kids to PUBLIC school in Washington, DC is beyond me. Just go private and move to McLean where you clearly would rather be as there are more rich white people there.

For the record the benefits to the Maury Community (in addition to teaching kids about equity and inclusion which they clearly won’t learn at home) include additional funding for title 1 and guaranteed access to PreK. That is of course if you can handle us Miner folks “diluting” your population.

Also how many IB Maury families go to Miner for PreK and then head to Maury for K? A lot. So Miner certainly has some merit, just not enough to actually combine the populations permanently (until middle school of course).

This. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

Miner inbound parent, MC, here: for what it is worth I would love the commute to Minor and Maury-we walk past these schools nearly daily anyways. Also, I would keep my child in-bound if the schools were combined and while the information has not been formally shared with the Miner inbound community, many parents in the same situation I am in feel the same.

I have always hoped my kids would get the chance to go to Maury-but after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of Maury families during the DME meetings, my sentiments are changing. I am sad that this is how my neighbors talk about the children in their neighborhood and community. The entitlement is frankly outrageous and just snobbish. To the poster worried if you combine schools “Our homes won’t fetch top dollar”: let me remind you-this is about children and not home values!!!

Many if not most Miner families have to drive out of my neighborhood for school (which pointed out by another poster on this thread is tragic for in bound Maury, but acceptable for Miner inbound). If Miner got the community/family support that other schools receive, the school would be a much better place, but unfortunately it does not.
That being said: We as a community can be better! We can combine these children and create an inclusive, nurturing, and educational environment that is more equitable for our community.

I think this is unfair. I have heard overwhelming sentiment from Maury parents, both in person and on this thread, very supportive of DC giving Miner the resources it needs to get on track (not least a stable administration and strong principal), and absolutely no one saying it's okay for Miner families to have to do X but not Maury families.

We disagree on the merits. Among other things, I think this would hurt enrollment of MC and upper MC kids, at least on the Maury side, and that that would have serious negative follow-on effects for EH, which already lags SH.

I also think the cluster model--irrespective of what schools are paired--would make for a materially worse school environment/community for my kids and family. I love having whole school morning meetings where my kid gets to see a bit of what's in store for him as an older student, I love going in to help out and to class events where I can hit both my kids' classrooms with one trip (and for that matter, love dropping them off at and picking them up from the same place, and I love that there is strong grade-wide community because the normal school size makes it possible to get to know almost everyone in their grade (and ditto with families). We deliberately did not move into the Peabody/Watkins boundary to avoid a cluster model -- and that is a much smaller combined population. And I think fundamentally restructuring the school experience will detract a ton from what is good and working at Maury now. It won't be Maury-for-All, but Maury-for-None.

Why is this comment unfair?
Not to get into the semantics here, but yes-someone did state earlier that if Maury/Miner would combine they would be forced to drive to a different school outside Miner. Please read all 60 plus pages of this thread.
Hypothetically, if the MC and UMC leave Maury they will
happily be replaced with MC and UMC families currently inbound to Miner. I am not sure why everyone thinks that every family inbound for Miner is not MC or UMC.

I've been here the whole time. I've read everything. I never said no one complained about driving to a different school, but I do dispute that they said that is okay for Miner families but not for Maury families. To the contrary, I have seen and heard pretty unanimous support among Maury families for DC to give Miner more resources to make it more attractive for its IB families.