Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day some of us are trying to engage with human behavior as it actually is and make our predictions data-based and realistic. Are you?

Absolutely and data shows that kids who go to a more diverse school (whether racially, socioeconomically, or academically) can benefit ALL the students.

No it does not. Busing (which is basically what this is) is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure by all sides. In contrast, creating diversity through actual community participation - ie creating schools where IB families chose to go - can result in positive impacts. But at the end of the day there are not enough rich white kids to be the medicine to fix DCPS - and that it what fundamentally makes this a PR exercise and not a legitimate attempt for DCPS to solve its problems.

This is not "basically" busing. If they cluster the schools, no one will be bussed. They will go to their IB, neighborhood school unless they choose to lottery out or go private.

Bussing is when you take kids in one neighborhood and put them on an actual bus to send them to a school in another neighborhood. It has nothing to do with this situation at all.

It’s busing without the buses. Sending kids from one school to another for the sole purpose of demographics.

Oh it's not busing, just a far walk! Totally different!

3-4 blocks is “far”? Really?

It's far for a 3 year old. And the total commute of home-Maury-Miner-work adds up to a lot.

Is there any talk of a shuttle like Watkins used to have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one had told us (Miner Community at least) whether the plan would cost us title 1 funding. That would make a huge difference. Some people are obviously under the impression that we would keep it, others are saying we won’t. Has anything been stated either way or is everyone just assuming? I truly don’t know.

It's not clear and I think part of it would come down to whether the cluster was treated as one school for purposes of T1 status, or two separate schools (and I don't think we even got an answer for whether Peabody/Watkins are treated separately or together).

If separately, I think it would probably be a situation where the lower school lost T1 status and the upper school retained it, especially when you look at the demographics of Maury now, where upper grades are more socioeconomically diverse, and assume that there would be attrition from the Maury zone especially for PARCC testing grades.

There might be a grace period where any loss of T1 status wouldn't happen immediately due to the shift (I think schools usually get a 1 year warning of this loss, don't know how the formation of a cluster school comprised of one T1 and one non-T1 would impact that) and potentially solutions could be found if the lower school lost its status. The biggest issue would be aftercare and school lunch. But if the school had a bunch of Maury parents used to paying for both of those things anyway, it's possible that funding could be found to ensure free aftercare (or sliding scale) for families that need it.

I'm just speculating here, I don't have answers, I definitely agree that if a cluster proceeds, the T1 status issue needs to be address right up front because if it's going to mean a loss in services to FARMS kids at either school, that completely undermines the entire premise of the cluster.

This information is on the DCPS site. Peabody is not Title 1. Watkins is Title 1. Also I doubt PTA funds would go to aftercare - funds would be spread thinner across the proposed cluster and academic needs would likely be prioritized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these comments from non-Miner parents about how Miner parents should just invest in the school and fix it are ignorant.

First, as was explained quite early in this thread to explain why Maury and Miner have such different demographics to begin with, Miner has a significant amount of low income housing that Maury does not have. Even if every high-SES family IB for Miner sent their kids to Miner, it would still have a much higher percentage of low income and at-risk kids. Maury has little to no low-income housing in its boundary, which means that as it grew its IB percentage, it greatly shrank the at risk population. The same thing would not happen at Miner.

Second, Miner's location close to Benning road means that it is an attractive lottery option for kids coming from across the river. Thus, without buy-in from IB families, the school has a lot of kids from Wards 7 and 8 who statistically are more likely to be at risk. Maury used to get more Ward 7/8 students back when it was Title 1 with a lower IB percentage, but not nearly as much as Miner because it's location is a much less convenient commute, especially if you are taking public transportation.

Having a large low-income IB contingent and having a history of being a Ward 7/8 destination school can make the kind of upward trajectory that Maury has been on hard if not impossible. There is often fear that improving the school in a way that is appealing to higher SES families will destroy what these families value about the school. The most obvious concerns revolve around Title 1 status and access to free before/after care and free school lunch. That's not a small thing for a low-income family -- these benefits can be essential. Even if they were assured that the school would keep these services free for low income families, there is not a lot of trust there and also no one wants to have to jump through hoops for something they currently get without even having to sign up.

Often MC and UMC families will stick it out until K or 1st, but then they start running into other issues, especially regarding teaching approach and classroom management. School with large at risk populations tend to attract teachers who are okay teaching large at risk populations. These teachers are not always thrilled about having an increasing number of higher SES kids in their class, and in particular are often very wary of the increased involvement and sometimes demands of these parents. Yes, there is a racial component here. But it's also just a culture clash. What seems like "being a good parent" to an UMC white person can seem like "overbearing, demanding ahole" to a teacher in this position.

At this point parents start making choices both for their own comfort (it can be emotionally tiring to constantly be trying to bridge these racial, economic, and cultural divides with sensitivity and self-awareness -- it is work) and for the sake of their kids, who they may worry will not always get the support or welcome in the classroom or the school that every parent wants for their kids. So they go.

For Maury parents to waive this off and say "just do what we did at Maury" like Maury did not have demographic advantages that made their success easier, is going to piss off Miner parents who have been working on this for years, whether they are still at Miner or not. Because it is SO EASY for Maury parents, especially those who are not PTA members or people who really worked to turn the school around, to just tell Miner parents to "do it yourself."

The truth is that "turning around" a struggling school with more than 60% at risk kids is not something that your average parent or even group of parents can do, especially not if you have a job and literally any other issues in your life. It is a steep uphill battle with low changes of success, and for most parents, any success will likely come after their kids are done with elementary. It is a different, and harder, challenge than what was accomplished at Maury.

No, it's that *DCPS* should invest in Miner, or at least stop screwing it over with horrible leadership choices.

Maury parents are trying to say the same thing you are-- that too high a concentration of at-risk kids makes it an uphill battle. And if Maury and Miner are clustered, it will be an uphill battle at both schools. That is why this proposal is unrealistic and will not have the desired effect.

But Maury is overwhelmingly higher income. So combining the schools immediately results in a more balanced population where, instead of one school that is mostly black and at risk, and one school that is predominantly white with very few at risk, you get a more diverse school with about 30-35% at risk.

A school with that percent of at-risk kids is harder to guide and help succeed than a school with 12% (as Maury now has), yes. But it's WAY easier than a school with 65% at risk, as Miner now has. So the resulting school would be a more difficult experience for Maury families, but a significantly better experience for Miner.

The question is whether you think it's wrong or not to inconvenience Maury families in order to help Miner families. This depends on how you view public education.

A couple major problems with this stick out to me. One, no explanation of the real problems. Presumably, balancing the population is a goal because it is meant to help kids do better in school -- but DME has completely refused to explain how this move alone would help kids do better in school, let alone what additional support/resources they are willing to offer to actually help the kids (especially at-risk kids) attend school more consistently, reach grade level, etc.

Two, a misunderstanding of the demographics of Maury. Maury is not immune to attrition in the upper grades as some families leave the school, both to seek out a better elementary academic experience and to take a spot that will give them a better MS path. Not all high SES or education-focused families do this, but the ones who do this are naturally more likely to be higher SES (to have the resources to pay for private or travel to a farther school) or to really prioritize education, and as a result the demographics of the upper grades (most stark in 5th) are different from, for example, ECE. That's going to mean that the make-up of the 5th grade at a potential combined school is going to be especially challenging, which will lead more families to opt out before or at that point, which is not good for the school and which is disastrous for EH (which is not good for a lot of the Hill).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these comments from non-Miner parents about how Miner parents should just invest in the school and fix it are ignorant.

First, as was explained quite early in this thread to explain why Maury and Miner have such different demographics to begin with, Miner has a significant amount of low income housing that Maury does not have. Even if every high-SES family IB for Miner sent their kids to Miner, it would still have a much higher percentage of low income and at-risk kids. Maury has little to no low-income housing in its boundary, which means that as it grew its IB percentage, it greatly shrank the at risk population. The same thing would not happen at Miner.

Second, Miner's location close to Benning road means that it is an attractive lottery option for kids coming from across the river. Thus, without buy-in from IB families, the school has a lot of kids from Wards 7 and 8 who statistically are more likely to be at risk. Maury used to get more Ward 7/8 students back when it was Title 1 with a lower IB percentage, but not nearly as much as Miner because it's location is a much less convenient commute, especially if you are taking public transportation.

Having a large low-income IB contingent and having a history of being a Ward 7/8 destination school can make the kind of upward trajectory that Maury has been on hard if not impossible. There is often fear that improving the school in a way that is appealing to higher SES families will destroy what these families value about the school. The most obvious concerns revolve around Title 1 status and access to free before/after care and free school lunch. That's not a small thing for a low-income family -- these benefits can be essential. Even if they were assured that the school would keep these services free for low income families, there is not a lot of trust there and also no one wants to have to jump through hoops for something they currently get without even having to sign up.

Often MC and UMC families will stick it out until K or 1st, but then they start running into other issues, especially regarding teaching approach and classroom management. School with large at risk populations tend to attract teachers who are okay teaching large at risk populations. These teachers are not always thrilled about having an increasing number of higher SES kids in their class, and in particular are often very wary of the increased involvement and sometimes demands of these parents. Yes, there is a racial component here. But it's also just a culture clash. What seems like "being a good parent" to an UMC white person can seem like "overbearing, demanding ahole" to a teacher in this position.

At this point parents start making choices both for their own comfort (it can be emotionally tiring to constantly be trying to bridge these racial, economic, and cultural divides with sensitivity and self-awareness -- it is work) and for the sake of their kids, who they may worry will not always get the support or welcome in the classroom or the school that every parent wants for their kids. So they go.

For Maury parents to waive this off and say "just do what we did at Maury" like Maury did not have demographic advantages that made their success easier, is going to piss off Miner parents who have been working on this for years, whether they are still at Miner or not. Because it is SO EASY for Maury parents, especially those who are not PTA members or people who really worked to turn the school around, to just tell Miner parents to "do it yourself."

The truth is that "turning around" a struggling school with more than 60% at risk kids is not something that your average parent or even group of parents can do, especially not if you have a job and literally any other issues in your life. It is a steep uphill battle with low changes of success, and for most parents, any success will likely come after their kids are done with elementary. It is a different, and harder, challenge than what was accomplished at Maury.

Good post but none of what you wrote makes a cluster seem more feasible. I wonder again why DME claims that it is impossible to just redraw the boundaries? Also I think the Miner zone has enough SFH that the school would be much more balanced on SES if the IB rate went up. But as you correctly note, DC has no interest in taking steps to voluntarily attract high SES IB families.

I think the problem with redrawing boundaries is that the low-income housing in the Miner zone is clustered in a way that makes it very hard to divide between boundaries. Especially when you understand that most low-income housing is multi-family, so you run into the problem of whether to locate an apartment complex on this side or that side of the line, and it totally changes the composition of the zones. There is also the problem that the current Miner boundary actually encompasses a lot of property zoned commercial, whereas Maury's includes almost none. This can make it hard to balance populations if you try to draw the line vertically up to Benning instead of the current line that is horizontal and then flows diagonally southward. If you slice the commercial strip along Benning (which also includes some housing) in half and try to draw the line south, you wind up with population imbalances between the zones.

Oh and finally, one problem with redrawing the zones is the actually physical location of the schools currently. Specifically because they are so close together, you have to draw a boundary between them. This forces a horizontal line and also limits your options unless you are willing to create super jerry-rigged zones where the school in question is located in a weird peninsula of the zone, such that everyone IB for the school lives oddly far from it.

As angry as some people are about the cluster idea, I guarantee you that some of the weird boundary redraws they probably came up with to balance the populations would have made people MUCH more angry. You think people are annoyed about having to walk 4 blocks to drop off PK kids? Well guess what, now you are zoned out of the school you live literally next door to, so that people who live a mile and a half away can attend it. People would have lost their minds about that, too.

Still not understanding why an at-risk set-aside isn't the solution. Get rid of PK3 at Maury if that's what it takes to make room.

Oh, because it won't force high-SES kids to Miner? Wah. There are plenty of other things to do that would improve Miner. Maybe creating a school that people want to go to, I know it sounds crazy.

Reasons the at-risk set aside isn't a good solution:

(1) Maury is required to serve all IB K-5 students, and is currently at or near capacity with a mostly IB student population. Even if you eliminate PK3, you'r talking about maybe 40 spots? Miner has more than 300 kids/
(2) The at risk set aside would presumably be city wide, so there's no guarantee that even a single Miner student would benefit
(3) At-risk set asides elsewhere in the city have struggled to attract applicants in the lottery. It's hard to know exactly why -- could be a marketing issue, a resource issue, something else. But many go unfilled. So it hasn't been a hugely successful strategy previously and there's no evidence it would work here.
(4) Even if an at-risk set aside actually worked, and even if it helped at-risk kids currently attending Miner, it would have no impact on kids at Miner or in Miner's boundary who are not at-risk, who are currently being very poorly served by their IB school.

1) 40 seats plus all OOB offers. Last year Maury offered 12 K seats in the initial lottery. Also, trailers and renovations are maybe possible. And a set-aside at SWS could take some too.

2) It's bizarre to think some Miner students wouldn't benefit.

3) Maybe they can try a little harder, and offering it for more grades at more schools should help.

4) Bummer, but not Maury's problem to solve, and at great logistical cost to both Miner and Maury families. And not necessarily going to be solved by this. High-SES peers are not some magic wand that fixes poor administration and poor teaching and why are you assuming the high-SES kids would stay in this scenario?

1) Okay so 52 spots? Again, Miner has 300+ kids, 65% of whom are at risk. SWS is a tiny school, even if you did a 30% set aside at SWS, you aren't coming close to addressing the needs of at-risk students at Miner.

2) If 5 Miner kids benefit, have you solved the problems at Miner?

3) This is a non-response. No one knows for sure why the EA set asides aren't working. They've already tried "a little harder" and additional schools just added set asides in the last few years. Still they are undersubscribed. Saying "maybe this thing that hasn't worked will suddenly start working" is not an argument.

4) You need to stop looking at this entire process as Maury "solving" anything. I have something maybe surprising for you to hear: you don't own Maury. It's a DCPS school. DCPS can do whatever they want with it, including shift the boundaries, close it, combine it with Miner, turn it into a city-wide, whatever. You can choose whether or not to send your kid there, but no one is saying "Maury community, please solve our problems." Rather, Maury is viewed as one component of an interconnected school system, and there is a process underway to see if resources, students, etc., need to be reallocated among various schools, of which Maury is one. The amount of martyrdom we are hearing from Maury families is ridiculous. Your kids go to public school, in a city where the public school system has major problems you are currently pretty immune from. Good for you? There was never any guarantee that situation would continue.

[Anonymous]

If Maury is too crowded, why can't some of it be rezoned to Watkins or Payne? And wouldn't that improve integration at those schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day some of us are trying to engage with human behavior as it actually is and make our predictions data-based and realistic. Are you?

Absolutely and data shows that kids who go to a more diverse school (whether racially, socioeconomically, or academically) can benefit ALL the students.

No it does not. Busing (which is basically what this is) is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure by all sides. In contrast, creating diversity through actual community participation - ie creating schools where IB families chose to go - can result in positive impacts. But at the end of the day there are not enough rich white kids to be the medicine to fix DCPS - and that it what fundamentally makes this a PR exercise and not a legitimate attempt for DCPS to solve its problems.

This is not "basically" busing. If they cluster the schools, no one will be bussed. They will go to their IB, neighborhood school unless they choose to lottery out or go private.

Bussing is when you take kids in one neighborhood and put them on an actual bus to send them to a school in another neighborhood. It has nothing to do with this situation at all.

It’s busing without the buses. Sending kids from one school to another for the sole purpose of demographics.

Oh it's not busing, just a far walk! Totally different!

3-4 blocks is “far”? Really?

It's far for a 3 year old. And the total commute of home-Maury-Miner-work adds up to a lot.

Is there any talk of a shuttle like Watkins used to have?

I would assume that would have to be parent (PTA) funded. I don’t disagree that it’s a bit of a walk for a 3 year old but I do think that when some Miner IB families are actually closer to Maury and some Maury IB are closer to Miner, it makes the distance argument one of the weaker ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day some of us are trying to engage with human behavior as it actually is and make our predictions data-based and realistic. Are you?

Absolutely and data shows that kids who go to a more diverse school (whether racially, socioeconomically, or academically) can benefit ALL the students.

No it does not. Busing (which is basically what this is) is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure by all sides. In contrast, creating diversity through actual community participation - ie creating schools where IB families chose to go - can result in positive impacts. But at the end of the day there are not enough rich white kids to be the medicine to fix DCPS - and that it what fundamentally makes this a PR exercise and not a legitimate attempt for DCPS to solve its problems.

This is not "basically" busing. If they cluster the schools, no one will be bussed. They will go to their IB, neighborhood school unless they choose to lottery out or go private.

Bussing is when you take kids in one neighborhood and put them on an actual bus to send them to a school in another neighborhood. It has nothing to do with this situation at all.

It’s busing without the buses. Sending kids from one school to another for the sole purpose of demographics.

Oh it's not busing, just a far walk! Totally different!

It's so silly. Honestly, if the city would provide a bus to shuttle the kids back and forth so families only have to be one stop, that would at least alleviate some of the burden, but they won't even do that for Peabody/Watkins. DC can't even bus right!!

[Anonymous]

Miner does have parents that are trying their hardest to improve the school. All parents automatically join PTA and even donate their entire month’s salary to the PTA.
The PTA at Miner were able to obtain additional faculty because they paid their salary. These folks want the best for their child and their classmates no matter where they attend. So please, can we stop with the Miner parents don’t try hard enough stuff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Miner does have parents that are trying their hardest to improve the school. All parents automatically join PTA and even donate their entire month’s salary to the PTA.
The PTA at Miner were able to obtain additional faculty because they paid their salary. These folks want the best for their child and their classmates no matter where they attend. So please, can we stop with the Miner parents don’t try hard enough stuff?

This is inaccurate. The Miner PTO has never raised enough money to fund staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Maury is too crowded, why can't some of it be rezoned to Watkins or Payne? And wouldn't that improve integration at those schools?

or clustered with Miner...boom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miner does have parents that are trying their hardest to improve the school. All parents automatically join PTA and even donate their entire month’s salary to the PTA.
The PTA at Miner were able to obtain additional faculty because they paid their salary. These folks want the best for their child and their classmates no matter where they attend. So please, can we stop with the Miner parents don’t try hard enough stuff?

This is inaccurate. The Miner PTO has never raised enough money to fund staff.

But you are 100% right about Miner families working hard. I should not have stopped where I did with my previous comment, my apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these comments from non-Miner parents about how Miner parents should just invest in the school and fix it are ignorant.

First, as was explained quite early in this thread to explain why Maury and Miner have such different demographics to begin with, Miner has a significant amount of low income housing that Maury does not have. Even if every high-SES family IB for Miner sent their kids to Miner, it would still have a much higher percentage of low income and at-risk kids. Maury has little to no low-income housing in its boundary, which means that as it grew its IB percentage, it greatly shrank the at risk population. The same thing would not happen at Miner.

Second, Miner's location close to Benning road means that it is an attractive lottery option for kids coming from across the river. Thus, without buy-in from IB families, the school has a lot of kids from Wards 7 and 8 who statistically are more likely to be at risk. Maury used to get more Ward 7/8 students back when it was Title 1 with a lower IB percentage, but not nearly as much as Miner because it's location is a much less convenient commute, especially if you are taking public transportation.

Having a large low-income IB contingent and having a history of being a Ward 7/8 destination school can make the kind of upward trajectory that Maury has been on hard if not impossible. There is often fear that improving the school in a way that is appealing to higher SES families will destroy what these families value about the school. The most obvious concerns revolve around Title 1 status and access to free before/after care and free school lunch. That's not a small thing for a low-income family -- these benefits can be essential. Even if they were assured that the school would keep these services free for low income families, there is not a lot of trust there and also no one wants to have to jump through hoops for something they currently get without even having to sign up.

Often MC and UMC families will stick it out until K or 1st, but then they start running into other issues, especially regarding teaching approach and classroom management. School with large at risk populations tend to attract teachers who are okay teaching large at risk populations. These teachers are not always thrilled about having an increasing number of higher SES kids in their class, and in particular are often very wary of the increased involvement and sometimes demands of these parents. Yes, there is a racial component here. But it's also just a culture clash. What seems like "being a good parent" to an UMC white person can seem like "overbearing, demanding ahole" to a teacher in this position.

At this point parents start making choices both for their own comfort (it can be emotionally tiring to constantly be trying to bridge these racial, economic, and cultural divides with sensitivity and self-awareness -- it is work) and for the sake of their kids, who they may worry will not always get the support or welcome in the classroom or the school that every parent wants for their kids. So they go.

For Maury parents to waive this off and say "just do what we did at Maury" like Maury did not have demographic advantages that made their success easier, is going to piss off Miner parents who have been working on this for years, whether they are still at Miner or not. Because it is SO EASY for Maury parents, especially those who are not PTA members or people who really worked to turn the school around, to just tell Miner parents to "do it yourself."

The truth is that "turning around" a struggling school with more than 60% at risk kids is not something that your average parent or even group of parents can do, especially not if you have a job and literally any other issues in your life. It is a steep uphill battle with low changes of success, and for most parents, any success will likely come after their kids are done with elementary. It is a different, and harder, challenge than what was accomplished at Maury.

No, it's that *DCPS* should invest in Miner, or at least stop screwing it over with horrible leadership choices.

Maury parents are trying to say the same thing you are-- that too high a concentration of at-risk kids makes it an uphill battle. And if Maury and Miner are clustered, it will be an uphill battle at both schools. That is why this proposal is unrealistic and will not have the desired effect.

But Maury is overwhelmingly higher income. So combining the schools immediately results in a more balanced population where, instead of one school that is mostly black and at risk, and one school that is predominantly white with very few at risk, you get a more diverse school with about 30-35% at risk.

A school with that percent of at-risk kids is harder to guide and help succeed than a school with 12% (as Maury now has), yes. But it's WAY easier than a school with 65% at risk, as Miner now has. So the resulting school would be a more difficult experience for Maury families, but a significantly better experience for Miner.

The question is whether you think it's wrong or not to inconvenience Maury families in order to help Miner families. This depends on how you view public education.

A couple major problems with this stick out to me. One, no explanation of the real problems. Presumably, balancing the population is a goal because it is meant to help kids do better in school -- but DME has completely refused to explain how this move alone would help kids do better in school, let alone what additional support/resources they are willing to offer to actually help the kids (especially at-risk kids) attend school more consistently, reach grade level, etc.

Two, a misunderstanding of the demographics of Maury. Maury is not immune to attrition in the upper grades as some families leave the school, both to seek out a better elementary academic experience and to take a spot that will give them a better MS path. Not all high SES or education-focused families do this, but the ones who do this are naturally more likely to be higher SES (to have the resources to pay for private or travel to a farther school) or to really prioritize education, and as a result the demographics of the upper grades (most stark in 5th) are different from, for example, ECE. That's going to mean that the make-up of the 5th grade at a potential combined school is going to be especially challenging, which will lead more families to opt out before or at that point, which is not good for the school and which is disastrous for EH (which is not good for a lot of the Hill).

Yeah, E-H would really suffer. I don't think people have thought this part through.

[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.

Isnt that what DME is assuming? Otherwise why is it proposing a cluster to achieve SES balance? Why not just encourage more IB participation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miner does have parents that are trying their hardest to improve the school. All parents automatically join PTA and even donate their entire month’s salary to the PTA.
The PTA at Miner were able to obtain additional faculty because they paid their salary. These folks want the best for their child and their classmates no matter where they attend. So please, can we stop with the Miner parents don’t try hard enough stuff?

This is inaccurate. The Miner PTO has never raised enough money to fund staff.

I was told that the 2nd gym teacher was hired because of PTA funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these comments from non-Miner parents about how Miner parents should just invest in the school and fix it are ignorant.

First, as was explained quite early in this thread to explain why Maury and Miner have such different demographics to begin with, Miner has a significant amount of low income housing that Maury does not have. Even if every high-SES family IB for Miner sent their kids to Miner, it would still have a much higher percentage of low income and at-risk kids. Maury has little to no low-income housing in its boundary, which means that as it grew its IB percentage, it greatly shrank the at risk population. The same thing would not happen at Miner.

Second, Miner's location close to Benning road means that it is an attractive lottery option for kids coming from across the river. Thus, without buy-in from IB families, the school has a lot of kids from Wards 7 and 8 who statistically are more likely to be at risk. Maury used to get more Ward 7/8 students back when it was Title 1 with a lower IB percentage, but not nearly as much as Miner because it's location is a much less convenient commute, especially if you are taking public transportation.

Having a large low-income IB contingent and having a history of being a Ward 7/8 destination school can make the kind of upward trajectory that Maury has been on hard if not impossible. There is often fear that improving the school in a way that is appealing to higher SES families will destroy what these families value about the school. The most obvious concerns revolve around Title 1 status and access to free before/after care and free school lunch. That's not a small thing for a low-income family -- these benefits can be essential. Even if they were assured that the school would keep these services free for low income families, there is not a lot of trust there and also no one wants to have to jump through hoops for something they currently get without even having to sign up.

Often MC and UMC families will stick it out until K or 1st, but then they start running into other issues, especially regarding teaching approach and classroom management. School with large at risk populations tend to attract teachers who are okay teaching large at risk populations. These teachers are not always thrilled about having an increasing number of higher SES kids in their class, and in particular are often very wary of the increased involvement and sometimes demands of these parents. Yes, there is a racial component here. But it's also just a culture clash. What seems like "being a good parent" to an UMC white person can seem like "overbearing, demanding ahole" to a teacher in this position.

At this point parents start making choices both for their own comfort (it can be emotionally tiring to constantly be trying to bridge these racial, economic, and cultural divides with sensitivity and self-awareness -- it is work) and for the sake of their kids, who they may worry will not always get the support or welcome in the classroom or the school that every parent wants for their kids. So they go.

For Maury parents to waive this off and say "just do what we did at Maury" like Maury did not have demographic advantages that made their success easier, is going to piss off Miner parents who have been working on this for years, whether they are still at Miner or not. Because it is SO EASY for Maury parents, especially those who are not PTA members or people who really worked to turn the school around, to just tell Miner parents to "do it yourself."

The truth is that "turning around" a struggling school with more than 60% at risk kids is not something that your average parent or even group of parents can do, especially not if you have a job and literally any other issues in your life. It is a steep uphill battle with low changes of success, and for most parents, any success will likely come after their kids are done with elementary. It is a different, and harder, challenge than what was accomplished at Maury.

No, it's that *DCPS* should invest in Miner, or at least stop screwing it over with horrible leadership choices.

Maury parents are trying to say the same thing you are-- that too high a concentration of at-risk kids makes it an uphill battle. And if Maury and Miner are clustered, it will be an uphill battle at both schools. That is why this proposal is unrealistic and will not have the desired effect.

But Maury is overwhelmingly higher income. So combining the schools immediately results in a more balanced population where, instead of one school that is mostly black and at risk, and one school that is predominantly white with very few at risk, you get a more diverse school with about 30-35% at risk.

A school with that percent of at-risk kids is harder to guide and help succeed than a school with 12% (as Maury now has), yes. But it's WAY easier than a school with 65% at risk, as Miner now has. So the resulting school would be a more difficult experience for Maury families, but a significantly better experience for Miner.

The question is whether you think it's wrong or not to inconvenience Maury families in order to help Miner families. This depends on how you view public education.

A couple major problems with this stick out to me. One, no explanation of the real problems. Presumably, balancing the population is a goal because it is meant to help kids do better in school -- but DME has completely refused to explain how this move alone would help kids do better in school, let alone what additional support/resources they are willing to offer to actually help the kids (especially at-risk kids) attend school more consistently, reach grade level, etc.

Two, a misunderstanding of the demographics of Maury. Maury is not immune to attrition in the upper grades as some families leave the school, both to seek out a better elementary academic experience and to take a spot that will give them a better MS path. Not all high SES or education-focused families do this, but the ones who do this are naturally more likely to be higher SES (to have the resources to pay for private or travel to a farther school) or to really prioritize education, and as a result the demographics of the upper grades (most stark in 5th) are different from, for example, ECE. That's going to mean that the make-up of the 5th grade at a potential combined school is going to be especially challenging, which will lead more families to opt out before or at that point, which is not good for the school and which is disastrous for EH (which is not good for a lot of the Hill).

No one misunderstands the demographics at Maury or the fact that at many East side schools, there is attrition at 5th as parents send kids to Latin, BASIS, or go private. I know you think these are secrets only understood by Maury families, but these are well known issues in the district and Maury is not even close to the only school impacted.

In fact, this is exactly what happens at Miner, just earlier. PK is significantly more diverse than upper grades, and K and 1st are more diverse than 2-5. So Maury and Miner actually have the same problem, it's just worse at Miner because Miner's much higher at risk percentage (owing to boundary demographics that Miner can't do anything about) mean that the loss of higher SES families has a bigger impact than at Maury.

A combined boundary means not only combining the at risk populations, but also the high SES populations. Why couldn't a combined school be more successful at retaining more high-SES students through 5th? If the parents at Maury could combine with the parents at Miner who now ditch out after ECE or 1st, couldn't they create a strong cohort of students committed to staying IB through E-H? Lots of families do not want to commute all the way to Latin or BASIS from Hill East. It seems like there is an obvious solution to this -- stay IB. And with a combined school, you could have enough higher income families to make up for any attrition from families that still choose charters, privates, or moving.