Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just the distance, it's having to go to two schools each day instead of one.

Also, this hasn't really come up, but transitioning an IEP from one school to another. Getting used to new related service providers, and getting a kid who struggles with transitions to settle in to a new school. Most kids will take this in stride as the transition is expected and they're moving with peers. But for some kids it'll be a big deal.

All of which would still be issues if they redraw boundaries, which is the alternative solution. These are not arguments against the cluster, they are things that would need to be addressed by families and DCPS no matter how this problem is solved.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

If, if, if. After the crap treatment people are getting from the DME, disrupting all of our efforts and jamming this proposal in on very little notice, why would anyone motivate to stay and work? By upper elementary, DCPS parents are pretty disillusioned and jaded-- we rely on those bright-eyed preschool parents to do a lot of the work. You need to understand that.

DCPS fundamentally isn't willing to provide advanced academics at the elementary level. Parents have been advocating for decades. It isn't gonna happen. Oh, if only Maury and Miner parents "combined". Come on. DCPS isn't willing to do it. The end. It couldn't be more clear. It's very naive of you to think any significant number of people would pass up Latin on the slender hope of minor improvements at E-H and then what for high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just the distance, it's having to go to two schools each day instead of one.

Also, this hasn't really come up, but transitioning an IEP from one school to another. Getting used to new related service providers, and getting a kid who struggles with transitions to settle in to a new school. Most kids will take this in stride as the transition is expected and they're moving with peers. But for some kids it'll be a big deal.

What happens when your oldest is in middle school? Won’t you have to go to two schools then? I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, just that in the grand scheme it’s not one of the weightier ones.

The IEP issue is totally different and does deserve a real discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just the distance, it's having to go to two schools each day instead of one.

Also, this hasn't really come up, but transitioning an IEP from one school to another. Getting used to new related service providers, and getting a kid who struggles with transitions to settle in to a new school. Most kids will take this in stride as the transition is expected and they're moving with peers. But for some kids it'll be a big deal.

All of which would still be issues if they redraw boundaries, which is the alternative solution. These are not arguments against the cluster, they are things that would need to be addressed by families and DCPS no matter how this problem is solved.

No, if they redraw the boundaries then all of one's kids would have the right and ability to attend a single school building for K-5th. It just would be Miner (or Payne or Watkins) rather than Maury. No double-dropoff commute, no change of IEP and providers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just the distance, it's having to go to two schools each day instead of one.

Also, this hasn't really come up, but transitioning an IEP from one school to another. Getting used to new related service providers, and getting a kid who struggles with transitions to settle in to a new school. Most kids will take this in stride as the transition is expected and they're moving with peers. But for some kids it'll be a big deal.

What happens when your oldest is in middle school? Won’t you have to go to two schools then? I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, just that in the grand scheme it’s not one of the weightier ones.

The IEP issue is totally different and does deserve a real discussion.

The oldest can get themself to school for most of middle school, if not 6th grade. And older kids walk faster. And most people with 3 kids will have both in elementary by the time the oldest starts middle, so there's not also a daycare dropoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not accurate. He was hired several years ago when the District told the schools that k-5 students had to start having two PE classes a week. The LSAT made hiring that position a budget priority so even PreK students could have PE twice a week. The PTO works very hard but they do not raise $100k per year which is the approximate value assigned to a teacher salary.

Thank you, my apologies for spreading misinformation.
I will point out that it is a fact the PTA encourages its members to donate an equivalent to their monthly salary and parents do care and try hard to improve school.

I am confused about the monthly salary thing? Are people actually doing this? At Miner? My family could not afford to do that, and if we could, I feel like we would either move or go private before giving that amount of money to a school like Miner where I feel like it's pretty unlikely that my kids needs would be met. I could see donating a substantial sum to a program specifically for at risk kids, but that would be a charity donation. I know PTA contributions are also charity, but there's a self-interest component there too. That just sounds nuts and no wonder MC and UMC families flee the school if that's the expectation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not accurate. He was hired several years ago when the District told the schools that k-5 students had to start having two PE classes a week. The LSAT made hiring that position a budget priority so even PreK students could have PE twice a week. The PTO works very hard but they do not raise $100k per year which is the approximate value assigned to a teacher salary.

Thank you, my apologies for spreading misinformation.
I will point out that it is a fact the PTA encourages its members to donate an equivalent to their monthly salary and parents do care and try hard to improve school.

It’s actually the equivalent of the cost of one month of daycare. It’s suggested but of course not required of the PreK families who would be paying for daycare (which we all know is $$$$ in DC). Only a small portion actually do it sadly, as many argue they don’t want to give money to the whole school since they aren’t staying beyond PreK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just the distance, it's having to go to two schools each day instead of one.

Also, this hasn't really come up, but transitioning an IEP from one school to another. Getting used to new related service providers, and getting a kid who struggles with transitions to settle in to a new school. Most kids will take this in stride as the transition is expected and they're moving with peers. But for some kids it'll be a big deal.

All of which would still be issues if they redraw boundaries, which is the alternative solution. These are not arguments against the cluster, they are things that would need to be addressed by families and DCPS no matter how this problem is solved.

No, if they redraw the boundaries then all of one's kids would have the right and ability to attend a single school building for K-5th. It just would be Miner (or Payne or Watkins) rather than Maury. No double-dropoff commute, no change of IEP and providers.

I was obviously referring to the IEP and service provider question. But redrawing boundaries could also result in a really inconvenient commute. If they redrew lines to balance demographics at Maury and Miner, there would absolutely be people who would wind up having to walk past Maury to commute to Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just the distance, it's having to go to two schools each day instead of one.

Also, this hasn't really come up, but transitioning an IEP from one school to another. Getting used to new related service providers, and getting a kid who struggles with transitions to settle in to a new school. Most kids will take this in stride as the transition is expected and they're moving with peers. But for some kids it'll be a big deal.

What happens when your oldest is in middle school? Won’t you have to go to two schools then? I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, just that in the grand scheme it’s not one of the weightier ones.

The IEP issue is totally different and does deserve a real discussion.

They take the city bus because they’re 10 years old not 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Students aren't like school funding -- DCPS actually can't just "reallocate" them. That's what's being pushed back on here. The success of this plan entirely hinges on the idea that you can make one of a fairly small number of schools in DC that has high in boundary buy-in worse for families and that just stick around for it. You can think they're being entitled, but their kids are the resource here that you need.

DCPS 100% can just reallocate students. What do you think a boundary study and re-draw is?

The PP means DCPS can re-assign the addresses, but they can't make the parents enroll their students.

Right. 28% of the kids zoned for Miner go there. DCPS can't even get the students currently zoned for Miner to go there, so it's wild to think you can just combine the schools and "reallocate" students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not accurate. He was hired several years ago when the District told the schools that k-5 students had to start having two PE classes a week. The LSAT made hiring that position a budget priority so even PreK students could have PE twice a week. The PTO works very hard but they do not raise $100k per year which is the approximate value assigned to a teacher salary.

Thank you, my apologies for spreading misinformation.
I will point out that it is a fact the PTA encourages its members to donate an equivalent to their monthly salary and parents do care and try hard to improve school.

I am confused about the monthly salary thing? Are people actually doing this? At Miner? My family could not afford to do that, and if we could, I feel like we would either move or go private before giving that amount of money to a school like Miner where I feel like it's pretty unlikely that my kids needs would be met. I could see donating a substantial sum to a program specifically for at risk kids, but that would be a charity donation. I know PTA contributions are also charity, but there's a self-interest component there too. That just sounds nuts and no wonder MC and UMC families flee the school if that's the expectation.

The point is that the pta tries, please don’t mince words to say something like this must be the reason MC and UMC leave.
We at Miner, are people, like you, and understand that not everyone can do that and if you have the means, do it, because it goes a really long way supporting students in that environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not accurate. He was hired several years ago when the District told the schools that k-5 students had to start having two PE classes a week. The LSAT made hiring that position a budget priority so even PreK students could have PE twice a week. The PTO works very hard but they do not raise $100k per year which is the approximate value assigned to a teacher salary.

Thank you, my apologies for spreading misinformation.
I will point out that it is a fact the PTA encourages its members to donate an equivalent to their monthly salary and parents do care and try hard to improve school.

I am confused about the monthly salary thing? Are people actually doing this? At Miner? My family could not afford to do that, and if we could, I feel like we would either move or go private before giving that amount of money to a school like Miner where I feel like it's pretty unlikely that my kids needs would be met. I could see donating a substantial sum to a program specifically for at risk kids, but that would be a charity donation. I know PTA contributions are also charity, but there's a self-interest component there too. That just sounds nuts and no wonder MC and UMC families flee the school if that's the expectation.

No, the PTO asks the PreK families to consider donating the equivalent of what one month of daycare would have cost them since now they have free PreK. Not one month of salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not accurate. He was hired several years ago when the District told the schools that k-5 students had to start having two PE classes a week. The LSAT made hiring that position a budget priority so even PreK students could have PE twice a week. The PTO works very hard but they do not raise $100k per year which is the approximate value assigned to a teacher salary.

Thank you, my apologies for spreading misinformation.
I will point out that it is a fact the PTA encourages its members to donate an equivalent to their monthly salary and parents do care and try hard to improve school.

I am confused about the monthly salary thing? Are people actually doing this? At Miner? My family could not afford to do that, and if we could, I feel like we would either move or go private before giving that amount of money to a school like Miner where I feel like it's pretty unlikely that my kids needs would be met. I could see donating a substantial sum to a program specifically for at risk kids, but that would be a charity donation. I know PTA contributions are also charity, but there's a self-interest component there too. That just sounds nuts and no wonder MC and UMC families flee the school if that's the expectation.

The point is that the pta tries, please don’t mince words to say something like this must be the reason MC and UMC leave.
We at Miner, are people, like you, and understand that not everyone can do that and if you have the means, do it, because it goes a really long way supporting students in that environment.

<3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just the distance, it's having to go to two schools each day instead of one.

Also, this hasn't really come up, but transitioning an IEP from one school to another. Getting used to new related service providers, and getting a kid who struggles with transitions to settle in to a new school. Most kids will take this in stride as the transition is expected and they're moving with peers. But for some kids it'll be a big deal.

All of which would still be issues if they redraw boundaries, which is the alternative solution. These are not arguments against the cluster, they are things that would need to be addressed by families and DCPS no matter how this problem is solved.

No, if they redraw the boundaries then all of one's kids would have the right and ability to attend a single school building for K-5th. It just would be Miner (or Payne or Watkins) rather than Maury. No double-dropoff commute, no change of IEP and providers.

I was obviously referring to the IEP and service provider question. But redrawing boundaries could also result in a really inconvenient commute. If they redrew lines to balance demographics at Maury and Miner, there would absolutely be people who would wind up having to walk past Maury to commute to Miner.

Well yes, and that would be a bummer for those people. But weigh that against an inconvenient commute for a great many people-- everyone with a child at both Miner and Maury-- and the down sides of losing Title I status for both schools, and Maury losing some of its high-SES kids which undermines the purpose of the whole thing. And if there were any at-risk set-aside at Maury, then however many of the at-risk kids for whom the commute is an issue would at least have that way of getting into Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to note that I have done commutes of between .5 and 1 mile on foot with a 3 year old for both daycare and preschool and it's actually faster than walking with a 6 year old because you use a stroller. Do Maury families not have strollers? I am confused.

We used a stroller for PK4 drop off too, for most of the year, for the same reason. I think I broke it out for a few cold mornings in K when my kid was really dragging. Very handy devices, they come at all price points, I know you can get them used on MOTH for cheap.

Hope this helps.

That’s nice. But I can’t afford to walk the commute to two different schools because I have to be at my job by 9 AM. Not all of us are SAHMs.