Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at it from the DME standpoint: There is lots of literature about the problems/disadvantages associated with schools that have a high concentration of poverty. It even includes things like greater difficulties associated with attracting high quality leadership and staff and less PTO money/engagement. There is literature that economically disadvantaged students do better academically in schools when the majority of their peers are not similarly disadvantaged. The district focused on best serving all students would probably prefer to have most of its schools be 25-50% economically disadvantaged. Demographics do not often shake out like that in the real world.

This is precisely what Howard County schools do. The redistrict frequently with the goal of rebalancing boundaries in order to spread around lower income families. It's unpopular in certain pockets of the county, but people are largely very happy with the quality of schools from elementary to high school, and while there are sometimes controversy about specific boundary shifts, most of the time it's accepted and people move on.

If we accept we are talking about race, it’s not possible to rebalance the white kids in DC. They only make up 10% of the kids. In HoCo white and asian kids are 50%. DME is fiddling on the deck of the Titantic when it acts like “we just need to spread the white kids around, that will fix it!”

Wow!! This is as offensive as it gets, and I've seen some real doozies on this thread. White does not equal high SES anymore than black equals low SES. The PTA at Maury has disproportionately advantaged the students and staff at that school, and I don't blame the DME for trying to leverage that engagement and "spread the wealth around." As a parent of students in another Hill elementary who toured Maury I was absolutely flabbergasted that DCPS permits the PTA to essentially buy extra staffing and resources for its students. There's a vast difference between funding uniforms for sports teams and putting additional personnel in classrooms. I see so many complaints about what goes on in upper NW schools vs. Hill schools, but we've got a prime example of that excessive privilege right here in the middle of our community.

Race correlates almost exactly to SES in Maury and Miner, with some exceptions. The point seemed to go way over your head.

As for the PTA - the Maury PTA is strong because the parents are invested in the school. You can’t simultaneously claim this is is awful and privileged AND that PTA fundraising is so crucial that we must combine schools. And BTW I tend to think the PTA fundraising is a lot less impactful than people believe. It does pay for a few aides, but it’s not paying for teachers. The Title 1 funding likely provides a lot more additional staffing than PTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see a single counterproposal to the cluster that addresses this specific issue:

Maury and Miner are neighborhood DCPS elementaries within very close proximity (.5) miles but have vastly different student outcomes. That disparity is almost certainly closely related to a large imbalance in two populations who historically have disparate and negative educational outcomes -- children of color and children in poverty. There is larger than 50% difference in the at risk populations at the two schools, with Maury having 12% at risk students and Miner having 65% at risk students, despite the school's close proximity and similar size. The overwhelming size of Miner's at risk population makes it very hard for the school to gain traction to address the problem of low performance as indicated by low test scores on district-wide testing.

How might this clear disparity in educational experience and outcomes for students at these closely located schools be addressed?

Until you can answer that question in a way that actually directly addresses the problem, I do not think complaining about how the cluster is going to mess up your morning commute is going to cut it in terms of objections. Much as I relate to commute challenges! It's just not that important when you look at the paragraph above and understand that addressing those disparities is THE purpose of the cluster proposal.

For the millionth time - the cluster would only address statistical disparities! There is zero reason to believe it would help low SES students learn more. Zero. The achievement gap would remain exactly the same between black & white, just spread between schools. Dig into the EH test scores data and you’ll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I never used a stroller to walk my pre-K kids to school. It's not developmentally appropriate at that age.

I can’t tell you how many strollers I see at Maury. Maybe you don’t but everyone else does, even for the short commute.

Most of the strollers I see are for little siblings along for the ride, but I grant you that some people use them for their pre-k kids. But I don't think that should be an expectation in terms of modeling out commutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have yet to see a single counterproposal to the cluster that addresses this specific issue:

Maury and Miner are neighborhood DCPS elementaries within very close proximity (.5) miles but have vastly different student outcomes. That disparity is almost certainly closely related to a large imbalance in two populations who historically have disparate and negative educational outcomes -- children of color and children in poverty. There is larger than 50% difference in the at risk populations at the two schools, with Maury having 12% at risk students and Miner having 65% at risk students, despite the school's close proximity and similar size. The overwhelming size of Miner's at risk population makes it very hard for the school to gain traction to address the problem of low performance as indicated by low test scores on district-wide testing.

How might this clear disparity in educational experience and outcomes for students at these closely located schools be addressed?

Until you can answer that question in a way that actually directly addresses the problem, I do not think complaining about how the cluster is going to mess up your morning commute is going to cut it in terms of objections. Much as I relate to commute challenges! It's just not that important when you look at the paragraph above and understand that addressing those disparities is THE purpose of the cluster proposal.

Choice sets.

Choice sets are also bad.

[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.

What? How would those be issues if they redraw boundaries? Kids that currently attend would be permitted to stay, if you're thinking they would be kicked out.

In order to redraw the boundaries such that it addresses the massive imbalance in at risk populations at two closely located schools, a signifiant portion of Maury's existing boundary would be re-assigned to Miner or another school. Thus a large number of families who currently commute to Maury would be commuting to Miner or another school (or commuting to a charter or private school located even further away).

Once you understand this, you get why the "but my commute!" objections don't hold water. Maury families think the options are continue to go to Maury or combine with Miner and send their kids to Miner for early grades. Nope. The options are combine with Miner or undergo a potentially *even more painful* redistricting process that could have significantly worse outcomes for them personally.

I don't think it's correct that these are the only two options. The DME is likely as not to not do anything about this this time around -- as they shouldn't, without doing a lot more prep work before coming out with these pie in the sky ideas.

[Anonymous]

My proposal is however much money it would take, one-time and ongoing, to implement this "cluster", just give that money to Miner. Starting now. Give it to them. All the renovation money, all the transportation money (for IEP students who are entitled to transportation), all the money for staff time spent transitioning IEPs, and all the money that would be lost if Miner is no longer Title I. Just give it all to Miner right now, and every year, forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at it from the DME standpoint: There is lots of literature about the problems/disadvantages associated with schools that have a high concentration of poverty. It even includes things like greater difficulties associated with attracting high quality leadership and staff and less PTO money/engagement. There is literature that economically disadvantaged students do better academically in schools when the majority of their peers are not similarly disadvantaged. The district focused on best serving all students would probably prefer to have most of its schools be 25-50% economically disadvantaged. Demographics do not often shake out like that in the real world.

This is precisely what Howard County schools do. The redistrict frequently with the goal of rebalancing boundaries in order to spread around lower income families. It's unpopular in certain pockets of the county, but people are largely very happy with the quality of schools from elementary to high school, and while there are sometimes controversy about specific boundary shifts, most of the time it's accepted and people move on.

If we accept we are talking about race, it’s not possible to rebalance the white kids in DC. They only make up 10% of the kids. In HoCo white and asian kids are 50%. DME is fiddling on the deck of the Titantic when it acts like “we just need to spread the white kids around, that will fix it!”

Wow!! This is as offensive as it gets, and I've seen some real doozies on this thread. White does not equal high SES anymore than black equals low SES. The PTA at Maury has disproportionately advantaged the students and staff at that school, and I don't blame the DME for trying to leverage that engagement and "spread the wealth around." As a parent of students in another Hill elementary who toured Maury I was absolutely flabbergasted that DCPS permits the PTA to essentially buy extra staffing and resources for its students. There's a vast difference between funding uniforms for sports teams and putting additional personnel in classrooms. I see so many complaints about what goes on in upper NW schools vs. Hill schools, but we've got a prime example of that excessive privilege right here in the middle of our community.

DC already spreads the wealth around. People in the Maury boundary pay more in DC taxes than people in the Miner boundary. More DC money goes to Miner than to Maury. Which is fine, that's the way it should work, but I don't get the conniptions people have about the PTA. Affluent families will always be able to spend more money on their kids, whether you let that money go through a PTA or not.

Miner gets more money because of its higher percentage of SpEd and at-risk students, who qualify for special services that, with regards to SpEd, are required by the ADA. The average Miner student is not getting more funding from DCPS than the average Maury family (they may get more funding from Title 1, but those are federal funds and not paid out of DC property taxes).

I won't comment on the PTA debate, just want to correct this misconception about school funding in DC. The per pupil spending numbers you see don't actually reflect per pupil spending. Maury gets less DCPS funding because it has fewer SpEd and at risk kids. The high funding numbers you see going to Miner are largely going to pay for multiple self-contained SpEd classrooms, 1:1 aids, and some programming designed for at-risk kids (like additional summer programming to address remedial learning needs, for instance).

People in the Maury boundary also pay more in federal taxes than people in the Miner boundary, so I wouldn't exclude title I funds from this.

[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.

What? How would those be issues if they redraw boundaries? Kids that currently attend would be permitted to stay, if you're thinking they would be kicked out.

In order to redraw the boundaries such that it addresses the massive imbalance in at risk populations at two closely located schools, a signifiant portion of Maury's existing boundary would be re-assigned to Miner or another school. Thus a large number of families who currently commute to Maury would be commuting to Miner or another school (or commuting to a charter or private school located even further away).

Once you understand this, you get why the "but my commute!" objections don't hold water. Maury families think the options are continue to go to Maury or combine with Miner and send their kids to Miner for early grades. Nope. The options are combine with Miner or undergo a potentially *even more painful* redistricting process that could have significantly worse outcomes for them personally.

Wait, why is some people being re-zoned to Ludlow-Taylor or Peabody more painful than everyone being partially re-zoned to Miner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at it from the DME standpoint: There is lots of literature about the problems/disadvantages associated with schools that have a high concentration of poverty. It even includes things like greater difficulties associated with attracting high quality leadership and staff and less PTO money/engagement. There is literature that economically disadvantaged students do better academically in schools when the majority of their peers are not similarly disadvantaged. The district focused on best serving all students would probably prefer to have most of its schools be 25-50% economically disadvantaged. Demographics do not often shake out like that in the real world.

This is precisely what Howard County schools do. The redistrict frequently with the goal of rebalancing boundaries in order to spread around lower income families. It's unpopular in certain pockets of the county, but people are largely very happy with the quality of schools from elementary to high school, and while there are sometimes controversy about specific boundary shifts, most of the time it's accepted and people move on.

If we accept we are talking about race, it’s not possible to rebalance the white kids in DC. They only make up 10% of the kids. In HoCo white and asian kids are 50%. DME is fiddling on the deck of the Titantic when it acts like “we just need to spread the white kids around, that will fix it!”

Wow!! This is as offensive as it gets, and I've seen some real doozies on this thread. White does not equal high SES anymore than black equals low SES. The PTA at Maury has disproportionately advantaged the students and staff at that school, and I don't blame the DME for trying to leverage that engagement and "spread the wealth around." As a parent of students in another Hill elementary who toured Maury I was absolutely flabbergasted that DCPS permits the PTA to essentially buy extra staffing and resources for its students. There's a vast difference between funding uniforms for sports teams and putting additional personnel in classrooms. I see so many complaints about what goes on in upper NW schools vs. Hill schools, but we've got a prime example of that excessive privilege right here in the middle of our community.

DC already spreads the wealth around. People in the Maury boundary pay more in DC taxes than people in the Miner boundary. More DC money goes to Miner than to Maury. Which is fine, that's the way it should work, but I don't get the conniptions people have about the PTA. Affluent families will always be able to spend more money on their kids, whether you let that money go through a PTA or not.

Miner gets more money because of its higher percentage of SpEd and at-risk students, who qualify for special services that, with regards to SpEd, are required by the ADA. The average Miner student is not getting more funding from DCPS than the average Maury family (they may get more funding from Title 1, but those are federal funds and not paid out of DC property taxes).

I won't comment on the PTA debate, just want to correct this misconception about school funding in DC. The per pupil spending numbers you see don't actually reflect per pupil spending. Maury gets less DCPS funding because it has fewer SpEd and at risk kids. The high funding numbers you see going to Miner are largely going to pay for multiple self-contained SpEd classrooms, 1:1 aids, and some programming designed for at-risk kids (like additional summer programming to address remedial learning needs, for instance).

Also, I don't know why extra funding for at-risk students wouldn't "count." First of all, the average Miner student IS at risk, so yes the average Miner student is getting more funding. Second, yeah, that's why you would give money out to schools unevenly, to support schools with greater at-risk or SpEd populations. That's the whole point. It doesn't make any sense to me to say, yes Miner gets more money, but it's because it's for SpEd and at-risk students. Of course it is. That's why a school should get more money. And if you mean more that MC and UMC kids at Miner aren't getting more money specifically, then sure, but they benefit from their school getting funding for those extra services; presumably their experience would be worse if schools received the same amount of money per kid.

[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.

Combining schools like this to redistribute demographics is just busing on a small scale. Obviously.

Busing as a concept requires that the district physically transport kids to another school. If you can walk to the school in question, it's not busing.

When opponents to the cluster plan say stuff like "this is basically busing" in outrage, it becomes harder to argue that there is not a racial component to their objections. Read a freaking book about desegregation.

I mean, this is a plan intended to move kids around to change the racial demographics of the school. It’s the same thing. There’s absolutely NOTHING racist in questioning whether this helps black kids. What does seem oddly racist is the DME’s belief that a majority black school cannot be a good school, and that the only way for it to be “improved” is to add white kids. PS Maury is desegregated.

While race is absolutely a component here, the bigger issue is at-risk kids. That's who they are trying to reallocate. The fact that in DC, most at-risk kids are black or latino is a related issue that shouldn't go ignored. But this is not a desegregation effort in the vein of busing. It's an attempt to rebalance socioeconomic demographics.

And the fact that Maury is relatively diverse actually highlights this. Maury is 42% on-white, but only 12% at risk. That means most of Maury's non-white population is MC or UMC. Meanwhile, Miner is absorbing a share of at-risk kids that is untenable for the school to be successful, And while Miner is 65% at risk, it's 80% black. That means Miner is serving a lot of MC or UMC black kids who attend a school with the serious problems associated with a high at-risk population.

If you can't see why all of this is a problem that needs to be addressed, I don't know what to tell you. I agree it sucks, but this is a public school district. I this to address systemic issues and it can't just say "oh we've got some schools over here doing great because they mostly serve wealthier kids with with involved, well-resourced families." It can't just write of the half of the students it serves as a lost cause because it's easier to isolate them in schools like Miner than to try and diversify communities like Maury. And they can't ignore the impact that it has on MC black kids to be attending schools like Miner's with large at risk populations, in terms of failing those kids both socially and academically.

It's a real issue. Maury hasn't had to address it head on in a while because of a high-income IB population and high IB buy in. But can DCPS really, ethically, just leave Maury out of this equation.

For the record I would support actual business to Ward 3 schools. I just don't see how you conscionable allow a situation where there are such disparate experiences for wealthy white kids and poor black kids in the same district.

[Anonymous]

I know this is among the myriad things DME has given zero thought to, but would aftercare be provided at both schools by the same program? Polite Piggys provides robust enrichment opportunities after school (paid and unpaid, other than the aftercare cost itself) that I would be loath to lose -- though I don't know if Miner offers the same thing.

[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.

Combining schools like this to redistribute demographics is just busing on a small scale. Obviously.

Busing as a concept requires that the district physically transport kids to another school. If you can walk to the school in question, it's not busing.

When opponents to the cluster plan say stuff like "this is basically busing" in outrage, it becomes harder to argue that there is not a racial component to their objections. Read a freaking book about desegregation.

I mean, this is a plan intended to move kids around to change the racial demographics of the school. It’s the same thing. There’s absolutely NOTHING racist in questioning whether this helps black kids. What does seem oddly racist is the DME’s belief that a majority black school cannot be a good school, and that the only way for it to be “improved” is to add white kids. PS Maury is desegregated.

While race is absolutely a component here, the bigger issue is at-risk kids. That's who they are trying to reallocate. The fact that in DC, most at-risk kids are black or latino is a related issue that shouldn't go ignored. But this is not a desegregation effort in the vein of busing. It's an attempt to rebalance socioeconomic demographics.

And the fact that Maury is relatively diverse actually highlights this. Maury is 42% on-white, but only 12% at risk. That means most of Maury's non-white population is MC or UMC. Meanwhile, Miner is absorbing a share of at-risk kids that is untenable for the school to be successful, And while Miner is 65% at risk, it's 80% black. That means Miner is serving a lot of MC or UMC black kids who attend a school with the serious problems associated with a high at-risk population.

If you can't see why all of this is a problem that needs to be addressed, I don't know what to tell you. I agree it sucks, but this is a public school district. I this to address systemic issues and it can't just say "oh we've got some schools over here doing great because they mostly serve wealthier kids with with involved, well-resourced families." It can't just write of the half of the students it serves as a lost cause because it's easier to isolate them in schools like Miner than to try and diversify communities like Maury. And they can't ignore the impact that it has on MC black kids to be attending schools like Miner's with large at risk populations, in terms of failing those kids both socially and academically.

It's a real issue. Maury hasn't had to address it head on in a while because of a high-income IB population and high IB buy in. But can DCPS really, ethically, just leave Maury out of this equation.

For the record I would support actual business to Ward 3 schools. I just don't see how you conscionable allow a situation where there are such disparate experiences for wealthy white kids and poor black kids in the same district.

People have explained over and over that an at-risk set-aside at Maury would be better than a cluster. I don't know how you could describe that as "leaving Maury out". I don't think anyone's saying to leave Maury out of it entirely. But fundamentally it's DCPS' responsibility-- Miner and the OOB kids who attend it are not solely Maury or any other school's problem to solve. Maury can and should play a role, yes. And so can and should other schools in the area such as Ludlow-Taylor and SWS. Just because their percentages aren't quite as skewed doesn't mean they're exempt from being impacted. And DCPS/DME needs to actually model the attrition among high-SES students before asserting that a certain demographic outcome will be reached.

It's offensive that DME has no actual plan to improve at-risk kids' academic outcomes other than "Make commute worse, sprinkle in some high-SES kids, and stir".

[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.

Combining schools like this to redistribute demographics is just busing on a small scale. Obviously.

Busing as a concept requires that the district physically transport kids to another school. If you can walk to the school in question, it's not busing.

When opponents to the cluster plan say stuff like "this is basically busing" in outrage, it becomes harder to argue that there is not a racial component to their objections. Read a freaking book about desegregation.

I mean, this is a plan intended to move kids around to change the racial demographics of the school. It’s the same thing. There’s absolutely NOTHING racist in questioning whether this helps black kids. What does seem oddly racist is the DME’s belief that a majority black school cannot be a good school, and that the only way for it to be “improved” is to add white kids. PS Maury is desegregated.

While race is absolutely a component here, the bigger issue is at-risk kids. That's who they are trying to reallocate. The fact that in DC, most at-risk kids are black or latino is a related issue that shouldn't go ignored. But this is not a desegregation effort in the vein of busing. It's an attempt to rebalance socioeconomic demographics.

And the fact that Maury is relatively diverse actually highlights this. Maury is 42% on-white, but only 12% at risk. That means most of Maury's non-white population is MC or UMC. Meanwhile, Miner is absorbing a share of at-risk kids that is untenable for the school to be successful, And while Miner is 65% at risk, it's 80% black. That means Miner is serving a lot of MC or UMC black kids who attend a school with the serious problems associated with a high at-risk population.

If you can't see why all of this is a problem that needs to be addressed, I don't know what to tell you. I agree it sucks, but this is a public school district. I this to address systemic issues and it can't just say "oh we've got some schools over here doing great because they mostly serve wealthier kids with with involved, well-resourced families." It can't just write of the half of the students it serves as a lost cause because it's easier to isolate them in schools like Miner than to try and diversify communities like Maury. And they can't ignore the impact that it has on MC black kids to be attending schools like Miner's with large at risk populations, in terms of failing those kids both socially and academically.

It's a real issue. Maury hasn't had to address it head on in a while because of a high-income IB population and high IB buy in. But can DCPS really, ethically, just leave Maury out of this equation.

For the record I would support actual business to Ward 3 schools. I just don't see how you conscionable allow a situation where there are such disparate experiences for wealthy white kids and poor black kids in the same district.

because there are not enough high SES families in DCPS to make a difference. And because the “disparate experience” for low SES students does not change through busing. DCPS is still not teaching them to read & write, or getting them to actually attend school consistently. The focus on demographic numbers only is absolutely wrong-headed.

[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:

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.

What? How would those be issues if they redraw boundaries? Kids that currently attend would be permitted to stay, if you're thinking they would be kicked out.

In order to redraw the boundaries such that it addresses the massive imbalance in at risk populations at two closely located schools, a signifiant portion of Maury's existing boundary would be re-assigned to Miner or another school. Thus a large number of families who currently commute to Maury would be commuting to Miner or another school (or commuting to a charter or private school located even further away).

Once you understand this, you get why the "but my commute!" objections don't hold water. Maury families think the options are continue to go to Maury or combine with Miner and send their kids to Miner for early grades. Nope. The options are combine with Miner or undergo a potentially *even more painful* redistricting process that could have significantly worse outcomes for them personally.

Wait, why is some people being re-zoned to Ludlow-Taylor or Peabody more painful than everyone being partially re-zoned to Miner?

The degree to which this comment fully centers the entire conversation around the experience of Maury families to the exclusion of anything else is so frustrating. Solving this problem by redrawing the boundary wouldn't just result in some Maury families being rezoned to LT or Payne (though FYI, if they did, some of them would wind up with less convenient commutes but for some reason walking 4 blocks out of your way to Miner is unacceptable, but walking 6 blocks out of your way to LT or Payne is fine, it's almost like the commute is not the problem). It would result in Maury families being rezoned to Miner. So some of these families are going to Miner either way.

But in any case, "pain to Maury families" should not be the sole metric by which any plan is evaluated. It's relevant, of course. But any plan should be evaluated by the possible benefits and harms to the entire population, not just Maury families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is among the myriad things DME has given zero thought to, but would aftercare be provided at both schools by the same program? Polite Piggys provides robust enrichment opportunities after school (paid and unpaid, other than the aftercare cost itself) that I would be loath to lose -- though I don't know if Miner offers the same thing.

I would think (hope) the existing secondary aftercare options would remain (Polite Piggies at Maury, and the two existing options at Miner). I say secondary because Miner also has free DCPS Out of School Time (OSTP) aftercare. That would be the biggest concern—losing free aftercare that some Miner families rely on.