Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY%202023-2024%20List%20of%20Public%20Schools%20updated%208.31.23.pdf

Peabody is listed as a non-Title 1 school and Watkins is a targeted assistance school.

[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.

You can support changes to Ward 3 schools, but since DCPS doesn't, they are in fact EXACTLY saying "we've got some schools over here doing great" [and we're not touching them]. Given that, this is entirely about thinking that Maury is winnable because the parents aren't going to be able to successfully push back. Also, there are DCPS and charter schools that produce better outcomes with high at-risk populations: it's not impossible. Finally, if DCPS wants to integrate schools -- racially and economically -- they have an easy solution which will also increase buy-in: meaningful differentiation for ELA and math starting in the PARCC grades. They're not doing that. That shows their total lack of interest in serving at-grade level kids in high-poverty areas. Why should those parents give DCPS the benefit of the doubt on anything, or not fight this tooth and nail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, thank you. From the Miner perspective the loss of title 1 funding and free lunch would almost be a deal breaker. But from a Maury perspective I would think (and I’m not at Maury so don’t want to speak for anyone here, not my intent) that if the early action PreK was retained then that would be a huge benefit (it’s already a benefit to Miner families; losing that would also be really tough). These are questions I hope are answered when we meet with the DME.

Isn't free lunch determined by family income? Meaning, that even if a school loses title 1 funding, families whose income qualifies for free lunch will still get it? I thought this was how free lunch has always worked.

[Anonymous]

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.

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".

People have explained that an at-risk set aside at Maury is better to them personally as it avoids the things about the cluster they personally don't like.

No one has explained how an at risk set aside at Maury would actually solve the problems the cluster is trying to solve. It's just being presented as a solution to the problem of how Maury families don't like the cluster solution.

[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:

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.

You are missing the point. Personally I would much prefer walking 6 blocks to LT and having ALL my kids at LT, rather than walking however many blocks Maury and then to Miner. That would be way better for me. The benefits of having all my kids in one place FAR exceed the drawback of a few extra blocks.

[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:

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.

Well in this case all the pain is on Maury to become the paper tiger proving that someone in DME decolonized the elementary schools … so Maury is centering itself.

[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.

they encourage them to donate their *monthly salary”??! that cannot possibly be true.

It’s not, you’ll see through other comments that it was a well-intentioned attempt to share the hard work of the Miner PTO.

[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.

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".

People have explained that an at-risk set aside at Maury is better to them personally as it avoids the things about the cluster they personally don't like.

No one has explained how an at risk set aside at Maury would actually solve the problems the cluster is trying to solve. It's just being presented as a solution to the problem of how Maury families don't like the cluster solution.

The cluster is trying to "solve" the problem of Maury's at-risk percentage being really low, especially when compared to Miner's. An at-risk set-aside at Maury would increase Maury's at-risk percentage. It *might* also decrease Miner's at-risk percentage, especially if other schools near Miner offered a similar set-aside for all grades. That is how it helps with the problem the cluster is trying to solve.

[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:

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.

Well in this case all the pain is on Maury to become the paper tiger proving that someone in DME decolonized the elementary schools … so Maury is centering itself.

The DME is centering Maury by singling it out for a drastic near-term change.

[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:

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.

You are missing the point. Personally I would much prefer walking 6 blocks to LT and having ALL my kids at LT, rather than walking however many blocks Maury and then to Miner. That would be way better for me. The benefits of having all my kids in one place FAR exceed the drawback of a few extra blocks.

People have said this so often that I think PP is not really willing to engage in good faith.

LT also has the SH feeder, which most would see as an extra benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, thank you. From the Miner perspective the loss of title 1 funding and free lunch would almost be a deal breaker. But from a Maury perspective I would think (and I’m not at Maury so don’t want to speak for anyone here, not my intent) that if the early action PreK was retained then that would be a huge benefit (it’s already a benefit to Miner families; losing that would also be really tough). These are questions I hope are answered when we meet with the DME.

Isn't free lunch determined by family income? Meaning, that even if a school loses title 1 funding, families whose income qualifies for free lunch will still get it? I thought this was how free lunch has always worked.

I think it depends on the school. For example everyone who attends Miner regardless of income receives free lunch. No application has to be filed, the kids just automatically get it by virtue of being enrolled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I genuinely don't know anything about Miner's aftercare other than what is on their website. Does it have enrichment offerings similar to Polite Piggy's? For example, I don't see that there is a Tippi Toes class (but of course there could be other classes offered). If not, I would certainly hope there would be an avenue to having Polite Piggy's serve both campuses. (Though again, totally willing to learn if they offer other classes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Recognizing that choice sets are imperfect, it seems less disruptive than the cluster model. How are they bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, thank you. From the Miner perspective the loss of title 1 funding and free lunch would almost be a deal breaker. But from a Maury perspective I would think (and I’m not at Maury so don’t want to speak for anyone here, not my intent) that if the early action PreK was retained then that would be a huge benefit (it’s already a benefit to Miner families; losing that would also be really tough). These are questions I hope are answered when we meet with the DME.

Isn't free lunch determined by family income? Meaning, that even if a school loses title 1 funding, families whose income qualifies for free lunch will still get it? I thought this was how free lunch has always worked.

Yes but the reality is more complicated. Title 1 schools in DC do "free lunch for all" -- you don't have to income qualify even if your kid is not at risk. That's a benefit not just to the at risk kids but also to the mostly working/middle class families who also attend. Also there are families who are on the bubble and might qualify one year but not the next, it's hard to budget for that. Plus even for people who would always qualify, there are hoops to qualify for it.

You hit the same issues with aftercare. You can go from free aftercare to a sliding scale program where you have to provide income information and might be charged more than you feel you can really afford.

There are studies on how universal benefit programs are much easier to administer and usually have better outcomes than income qualifying programs, which save money but often don't work well.

[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:

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.

Sure, that's how DME should evaluate it, but obviously Maury parents are going to talk about concerns relevant to them and Miner parents will talk about the concerns relevant to them (which is how DME will have the data to evaluate it).