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.)
No, at Miner income is an issue so programs like Tippi Toes have tried to come to come in but there aren’t enough people signing up. However instead the school itself offers free extracurricular activities run by teachers (like a dance team, Lego club, cheer squad, art club, etc).
Anonymous wrote:A lot of these comments from non-Miner parents about how Miner parents should just invest in the school and fix it are ignorant.
First, as was explained quite early in this thread to explain why Maury and Miner have such different demographics to begin with, Miner has a significant amount of low income housing that Maury does not have. Even if every high-SES family IB for Miner sent their kids to Miner, it would still have a much higher percentage of low income and at-risk kids. Maury has little to no low-income housing in its boundary, which means that as it grew its IB percentage, it greatly shrank the at risk population. The same thing would not happen at Miner.
Second, Miner's location close to Benning road means that it is an attractive lottery option for kids coming from across the river. Thus, without buy-in from IB families, the school has a lot of kids from Wards 7 and 8 who statistically are more likely to be at risk. Maury used to get more Ward 7/8 students back when it was Title 1 with a lower IB percentage, but not nearly as much as Miner because it's location is a much less convenient commute, especially if you are taking public transportation.
Having a large low-income IB contingent and having a history of being a Ward 7/8 destination school can make the kind of upward trajectory that Maury has been on hard if not impossible. There is often fear that improving the school in a way that is appealing to higher SES families will destroy what these families value about the school. The most obvious concerns revolve around Title 1 status and access to free before/after care and free school lunch. That's not a small thing for a low-income family -- these benefits can be essential. Even if they were assured that the school would keep these services free for low income families, there is not a lot of trust there and also no one wants to have to jump through hoops for something they currently get without even having to sign up.
Often MC and UMC families will stick it out until K or 1st, but then they start running into other issues, especially regarding teaching approach and classroom management. School with large at risk populations tend to attract teachers who are okay teaching large at risk populations. These teachers are not always thrilled about having an increasing number of higher SES kids in their class, and in particular are often very wary of the increased involvement and sometimes demands of these parents. Yes, there is a racial component here. But it's also just a culture clash. What seems like "being a good parent" to an UMC white person can seem like "overbearing, demanding ahole" to a teacher in this position.
At this point parents start making choices both for their own comfort (it can be emotionally tiring to constantly be trying to bridge these racial, economic, and cultural divides with sensitivity and self-awareness -- it is work) and for the sake of their kids, who they may worry will not always get the support or welcome in the classroom or the school that every parent wants for their kids. So they go.
For Maury parents to waive this off and say "just do what we did at Maury" like Maury did not have demographic advantages that made their success easier, is going to piss off Miner parents who have been working on this for years, whether they are still at Miner or not. Because it is SO EASY for Maury parents, especially those who are not PTA members or people who really worked to turn the school around, to just tell Miner parents to "do it yourself."
The truth is that "turning around" a struggling school with more than 60% at risk kids is not something that your average parent or even group of parents can do, especially not if you have a job and literally any other issues in your life. It is a steep uphill battle with low changes of success, and for most parents, any success will likely come after their kids are done with elementary. It is a different, and harder, challenge than what was accomplished at Maury.
Good post but none of what you wrote makes a cluster seem more feasible. I wonder again why DME claims that it is impossible to just redraw the boundaries? Also I think the Miner zone has enough SFH that the school would be much more balanced on SES if the IB rate went up. But as you correctly note, DC has no interest in taking steps to voluntarily attract high SES IB families.
I think the problem with redrawing boundaries is that the low-income housing in the Miner zone is clustered in a way that makes it very hard to divide between boundaries. Especially when you understand that most low-income housing is multi-family, so you run into the problem of whether to locate an apartment complex on this side or that side of the line, and it totally changes the composition of the zones. There is also the problem that the current Miner boundary actually encompasses a lot of property zoned commercial, whereas Maury's includes almost none. This can make it hard to balance populations if you try to draw the line vertically up to Benning instead of the current line that is horizontal and then flows diagonally southward. If you slice the commercial strip along Benning (which also includes some housing) in half and try to draw the line south, you wind up with population imbalances between the zones.
Oh and finally, one problem with redrawing the zones is the actually physical location of the schools currently. Specifically because they are so close together, you have to draw a boundary between them. This forces a horizontal line and also limits your options unless you are willing to create super jerry-rigged zones where the school in question is located in a weird peninsula of the zone, such that everyone IB for the school lives oddly far from it.
As angry as some people are about the cluster idea, I guarantee you that some of the weird boundary redraws they probably came up with to balance the populations would have made people MUCH more angry. You think people are annoyed about having to walk 4 blocks to drop off PK kids? Well guess what, now you are zoned out of the school you live literally next door to, so that people who live a mile and a half away can attend it. People would have lost their minds about that, too.
Still not understanding why an at-risk set-aside isn't the solution. Get rid of PK3 at Maury if that's what it takes to make room.
Oh, because it won't force high-SES kids to Miner? Wah. There are plenty of other things to do that would improve Miner. Maybe creating a school that people want to go to, I know it sounds crazy.
Reasons the at-risk set aside isn't a good solution:
(1) Maury is required to serve all IB K-5 students, and is currently at or near capacity with a mostly IB student population. Even if you eliminate PK3, you'r talking about maybe 40 spots? Miner has more than 300 kids/
(2) The at risk set aside would presumably be city wide, so there's no guarantee that even a single Miner student would benefit
(3) At-risk set asides elsewhere in the city have struggled to attract applicants in the lottery. It's hard to know exactly why -- could be a marketing issue, a resource issue, something else. But many go unfilled. So it hasn't been a hugely successful strategy previously and there's no evidence it would work here.
(4) Even if an at-risk set aside actually worked, and even if it helped at-risk kids currently attending Miner, it would have no impact on kids at Miner or in Miner's boundary who are not at-risk, who are currently being very poorly served by their IB school.
1) 40 seats plus all OOB offers. Last year Maury offered 12 K seats in the initial lottery. Also, trailers and renovations are maybe possible. And a set-aside at SWS could take some too.
2) It's bizarre to think some Miner students wouldn't benefit.
3) Maybe they can try a little harder, and offering it for more grades at more schools should help.
4) Bummer, but not Maury's problem to solve, and at great logistical cost to both Miner and Maury families. And not necessarily going to be solved by this. High-SES peers are not some magic wand that fixes poor administration and poor teaching and why are you assuming the high-SES kids would stay in this scenario?
1) Okay so 52 spots? Again, Miner has 300+ kids, 65% of whom are at risk. SWS is a tiny school, even if you did a 30% set aside at SWS, you aren't coming close to addressing the needs of at-risk students at Miner.
2) If 5 Miner kids benefit, have you solved the problems at Miner?
3) This is a non-response. No one knows for sure why the EA set asides aren't working. They've already tried "a little harder" and additional schools just added set asides in the last few years. Still they are undersubscribed. Saying "maybe this thing that hasn't worked will suddenly start working" is not an argument.
4) You need to stop looking at this entire process as Maury "solving" anything. I have something maybe surprising for you to hear: you don't own Maury. It's a DCPS school. DCPS can do whatever they want with it, including shift the boundaries, close it, combine it with Miner, turn it into a city-wide, whatever. You can choose whether or not to send your kid there, but no one is saying "Maury community, please solve our problems." Rather, Maury is viewed as one component of an interconnected school system, and there is a process underway to see if resources, students, etc., need to be reallocated among various schools, of which Maury is one. The amount of martyrdom we are hearing from Maury families is ridiculous. Your kids go to public school, in a city where the public school system has major problems you are currently pretty immune from. Good for you? There was never any guarantee that situation would continue.
Students aren't like school funding -- DCPS actually can't just "reallocate" them. That's what's being pushed back on here. The success of this plan entirely hinges on the idea that you can make one of a fairly small number of schools in DC that has high in boundary buy-in worse for families and that just stick around for it. You can think they're being entitled, but their kids are the resource here that you need.
DCPS 100% can just reallocate students. What do you think a boundary study and re-draw is?
The stupidity here is that DCPS is saying that it wants to reallocate SES. That's their entire premise -- they want to balance the SES between the 2 schools. But it can't do that if all the high SES families leave? Unless what DCPS is really trying to do is drive all the high-SES families out so that both Maury and Miner become equally low-SES. That is definitely more equitable, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is indeed the end goal.
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.
Whether Maury families like the cluster solution is a pretty key metric, as the whole plan (such as it is) depends on them remaining in the cluster.
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.)
No, at Miner income is an issue so programs like Tippi Toes have tried to come to come in but there aren’t enough people signing up. However instead the school itself offers free extracurricular activities run by teachers (like a dance team, Lego club, cheer squad, art club, etc).
If you look at Payne, there are plenty quality ec's that can be sponsored if you are a low-income school.
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.
No, you guys don't get it. You are looking at this from the perspective of what you personally want. You aren't ordering off a menu here.
Of course we'd all prefer a great IB school where all our kids can attend with a desirable MS feed. Duh. Everyone wants that.
The point is that some Maury families having to do a less desirable commute is an acceptable outcome if the plan overall solves the bigger issues. Yes commutes are a factor in boundary drawing and school assignment, but they obviously are not the determinative factor in a city that has a lottery system where something like 70% of students go to school out of bounds.
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?
Neighborhood schools have a lot of benefits, most of which would be obliterated if people are forced into a choice set.
If DC doesn't think neighborhood schools are good, then they can go ahead an implement a DCPS-wide system where they engineer each school to have the exact same percentage of at-risk students.
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.
Whether Maury families like the cluster solution is a pretty key metric, as the whole plan (such as it is) depends on them remaining in the cluster.
Does it? Like PP said, if their goal is SES balance, then if all the Maury families leave, DME will achieve its goal of SES balance faster.
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.)
No, at Miner income is an issue so programs like Tippi Toes have tried to come to come in but there aren’t enough people signing up. However instead the school itself offers free extracurricular activities run by teachers (like a dance team, Lego club, cheer squad, art club, etc).
If you look at Payne, there are plenty quality ec's that can be sponsored if you are a low-income school.
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.
Whether Maury families like the cluster solution is a pretty key metric, as the whole plan (such as it is) depends on them remaining in the cluster.
Does it? Like PP said, if their goal is SES balance, then if all the Maury families leave, DME will achieve its goal of SES balance faster.
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.
No, you guys don't get it. You are looking at this from the perspective of what you personally want. You aren't ordering off a menu here.
Of course we'd all prefer a great IB school where all our kids can attend with a desirable MS feed. Duh. Everyone wants that.
The point is that some Maury families having to do a less desirable commute is an acceptable outcome if the plan overall solves the bigger issues. Yes commutes are a factor in boundary drawing and school assignment, but they obviously are not the determinative factor in a city that has a lottery system where something like 70% of students go to school out of bounds.
I agree the lottery system is bad and makes it harder to improve IB schools.
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.
No, you guys don't get it. You are looking at this from the perspective of what you personally want. You aren't ordering off a menu here.
Of course we'd all prefer a great IB school where all our kids can attend with a desirable MS feed. Duh. Everyone wants that.
The point is that some Maury families having to do a less desirable commute is an acceptable outcome if the plan overall solves the bigger issues. Yes commutes are a factor in boundary drawing and school assignment, but they obviously are not the determinative factor in a city that has a lottery system where something like 70% of students go to school out of bounds.
Nobody's saying it's a determinative factor. It seems inevitable that some Maury families will have a less desirable commute in service of the DME's goals. But if you think My House-->LT-->Work is worse than My House-->Maury-->Miner-->Work, I don't know what to tell you. Especially with all the disadvantages that come with splitting your kids across two different locations.
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.)
No, at Miner income is an issue so programs like Tippi Toes have tried to come to come in but there aren’t enough people signing up. However instead the school itself offers free extracurricular activities run by teachers (like a dance team, Lego club, cheer squad, art club, etc).
I'm the PP who asked. Thank you for sharing. These sound like really cool activities, and those are obviously very caring teachers.
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.)
No, at Miner income is an issue so programs like Tippi Toes have tried to come to come in but there aren’t enough people signing up. However instead the school itself offers free extracurricular activities run by teachers (like a dance team, Lego club, cheer squad, art club, etc).
I'm the PP who asked. Thank you for sharing. These sound like really cool activities, and those are obviously very caring teachers.
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.
Whether Maury families like the cluster solution is a pretty key metric, as the whole plan (such as it is) depends on them remaining in the cluster.
Some will, some won't. Not every Maury family has the specific commute issues that have been raised here. Many Maury families are actually really resourceful and would be able to resolve commute issues pretty easily (something helped by the fact that most Maury families belong to a demographic where WFH is very common).
Saying "the cluster will not work for my family because it will not meet my kids' academic needs" is one thing. Saying "the cluster must be scrapped because I don't want to walk an extra four blocks each morning to drop off my kindergartner" is less compelling. Miner families would ALSO have to commute further to take their kids to Maury. They would also have dual drop-off issues. Yet they are not fixating on that because the cluster has other benefits to them, or perhaps they simply don't stress out so much about that. This discussion cannot rotate around the morning commutes of a small group of Maury families.
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.)
No, at Miner income is an issue so programs like Tippi Toes have tried to come to come in but there aren’t enough people signing up. However instead the school itself offers free extracurricular activities run by teachers (like a dance team, Lego club, cheer squad, art club, etc).
I'm the PP who asked. Thank you for sharing. These sound like really cool activities, and those are obviously very caring teachers.
Would those very caring teachers at Miner be laid off under this plan? What a great question that the DME has not answered.
Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}