Maury Capitol Hill

[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:

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.

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.

What about the experience of Miner families? Does that matter to anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Honey. The commute stuff is fundamentally about retention. Maury families would have to *want* to enroll in this cluster despite the commute and despite the lack of a plan for academic or any other improvements. Yes, they are capable of doing a difficult commute. But if they choose not to, retention will suffer. And that undermines the rational for the entire project.

[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:

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.

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.

What about the experience of Miner families? Does that matter to anyone?

Of course it matters, but I don't believe they're talking about re-zoning any portions of Miner to any other schools than Maury. So this question of comparing commutes to other nearby schools if part of Maury's boundary were reassigned to Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins is purely a Maury question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

It sounds like everyone will keep their job and just move as needed (so the Miner 2-5 staff will move to Maury and the Maury pk-1 will move to Miner) and then the specials teachers would go to one or the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I can't speak for others, but I at least have said both things.

[Anonymous]

It's not just the commute. The two-location thing brings up all kinds of special-needs related difficulties. It would also require coordinating dropoff and pickup times so that a single parent is physically capable of being in the right place at the right time. What about evening meetings and events-- are those going to also be coordinated? It just seems like it brings up a bunch of issues that wouldn't otherwise exist. If the goal is more at-risk kids at Maury, do a set-aside. If the goal is more high-SES kids at Miner, maybe making Miner less of a dysfunctional place would do the trick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why doesn't DCPS cut down it's bloated central office and redirect those funds to Miner? Or how about eliminating the DME's office? Just how much money was wasted on this useless study where a proposal that hugely impacts Miner was made *without even notifying Miner parents about it*????? The DME and everyone working for him should be fired and all those funds redirected to schools that need them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Watkins “failed” in part due to commute and the loss of the shuttle bus. The commute isn’t as bad for Maury/Miner but it definitely will increase IB attrition as families figure they may as well lottery for charters if they are going to drive anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't know who you are talking too, but I'm not hearing Maury parents say the things you're saying they are. And at this point I've seen more hurtful generalizations and insults about Maury families than Miner families. In just the last couple of posts we are disgusting, repulsive, racist. It might help the quality of the discussion if you didn't assume the worst about Maury parents.

This tells me you weren't on the Maury call on Dec. 4.

Multiple people chimed in with "those children", "dilution", "uneducated and unecuated parents", "I didn't live There to be around Them" comments. Which received applause. Literal applause vocally and with the applause feature in the chat.

*EVERY* person who had those statements started with, "I'm all for diversity BUT, and then went full NIMBY and racist. One person had the decency (ironically) to blatantly state they didn't want poor people affecting their family's socioeconomic status. It was horrendous but that person was at least honest.

NP. I want my kids in classes with other high performing kids. I want my kids going to school where parents don't scream swears and threaten to beath their kids at drop off and pickup. It isn't about race.

(Oh, I should mention I'm black. It is offensive when white folks associate bad students and and uneducated parents with whiteness. Even more offensive when regressive wanna warriors do it to our won communities.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

It sounds like everyone will keep their job and just move as needed (so the Miner 2-5 staff will move to Maury and the Maury pk-1 will move to Miner) and then the specials teachers would go to one or the other?

We have heard that staff will all have to reapply for their jobs. This is a massive upheaval; it’s two brand-new schools essentially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

It sounds like everyone will keep their job and just move as needed (so the Miner 2-5 staff will move to Maury and the Maury pk-1 will move to Miner) and then the specials teachers would go to one or the other?

We have heard that staff will all have to reapply for their jobs. This is a massive upheaval; it’s two brand-new schools essentially.

So is this just a way for DCPS to offload the teachers it wants to get rid of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Will you please realize that when DCPS is working on a plan to make a school worse, no one gives a fck if you’re fake offended?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Hope this helps.

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

Is the problem that you can't start your commute earlier, because you can't afford before-care? Because if Maury clusters with Miner, then maybe before care would become free and this would no longer be a problem.

Otherwise just start your commute earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Hope this helps.

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

Is the problem that you can't start your commute earlier, because you can't afford before-care? Because if Maury clusters with Miner, then maybe before care would become free and this would no longer be a problem.

Otherwise just start your commute earlier.

The problem is not any one person's commute. The problem is that people won't like this, and it will worsen the high-SES participation rate in the long term, which undermines the reason for doing it. Just because people CAN get up early doesn't mean they will. Given all the many problems this causes, people will just enroll elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People care about their finances. You do too. Pretending that you don’t is just some kind of pious nonsense for appearances. I personally always accepted that factors outside my control could impact my home price but I’m hardly going to pretend it makes someone evil to care about it. But anyway, the reason people even mention it is because of the underlying assumption that the cluster will make things worse, possibly for BOTH schools, not better. So yeah, losing home equity because DC decided to randomly dismantle two schools is kind of something that will attract comment.

I don’t think anyone said the cost of housing isn’t relevant. PP said it was sad that it’s more important than equity. Maybe that’s not how you feel, maybe that’s not how a lot of people feel, but as a member of this community who has been reading these posts, it’s pretty clear that PP isn’t wrong—people seem to be a lot more worried about their houses than their neighbors.

Define "equity".