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:

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.

Honey. These are public school parents in DCPS -- if they had endless options, they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. If you want to walk if the cluster plan goes through, where are you going? Think you're going to snap your fingers and get a lottery spot at LT or Brent? Or a spot at SWS or CHMS? Even spots at TR4 are not a guarantee, are you willing to go to the other campus? Or even Lee Brookland or ITDS (say goodbye to a walking commute altogether). You're going private? Okay, great, there are two acceptable privates on the Hill and the are on the other side of the Ward. Most of these options are significantly worse commuting scenarios even if you get both your kids in via lottery or applciation, which you might not.

So you're going to move? Okay, go ahead -- whoever buys your home will be buying into the cluster, and if you don't think there are families in DC who would jump a the chance to roll the dice on this proposed cluster, because there are MUCH worse options elsewhere in DC with similarly priced housing. Enjoy Ward 3 or the burbs.

Realistically, if the city decides to do this, Maury families can stomp their feet all they want but their options are going to be (1) get on board, (2) move, or (3) lottery and most likely be choosing between options like Two Rivers, Lee or Stokes EE, JOW, Payne, or Peabody/Watkins.

So actually, I am not sure that catering to every complaint and objection that Maury parents can throw at the wall is necessary, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I heard everyone will keep their job and just move to the school where their grade is taught

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow this whole 70 page and growing post is just so disheartening. I live in bounds to Miner. My kids go to Miner. My 4th grade kid is doing academically very well at Miner. My 2nd grade kid is struggling a little bit doing pretty well (what 2nd and 3rd grader didn’t face a bit of a setback when we had to teach them at home during the years when they were just starting to read). I have chosen to stay at Miner because it’s my kids home, the teachers are great (yes, even for smart kids who score in the top 99% of the PARCC testing nationwide). So many people leave because they hear that it’s not good. But who do they hear that from? Other people who left? Yes there are problems, a lot of problems, the biggest being that DCPS doesn’t prioritize us when it comes to simple things like finding the right leader. But this bickering between neighbors is out of control. There are actually many Maury families who are pro merger. There are probably many Miner families who are too (I don’t know because we have yet to have our presentation from the DME so we have lots of questions to ask about funding and free lunch and things of that nature). But in my opinion if you choose to send your child to a DCPS school, you have to choose to live by the values of DCPS. And one of those is equity. It’s clear there’s a divide between Maury and Miner. And 10-15 years ago the divide was less. There are countless reasons for that, ranging from proximity to public transportation to having charter schools in the Miner boundary and more. I think there are a great deal of Maury parents who oppose the merger but still want equity. They don’t oppose it for some of the horrible reasons stated in this chain or on the Townhall (anyone who says there weren’t some awful comments at the Townhall clearly wasn’t on the call). But there are parents who do support it. There’s nothing wrong with factoring personal things like housing value, that’s realistic. But when those things overshadow and take precedence over the mission and vision of the school district, then there is a problem. We are neighbors. We are part of the same feeder pattern. We should work together.

The kids scoring 99% are unicorns my friend. Look at the data. Also, you keep using "equity". What do you mean when you use that word? Finally, why is relative demography only important for Miner/Maury? Why not break up the whitest, highest performing schools in NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Yes!

[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.

There are often situations where teachers and administrators have to reapply for their own jobs due to budgeting, but there are ways to do it that are not painful (where you are pretty much guaranteed to be approved for the "new" job). It would definitely be annoying but it's not necessarily "massive upheaval."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Honey. These are public school parents in DCPS -- if they had endless options, they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. If you want to walk if the cluster plan goes through, where are you going? Think you're going to snap your fingers and get a lottery spot at LT or Brent? Or a spot at SWS or CHMS? Even spots at TR4 are not a guarantee, are you willing to go to the other campus? Or even Lee Brookland or ITDS (say goodbye to a walking commute altogether). You're going private? Okay, great, there are two acceptable privates on the Hill and the are on the other side of the Ward. Most of these options are significantly worse commuting scenarios even if you get both your kids in via lottery or applciation, which you might not.

So you're going to move? Okay, go ahead -- whoever buys your home will be buying into the cluster, and if you don't think there are families in DC who would jump a the chance to roll the dice on this proposed cluster, because there are MUCH worse options elsewhere in DC with similarly priced housing. Enjoy Ward 3 or the burbs.

Realistically, if the city decides to do this, Maury families can stomp their feet all they want but their options are going to be (1) get on board, (2) move, or (3) lottery and most likely be choosing between options like Two Rivers, Lee or Stokes EE, JOW, Payne, or Peabody/Watkins.

So actually, I am not sure that catering to every complaint and objection that Maury parents can throw at the wall is necessary, no.

I think they will do a combination of all of those things, or not move to the Maury/Miner zone in the first place. Look at how Watkins, Mundo, and Two Rivers have devolved recently. Even in a difficult environment it's possible for things to fall apart. Maybe some other school will be the better for it, I dunno.

Nobody says to cater to them. But if you don't think they'll leave, think again-- and model it in, because presence of high-SES families is the critical input for this plan to succeed.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

How does clustering the schools address those disparities?? That's the question that has been repeatedly asked and DME has told us that *they don't know*!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

It's about ableism! D**n my and other disabled kids, you don't want your kids in class with kids who aren't high performing! Yuck. Go to hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

I go to a school with similar demographics to Miner and I've never heard a parent scream swears or threaten to beat their kids at drop off or pick up. Or at any school event or in any of my dealings with any of the families a the school. I have seen things like kids who are dropped off or picked up by various family members due to home instability, kids who may not be bathed as often as they should, kids who don't get help with homework or other academic support, kids who are unhoused, and so forth. All of these are things common with people living in poverty.

But I've personally never seen what you describe here and my kid has never been exposed to bad language or violence at school.

I think some of you might have an imagined idea of what Miner is like and what it would be like to combine with them, that does not reflect reality.

[Anonymous]

Just got back from reading to my kindergartener's class and doubling up by assisting in my older child's classroom. Total commute and volunteering time today: 40 minutes. In the proposed cluster, commute and same school volunteer work would have taken a total of 2 hours today.

I get that some people don't think the logistical/commute problems are real, and certainly they aren't the most important ones, but a change like this could materially change parental engagement for the worse. I can usually get away with 40 minutes away from work, but I can almost never get away with 2 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of these comments from non-Miner parents about how Miner parents should just invest in the school and fix it are ignorant.

First, as was explained quite early in this thread to explain why Maury and Miner have such different demographics to begin with, Miner has a significant amount of low income housing that Maury does not have. Even if every high-SES family IB for Miner sent their kids to Miner, it would still have a much higher percentage of low income and at-risk kids. Maury has little to no low-income housing in its boundary, which means that as it grew its IB percentage, it greatly shrank the at risk population. The same thing would not happen at Miner.

Second, Miner's location close to Benning road means that it is an attractive lottery option for kids coming from across the river. Thus, without buy-in from IB families, the school has a lot of kids from Wards 7 and 8 who statistically are more likely to be at risk. Maury used to get more Ward 7/8 students back when it was Title 1 with a lower IB percentage, but not nearly as much as Miner because it's location is a much less convenient commute, especially if you are taking public transportation.

Having a large low-income IB contingent and having a history of being a Ward 7/8 destination school can make the kind of upward trajectory that Maury has been on hard if not impossible. There is often fear that improving the school in a way that is appealing to higher SES families will destroy what these families value about the school. The most obvious concerns revolve around Title 1 status and access to free before/after care and free school lunch. That's not a small thing for a low-income family -- these benefits can be essential. Even if they were assured that the school would keep these services free for low income families, there is not a lot of trust there and also no one wants to have to jump through hoops for something they currently get without even having to sign up.

Often MC and UMC families will stick it out until K or 1st, but then they start running into other issues, especially regarding teaching approach and classroom management. School with large at risk populations tend to attract teachers who are okay teaching large at risk populations. These teachers are not always thrilled about having an increasing number of higher SES kids in their class, and in particular are often very wary of the increased involvement and sometimes demands of these parents. Yes, there is a racial component here. But it's also just a culture clash. What seems like "being a good parent" to an UMC white person can seem like "overbearing, demanding ahole" to a teacher in this position.

At this point parents start making choices both for their own comfort (it can be emotionally tiring to constantly be trying to bridge these racial, economic, and cultural divides with sensitivity and self-awareness -- it is work) and for the sake of their kids, who they may worry will not always get the support or welcome in the classroom or the school that every parent wants for their kids. So they go.

For Maury parents to waive this off and say "just do what we did at Maury" like Maury did not have demographic advantages that made their success easier, is going to piss off Miner parents who have been working on this for years, whether they are still at Miner or not. Because it is SO EASY for Maury parents, especially those who are not PTA members or people who really worked to turn the school around, to just tell Miner parents to "do it yourself."

The truth is that "turning around" a struggling school with more than 60% at risk kids is not something that your average parent or even group of parents can do, especially not if you have a job and literally any other issues in your life. It is a steep uphill battle with low changes of success, and for most parents, any success will likely come after their kids are done with elementary. It is a different, and harder, challenge than what was accomplished at Maury.

No, it's that *DCPS* should invest in Miner, or at least stop screwing it over with horrible leadership choices.

Maury parents are trying to say the same thing you are-- that too high a concentration of at-risk kids makes it an uphill battle. And if Maury and Miner are clustered, it will be an uphill battle at both schools. That is why this proposal is unrealistic and will not have the desired effect.

But Maury is overwhelmingly higher income. So combining the schools immediately results in a more balanced population where, instead of one school that is mostly black and at risk, and one school that is predominantly white with very few at risk, you get a more diverse school with about 30-35% at risk.

A school with that percent of at-risk kids is harder to guide and help succeed than a school with 12% (as Maury now has), yes. But it's WAY easier than a school with 65% at risk, as Miner now has. So the resulting school would be a more difficult experience for Maury families, but a significantly better experience for Miner.

The question is whether you think it's wrong or not to inconvenience Maury families in order to help Miner families. This depends on how you view public education.

False choice. First, there is no evidence that shows us that this improves Miner. There is certainly no data to suggest that this will help Miner vs other approaches because there are no other approaches. There's also no survey data showing us those percentages would remain flat (I do not think they will). Your language is disingenuous. "Inconveniencing Maury" vs "helping Minor". If you believe this helps Minor then at least be intellectually honest and frame this as "hurting Maury".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this whole 70 page and growing post is just so disheartening. I live in bounds to Miner. My kids go to Miner. My 4th grade kid is doing academically very well at Miner. My 2nd grade kid is struggling a little bit doing pretty well (what 2nd and 3rd grader didn’t face a bit of a setback when we had to teach them at home during the years when they were just starting to read). I have chosen to stay at Miner because it’s my kids home, the teachers are great (yes, even for smart kids who score in the top 99% of the PARCC testing nationwide). So many people leave because they hear that it’s not good. But who do they hear that from? Other people who left? Yes there are problems, a lot of problems, the biggest being that DCPS doesn’t prioritize us when it comes to simple things like finding the right leader. But this bickering between neighbors is out of control. There are actually many Maury families who are pro merger. There are probably many Miner families who are too (I don’t know because we have yet to have our presentation from the DME so we have lots of questions to ask about funding and free lunch and things of that nature). But in my opinion if you choose to send your child to a DCPS school, you have to choose to live by the values of DCPS. And one of those is equity. It’s clear there’s a divide between Maury and Miner. And 10-15 years ago the divide was less. There are countless reasons for that, ranging from proximity to public transportation to having charter schools in the Miner boundary and more. I think there are a great deal of Maury parents who oppose the merger but still want equity. They don’t oppose it for some of the horrible reasons stated in this chain or on the Townhall (anyone who says there weren’t some awful comments at the Townhall clearly wasn’t on the call). But there are parents who do support it. There’s nothing wrong with factoring personal things like housing value, that’s realistic. But when those things overshadow and take precedence over the mission and vision of the school district, then there is a problem. We are neighbors. We are part of the same feeder pattern. We should work together.

The kids scoring 99% are unicorns my friend. Look at the data. Also, you keep using "equity". What do you mean when you use that word? Finally, why is relative demography only important for Miner/Maury? Why not break up the whitest, highest performing schools in NW?

I am not saying the kid is not a unicorn. I’m saying that in reference to the people who somewhere said the teachers at Miner can’t teach high performing kids. They can. And there are other kids that perform well too. And yes I’m using the term “equity” because that is the term DCPS and the DME use. But specifically here I’m talking about what we have all been talking about—equity in access to resources for kids, and equity in the number of at risk kids in neighboring schools. And as I said I don’t necessarily know that the cluster is the solution because there are plenty of unanswered questions, likely because the DME hasn’t met with Miner yet. And finally I do think DCPS should go into Ward 3/NW to make changes. I never said they shouldn’t. But the fact that there are two neighboring schools right here with such different at risk populations leads to a lot of questions that need to be addressed for (I’m going to use the word again) equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Honey. These are public school parents in DCPS -- if they had endless options, they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. If you want to walk if the cluster plan goes through, where are you going? Think you're going to snap your fingers and get a lottery spot at LT or Brent? Or a spot at SWS or CHMS? Even spots at TR4 are not a guarantee, are you willing to go to the other campus? Or even Lee Brookland or ITDS (say goodbye to a walking commute altogether). You're going private? Okay, great, there are two acceptable privates on the Hill and the are on the other side of the Ward. Most of these options are significantly worse commuting scenarios even if you get both your kids in via lottery or applciation, which you might not.

So you're going to move? Okay, go ahead -- whoever buys your home will be buying into the cluster, and if you don't think there are families in DC who would jump a the chance to roll the dice on this proposed cluster, because there are MUCH worse options elsewhere in DC with similarly priced housing. Enjoy Ward 3 or the burbs.

Realistically, if the city decides to do this, Maury families can stomp their feet all they want but their options are going to be (1) get on board, (2) move, or (3) lottery and most likely be choosing between options like Two Rivers, Lee or Stokes EE, JOW, Payne, or Peabody/Watkins.

So actually, I am not sure that catering to every complaint and objection that Maury parents can throw at the wall is necessary, no.

Love the assumption that people in DCPS are here because we weren't able to get out, and not because we are genuinely committed to the ideals of public education and really, really want to make DCPS work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

How does clustering the schools address those disparities?? That's the question that has been repeatedly asked and DME has told us that *they don't know*!!

Then resulting cluster would have less a much smaller at-risk percentage and more balanced racial demographics. That's the argument. That a school with 65% at risk is screwed from the jump, but if you can get the percentage down to 30-40%, it's possible for a good administration and a caring community to provide a strong education to all students.

I do think this would be more likely solve the problem of how to better serve the Miner community than just EA set asides in the lottery. There are a lot of advantages to the cluster over that proposal, IMO.

[Anonymous]

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 doesn't. Certainly no academic study would draw a conclusion about "diversity" without first defining the term and setting out goals to be achieved and measured.