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:

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.

If you want Maury to go from 82% IB to 33% IB like Watkins, then sure, you don’t have to care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

LOL to the idea that people who are currently claiming that having to walk four block out of their way on their morning commute is an insurmountable obstacle to making a cluster intended to address a significant disparity in demographics and outcomes at neighboring school is "committed to the ideals of public education."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

what additional resources, exactly, do you think Miner kids get by combining with Maury? I feel like there’s some kind of urban legend that PTA fundraising is a goldmine. It’s not - it mainly goes to aides, and Title 1 funding more than replaces that in terms of staff. The rest is just small perks like teacher gifts. IMO the most important thing the PTO does is community building fun events, as well as the work of fundraising itself like yard sales and bake sales. The Miner PTO can do this - you don’t need a high SES base to have a bake sale or popsicle party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

If you want Maury to go from 82% IB to 33% IB like Watkins, then sure, you don’t have to care.

People in this thread keep crapping all over Watkins and calling it a failed school, but they have pretty decent PARCC scores for a Title 1 school and people I know at that school are reasonably happy. Is it Maury? No. But it's not a bad school by any stretch of the imagination. You can't be Maury unless you get rid of most of the poor kids. Watkins serves poor kids and also manages do do okay.

If people at Maury really believe that it was parental involvement and commitment that made the school what it is, and not just demographics, they'd seize the opportunity being presented here to prove they can support a thriving school community even if it's not majority white white 90% of families MC or above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

what additional resources, exactly, do you think Miner kids get by combining with Maury? I feel like there’s some kind of urban legend that PTA fundraising is a goldmine. It’s not - it mainly goes to aides, and Title 1 funding more than replaces that in terms of staff. The rest is just small perks like teacher gifts. IMO the most important thing the PTO does is community building fun events, as well as the work of fundraising itself like yard sales and bake sales. The Miner PTO can do this - you don’t need a high SES base to have a bake sale or popsicle party.

DP, but they get the "resource" of being in a classroom where more than 50% of students are not at-risk. This means they get more consistency day to day (lower truancy rates), and teachers and administration who have more capacity to meet the needs of all kids because they are not focused exclusively on the needs of the 65% of students who have extremely high needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

If you want Maury to go from 82% IB to 33% IB like Watkins, then sure, you don’t have to care.

People in this thread keep crapping all over Watkins and calling it a failed school, but they have pretty decent PARCC scores for a Title 1 school and people I know at that school are reasonably happy. Is it Maury? No. But it's not a bad school by any stretch of the imagination. You can't be Maury unless you get rid of most of the poor kids. Watkins serves poor kids and also manages do do okay.

If people at Maury really believe that it was parental involvement and commitment that made the school what it is, and not just demographics, they'd seize the opportunity being presented here to prove they can support a thriving school community even if it's not majority white white 90% of families MC or above.

Way to miss the point! If the reason to combine Maury and Miner is that high SES Maury kids are the key to improving test scores of at-risk Miner kids, then the plan fails when Maury families leave the school, as happened at Watkins.

[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).

If you look at Payne, there are plenty quality ec's that can be sponsored if you are a low-income school.

Sponsored?

Yes, as in paid for by an outside organization. Students in the school can attend the ec for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

LOL to the idea that people who are currently claiming that having to walk four block out of their way on their morning commute is an insurmountable obstacle to making a cluster intended to address a significant disparity in demographics and outcomes at neighboring school is "committed to the ideals of public education."

It's one of many thoughtful points people have brought up. As to your thesis, it's not at all clear to me that the proposed cluster would do anything to address "outcomes." There are high-performing high-poverty schools in the world. There are even schools in DC that do better with their high at-risk populations than Miner. We've also heard parents on the calls ask about DC's implementation of research-backed methods for improving educational outcomes for high poverty schools/students. We've heard nothing about what DC has tried at Miner. As far as we know, DC has tried nothing and they're all out of ideas. They're not going to all of a sudden become interested in this if a cluster is formed.

[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?

Obviously not to DME or the Miner admin? DME claims to have tried to set up a meeting with Miner families, but no one responded? Either they are lying, or Miner admin doesn't care about the experience of its families at all.

[Anonymous]

Based on the other thread about Miner it really seems like DCPS should get them some solid leadership support and see how that helps before dismantling and rearranging both schools like duplos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

what additional resources, exactly, do you think Miner kids get by combining with Maury? I feel like there’s some kind of urban legend that PTA fundraising is a goldmine. It’s not - it mainly goes to aides, and Title 1 funding more than replaces that in terms of staff. The rest is just small perks like teacher gifts. IMO the most important thing the PTO does is community building fun events, as well as the work of fundraising itself like yard sales and bake sales. The Miner PTO can do this - you don’t need a high SES base to have a bake sale or popsicle party.

This has nothing to do with either schools PTA. I’m not even sure what that came from. I don’t know what PP was referring to but resources could include stable leadership, teachers who stay, and the opportunity to mix classes with students of varying academic levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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.

So in a nutshell you're proposing to make the school Title I funding, and hope high SES parents stick around AND put in enough money to make up the difference? Come on.

[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.

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.

Why not set up a shuttle bus that goes between Maury and Miner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

what additional resources, exactly, do you think Miner kids get by combining with Maury? I feel like there’s some kind of urban legend that PTA fundraising is a goldmine. It’s not - it mainly goes to aides, and Title 1 funding more than replaces that in terms of staff. The rest is just small perks like teacher gifts. IMO the most important thing the PTO does is community building fun events, as well as the work of fundraising itself like yard sales and bake sales. The Miner PTO can do this - you don’t need a high SES base to have a bake sale or popsicle party.

DP, but they get the "resource" of being in a classroom where more than 50% of students are not at-risk. This means they get more consistency day to day (lower truancy rates), and teachers and administration who have more capacity to meet the needs of all kids because they are not focused exclusively on the needs of the 65% of students who have extremely high needs.

Would you support classes that group together above–grade level kids, classes that group together on–grade level kids, and classes that group together below–grade level kids? To your point, that would make it much easier for teachers to meet each and every kid where they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

what additional resources, exactly, do you think Miner kids get by combining with Maury? I feel like there’s some kind of urban legend that PTA fundraising is a goldmine. It’s not - it mainly goes to aides, and Title 1 funding more than replaces that in terms of staff. The rest is just small perks like teacher gifts. IMO the most important thing the PTO does is community building fun events, as well as the work of fundraising itself like yard sales and bake sales. The Miner PTO can do this - you don’t need a high SES base to have a bake sale or popsicle party.

DP, but they get the "resource" of being in a classroom where more than 50% of students are not at-risk. This means they get more consistency day to day (lower truancy rates), and teachers and administration who have more capacity to meet the needs of all kids because they are not focused exclusively on the needs of the 65% of students who have extremely high needs.

But you’re just making sh*t up. It could as easily be true that it is better to have high needs students in the same classroom because they can be taught together. In a classroom that is 30% below grade level and 70% above, the lower 1/3 might get lost. You can differentiate but guess what the kids in the lower reading group are going to look like? You can actually see this dynamic play out in the Maury transition from 5th to EH. There were many tensions in 5th because of big differences in needs between a subset of high risk kids and the high SES kids. At EH this tension has pretty much evaporated because the percentages have flipped. The belief that all you have to do is put kids who cannot read in a class with kids reading almost at a HS level is frankly delusional.