Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Ludlow is 17% at risk and JOW is 59% at risk. Both feed to SH. They are 3 blocks away from each other. If clustering schools is the solution why aren't those also under consideration?

[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:

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.

In fairness, it sounds like they reached out right around the time the principal was being fired, and I for one am more inclined to believe DME dropped the ball than that people at Miner are lying or apathetic. I fully believe everyone at Miner (with notable administrative exceptions) is doing the best they can, and many are making frankly heroic efforts, and I also fully believe that DME is incompetent and poorly run.

[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:

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.

DME reached out to former principal who has since left and never checked his email. Admin team didn’t even know about it until friend of mine with kids at Miner told them. Yes you read that right, the admin team learned about the proposal from a parent who heard about it from Maury parents. DME has since been in contact with their interim principal and I think they have now scheduled a meeting. While no one lied, it’s pretty awful that the DME didn’t make more of an effort to reach out. They shouldn’t have leaned about it from us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

And wait another 10 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ludlow is 17% at risk and JOW is 59% at risk. Both feed to SH. They are 3 blocks away from each other. If clustering schools is the solution why aren't those also under consideration?

Oh, because having to cross H St is an absolute no-go! Diversity is very very important to the DME but not at the expense of crossing the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ludlow is 17% at risk and JOW is 59% at risk. Both feed to SH. They are 3 blocks away from each other. If clustering schools is the solution why aren't those also under consideration?

One thing they factored in was whether there was a major thoroughfare dividing the boundaries. I *think* H street qualifies.

[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.

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?

Peabody/Watkins actually had that for a period of time. It was paid for by the city, but at some point during or post-pandemic people started bleating about the city giving a benefit to Peabody/Watkins that wasn't available at other schools (though other schools don't have that ridiculous set-up). My understanding was the PTA was willing to continue funding it but the city wouldn't let them for some insurance reason.

[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.

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.

There's been no explanation as what the plan even is. How do we know high-SES families are critical to it? For all we know, DCPS thinks high-SES families are a PITA, and wants them to leave, and that is the plan.

[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:

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.

DME reached out to former principal who has since left and never checked his email. Admin team didn’t even know about it until friend of mine with kids at Miner told them. Yes you read that right, the admin team learned about the proposal from a parent who heard about it from Maury parents. DME has since been in contact with their interim principal and I think they have now scheduled a meeting. While no one lied, it’s pretty awful that the DME didn’t make more of an effort to reach out. They shouldn’t have leaned about it from us.

It's possible it just hasn't reached the website yet, but the Miner date is still TBD on the DME website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And wait another 10 years?

who said DCPS has to wait to start figuring out how to improve academics in high-needs schools? they can start doing it now by mandating phonics and going back to teaching math facts. nobody is stopping DCPS.

[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:

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.

DME reached out to former principal who has since left and never checked his email. Admin team didn’t even know about it until friend of mine with kids at Miner told them. Yes you read that right, the admin team learned about the proposal from a parent who heard about it from Maury parents. DME has since been in contact with their interim principal and I think they have now scheduled a meeting. While no one lied, it’s pretty awful that the DME didn’t make more of an effort to reach out. They shouldn’t have leaned about it from us.

It's possible it just hasn't reached the website yet, but the Miner date is still TBD on the DME website.

Miner parent here. DME is presenting at our LSAT meeting. I don’t know if that counts as the townhall or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's funny, because I used to live across from Payne 10 years ago, and that's what I heard during drop off and pick up everyday. It's why I moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And wait another 10 years?

I mean realistically with the kind of renovation that would need to happen to make that feasible, assuming they wouldn't put Maury/Miner at the front of the line (given that Maury is still so new and there are a ton of schools in much more dire need of renovation), I don't know how quickly you think this cluster could actually start. Even if we did leapfrog other schools, as a practical matter this would take quite some time.

Which is sort of another knock against it. With that kind of uncertainty hanging over everyone, I think we would see a lot less buy-in to the Maury boundary (though, in fairness, potentially more into the Miner boundary) and people would have time to figure out other options, such that I think the demographic differences between the schools would be significantly less stark (undermining the whole premise) before the experiment even begins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

And wait another 10 years?

who said DCPS has to wait to start figuring out how to improve academics in high-needs schools? they can start doing it now by mandating phonics and going back to teaching math facts. nobody is stopping DCPS.

The whole reason this conversation is taking place because of the 10 year boundary study…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ludlow is 17% at risk and JOW is 59% at risk. Both feed to SH. They are 3 blocks away from each other. If clustering schools is the solution why aren't those also under consideration?

One thing they factored in was whether there was a major thoroughfare dividing the boundaries. I *think* H street qualifies.

It's just sort of silly -- plenty of DC school boundaries cross major thoroughfares.