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: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.

I do not know what you are talking about. I have a kindergartener in a Title 1 school (not Miner) and they use a mandated and very good phonics program (Heggarty). DCPS does new math like every other school in the country -- memorizing math facts is no longer considered the best approach pedagogically. I was not initially sold but the more I see how they approach it, the more sense it makes to me. Instead of relying on memorized times tables or similar, kids learn strategies for decoding any math problem using logic and fundamental knowledge. It's a good system.

None of this has anything to do with Miner -- their problem is not curriculum-based. But oh by the way, LOTS of the cities high-SES fell prey to the Lucy Caulkins reading trap, including the vaunted SWS, to disastrous effect.

Yep, in fact Miner uses Heggerty too

Of course they do, it's required by DCPS. Maury and Miner both use the same curriculum.

I love that there are people who think Miner's test scores are low because they aren't teaching phonics, and not because 65% of their school population experiences things like poverty, housing insecurity, parents in jail, etc.

So you think that there’s nothing to be done to actually teach them directly to read & write better and the only possible thing is being in physical proximity to kids who read better? This almost supernatural belief is an interesting take on curriculum.

See 15:08. You misunderstand the problem. There are kids who go through Miner's curriculum and are learning well and probably score 3/4/5 on the PARCC. It just they are leaving Miner before they can do this. By the time you get to 3rd grade at Miner, there are virtually none of these families left, and convincing them to stay is incredibly hard because they have to stay as a group. When you factor in that 3rd and up is also when it gets easier to lottery into schools like Maury, LT, Brent, etc. you see the problem.

It's a revolving door. JOW has a similar issue. LT did too for a long time until people buying in that part of the Hill became a little less transient (only a little, LT actually still deals with this problem).

I have trouble understanding how the cluster model would help this problem. It would create a natural break between schools when families would leave, just like at Peabody-Watkins. You don't even have the continuity and community of one school.

But you have the continuity and community of one neighborhood. My kids were in a bunch of different schools all over the Hill, and switching schools was never a problem because they already knew half the kids through Cap Hill Little League, or DC Way, or Girl Scouts, or Mr. Tony's adventure camp, etc.

Miner and Maury both have neighborhood continuity already and struggle to retain kids in the upper grades.

That's because half the neighborhood goes to Latin/Basis. If you want to continue neighborhood continuity, you need to send your kids there.

Or everyone could attend their IB school and they would improve

But then you'd have to put up with DCPS. As you are all learning, that's not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

I'm not being childish. 47 percent is nearly 50, and two test cases produce more data than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

Who decided there is a threshold where clustering is effective? That’s the point. These are completely made-up metrics to create meaningless metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

I'm not being childish. 47 percent is nearly 50, and two test cases produce more data than one.

You don't actually support a cluster at LT/JOW though. You are just pointing at LT and saying "why do I have to share when they don't!?"

Childish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

We don’t want to be a “test case”! Taking apart two schools as a “test case”? Madness.

[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: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.

I do not know what you are talking about. I have a kindergartener in a Title 1 school (not Miner) and they use a mandated and very good phonics program (Heggarty). DCPS does new math like every other school in the country -- memorizing math facts is no longer considered the best approach pedagogically. I was not initially sold but the more I see how they approach it, the more sense it makes to me. Instead of relying on memorized times tables or similar, kids learn strategies for decoding any math problem using logic and fundamental knowledge. It's a good system.

None of this has anything to do with Miner -- their problem is not curriculum-based. But oh by the way, LOTS of the cities high-SES fell prey to the Lucy Caulkins reading trap, including the vaunted SWS, to disastrous effect.

Yep, in fact Miner uses Heggerty too

Of course they do, it's required by DCPS. Maury and Miner both use the same curriculum.

I love that there are people who think Miner's test scores are low because they aren't teaching phonics, and not because 65% of their school population experiences things like poverty, housing insecurity, parents in jail, etc.

So you think that there’s nothing to be done to actually teach them directly to read & write better and the only possible thing is being in physical proximity to kids who read better? This almost supernatural belief is an interesting take on curriculum.

See 15:08. You misunderstand the problem. There are kids who go through Miner's curriculum and are learning well and probably score 3/4/5 on the PARCC. It just they are leaving Miner before they can do this. By the time you get to 3rd grade at Miner, there are virtually none of these families left, and convincing them to stay is incredibly hard because they have to stay as a group. When you factor in that 3rd and up is also when it gets easier to lottery into schools like Maury, LT, Brent, etc. you see the problem.

It's a revolving door. JOW has a similar issue. LT did too for a long time until people buying in that part of the Hill became a little less transient (only a little, LT actually still deals with this problem).

I have trouble understanding how the cluster model would help this problem. It would create a natural break between schools when families would leave, just like at Peabody-Watkins. You don't even have the continuity and community of one school.

But you have the continuity and community of one neighborhood. My kids were in a bunch of different schools all over the Hill, and switching schools was never a problem because they already knew half the kids through Cap Hill Little League, or DC Way, or Girl Scouts, or Mr. Tony's adventure camp, etc.

Miner and Maury both have neighborhood continuity already and struggle to retain kids in the upper grades.

That's because half the neighborhood goes to Latin/Basis. If you want to continue neighborhood continuity, you need to send your kids there.

Or everyone could attend their IB school and they would improve

But then you'd have to put up with DCPS. As you are all learning, that's not worth it.

Touché (though I’m a fool who learned this years ago and keep going back)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

Why not bring back the bus then? If they actually cared, they would. The truth is they're fine with the performance of Watkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

I'm not being childish. 47 percent is nearly 50, and two test cases produce more data than one.

You don't actually support a cluster at LT/JOW though. You are just pointing at LT and saying "why do I have to share when they don't!?"

Childish.

I'm asking why, if it's so great, Ludlow-Taylor can't share in the awesomeness. It seems unfair to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

Why not bring back the bus then? If they actually cared, they would. The truth is they're fine with the performance of Watkins.

Great point -- either they don't really care about school performance and retention, in which case we can be confident they won't do anything necessarily to help a new cluster succeed -- or they realize that the shuttle is maybe not actually the deciding factor for people, in which case I suspect we will see some of the same other factors coming to play in a new cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

Who decided there is a threshold where clustering is effective? That’s the point. These are completely made-up metrics to create meaningless metrics.

The threshold was not developed as a litmus test for where a cluster would succeed or not. The threshold was developed to help narrow down a list of potential school pairs where a cluster might be needed. A threshold by its nature will include cases that are just above or just below. LT/JOW was just below.

Then, once a list of potential clusters was assembled using these metrics, a separate analysis was done to determine where, among this list, a cluster might be most likely to succeed. Maury/Miner was chosen specifically because of the proximity of the schools and the fact that they are not separated by arterial roads but are both considered part of a continuous neighborhood.

As for who decided that clustering was an idea worth exploring, I'm assuming either the DME or the Advisory Committee, or possibly both jointly. Certainly clustering is not a foreign idea in DCPS, given they've done it previously with Watkins and Peabody, and that people have suggested clustering Maury and Miner in the past.

[Anonymous]

I’m really curious about families that lottery into Miner at 3rd and above. It seems like they must have some kind of connection to the school or neighborhood. Or are things just so bad at their IB? Because there are no doubt also charter options in the neighborhood that are not that different from Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

But why does it have to be just one pair? If clusters are awesome and improve outcomes for all kids, let's have more of them. Right?

You are being childish. If the Maury/Miner cluster worked, I am pretty sure they would consider it for LT/JOW. Every heard of a "test case"? This is how it works.

And before you say that Peabody/Watkins was the test case, that cluster was working pretty well until DC eliminated transportation between the schools. So one idea behind a Maury/Miner cluster would be to try the cluster concept without the big commute between schools.

I'm not being childish. 47 percent is nearly 50, and two test cases produce more data than one.

You don't actually support a cluster at LT/JOW though. You are just pointing at LT and saying "why do I have to share when they don't!?"

Childish.

I'm asking why, if it's so great, Ludlow-Taylor can't share in the awesomeness. It seems unfair to them.

Yeah, you're not being childish at all.

By the way, I'm IB for JOW and would support a JOW/LT cluster, so in some ways I think it's too bad it missed the cut-off for consideration. Though with JOW's upcoming renovation, the timing might not make sense (I don't know how far along they are on plans for renovation or whether it would have been possible to incorporate a cluster plan into those plans).

But at least I don't stomp my feet and point fingers when faced with a difficult problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This has been addressed several times on this thread. The Advisory committee only looked at school pairs where the difference in at-risk students was 50% or more -- LT/JOW didn't meet this threshold.

None of the other pairs that were considered were as close as Maury/Miner, and the others had major traffic arteries separating the schools, making the commuting issues people are raising for Maury/Miner significantly worse.

That's a completely made up threshhold. Is there data suggesting 50% is the magic number or is that just what committee decided?

I think they just need some way to narrow down the search. It stands to reason that schools with a wider disparities might be more in need of a drastic solution like this. I do think Miner probably needs more help than JOW on this front, anecdotally. And LT already serves higher percentages of at risk AND SpEd kids than Maury does, plus is not majority white (just barely, it's 49%, but still not majority).

So it seems like the arbitrary cut off actually makes sense? Miner/Maury does seem like a better candidate than LT/JOW.

Who decided there is a threshold where clustering is effective? That’s the point. These are completely made-up metrics to create meaningless metrics.

The threshold was not developed as a litmus test for where a cluster would succeed or not. The threshold was developed to help narrow down a list of potential school pairs where a cluster might be needed. A threshold by its nature will include cases that are just above or just below. LT/JOW was just below.

Then, once a list of potential clusters was assembled using these metrics, a separate analysis was done to determine where, among this list, a cluster might be most likely to succeed. Maury/Miner was chosen specifically because of the proximity of the schools and the fact that they are not separated by arterial roads but are both considered part of a continuous neighborhood.

As for who decided that clustering was an idea worth exploring, I'm assuming either the DME or the Advisory Committee, or possibly both jointly. Certainly clustering is not a foreign idea in DCPS, given they've done it previously with Watkins and Peabody, and that people have suggested clustering Maury and Miner in the past.

Not really buying this. The schools are so similar - these are arbitrary criteria that have no correspondence to whether they will meet their goals. It just looks like window dressing to push through an untested theory. If they were confident in the cluster model they would be pushing it for LT-JOW as well.

[Anonymous]

Yes that’s a huge problem for some of Miner’s IB retention —there is a charter school within the Miner boundary. Though I know that’s not actually your question. I think that a lot of people realize that Miner is actually not the terrible school that people make it out to be. And a lot of people would like to go there compared to actually terrible Schools. It’s prob not their first choice but it is an accepts le alternative.