Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Both. They also may have family who live near the campus -- you see this a lot with at risk kids, where the family lotteries into a school that is near where grandma and/or grandpa lives, and then the grandparents help with education and childcare.

Also, there is a lot more suspicion of charters among families east of the river. They have their issues with DCPS, but most people went through DCPS and it's a known quantity. Likely they also know people who work or have worked for DCPS. Charters also tend to be more diverse with more white or non-black teachers and administrators. If you are poor and black in DC, you might have some natural and understandable suspicions as to whether such people will treat you or your child fairly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe let's close that charter school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Both. They also may have family who live near the campus -- you see this a lot with at risk kids, where the family lotteries into a school that is near where grandma and/or grandpa lives, and then the grandparents help with education and childcare.

Also, there is a lot more suspicion of charters among families east of the river. They have their issues with DCPS, but most people went through DCPS and it's a known quantity. Likely they also know people who work or have worked for DCPS. Charters also tend to be more diverse with more white or non-black teachers and administrators. If you are poor and black in DC, you might have some natural and understandable suspicions as to whether such people will treat you or your child fairly.

I wonder how many kids counted as OOB started IB and moved?

[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.

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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

[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.

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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

Then maybe DCPS isn't right for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

Then maybe DCPS isn't right for you.

Or perhaps I should say maybe DC public schools aren't right for you. Most of the distinctive aspects of public schools in DC are experimental.

Why do Latin and BASIS start at 5th? That causes major problems for elementaries on the East side who struggle with retention at 5th. But it was allowed because: experimentation.

Why does the Hill have two all-city DCPS schools with niche education philosophies? Wouldn't it have been better to just invest effort and money into improving regular DCPS schools? Experimentation.

Why can you enter a lottery to move from your IB to any other school in the district that has space? Experimentation.

Why do we have application high schools, including one focused on science and engineering? Experimentation.

The truth is that you DO like experimentation. You just don't like being part of the sausage making process. Join the club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

Then maybe DCPS isn't right for you.

If DCPS wants to go from 46% at risk to 90% at risk, then they are on the right track

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

Then maybe DCPS isn't right for you.

I certainly don't support wild experimentation without trying evidence-based interventions first. DC hasn't even managed to provide Miner with a stable, strong administration yet.

[Anonymous]

People choose Miner for a lot of reasons. They don't want language instruction or they don't want Montessori for whatever reason. Or because they think Two Rivers stinks. Same for SSMA. Or because they want Eliot-Hine rights. Or because they need a self-contained classrooms and Miner's what they're offered.

[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: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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

Then maybe DCPS isn't right for you.

If DCPS wants to go from 46% at risk to 90% at risk, then they are on the right track

A significant portion for he experimentation in DC public schools has been done specifically to appease and retain high income parents. See: charters, immersion schools, Montessori programs, application high schools, the new high school, etc.

[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: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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

Then maybe DCPS isn't right for you.

If DCPS wants to go from 46% at risk to 90% at risk, then they are on the right track

A significant portion for he experimentation in DC public schools has been done specifically to appease and retain high income parents. See: charters, immersion schools, Montessori programs, application high schools, the new high school, etc.

Lmao. Charter schools were forced on DC by a Rep. Congress.

[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: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.

I just love "where a cluster might be needed," as if a cluster is some tried and true solution to poor outcomes for high-needs students. This is totally experimental, not based on any data they've presented, and they haven't even thought through the barest basics of the plan. Someone is throwing spaghetti at the wall based on arbitrary criteria.

The problem of how to help the 46% of DCPS students who are deemed at risk is an ongoing one yet to be solved. There are no "tried and true solutions" for it. Everything is throwing $hit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Personally I support experimentation on that front because what we are doing now doesn't work. It's certainly not working in Ward 6.

DP. I don’t support experimentation. Seriously, no.

Then maybe DCPS isn't right for you.

If DCPS wants to go from 46% at risk to 90% at risk, then they are on the right track

A significant portion for he experimentation in DC public schools has been done specifically to appease and retain high income parents. See: charters, immersion schools, Montessori programs, application high schools, the new high school, etc.

Lmao. Charter schools were forced on DC by a Rep. Congress.

Congress counts as "high income DC parents."

[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.

I wasn't suggesting either/or, as in do JOW/LT instead. My point was that if there was merit to this cluster model to address demographic disparities for schools very close together, why do it for only one ES set?