Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

"I'm choosing Miner because it gives me a path to EH." Said no one, ever, on Earth.

[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.

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?

There is absolutely nothing to indicate they won't. But just as DCPS doesn't renovate all the schools in need of renovation at the same time, they are also choosing to undergo one cluster at this time instead of 2 or 5 or 7. That's not crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"I'm choosing Miner because it gives me a path to EH." Said no one, ever, on Earth.

People whose IB middle school is worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"I'm choosing Miner because it gives me a path to EH." Said no one, ever, on Earth.

Wow you couldn’t be more wrong. Or inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"I'm choosing Miner because it gives me a path to EH." Said no one, ever, on Earth.

More myopia.

If you lived East of the river, you absolutely would seek out an EH feed. Where do you think all the OOB kids at EH and Eastern come from, friend?

By the way, if you are a Maury parent and this is your attitude about its MS feed, go ahead and leave because of the cluster. You were always going to leave anyway, and you aren't really the asset to the community you think you are.

[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.

All excellent points. Well said. Well done.

[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.

The question being asked is fair. The only person being childish is you and your unearned condescension. Or are you one of those people who dismissed anyone who disagrees with your view?

Also, tell me when Peabody/Watkins worked. Give me the the years where the test scores and other metrics illustrated the cluster worked.

[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.

My DD8 and DS6 are real human beings and not "test cases" for some crazy left-wing experiment. Besides, DCPS already got to run a massive experiment on all the children in the Watkins cluster, and we know how all that turned out.

So until DCPS presents a real plan and backs up with actual data, they should no longer be allowed to run half-baked experiments on our children.

[Anonymous]

This thread is fascinating because if you actually pay attention, you can get a little master class in aspects of public education in DC that people who live IB for schools like Maury often never manage to learn, to their own detriment. Then they get mad when their MS or HS feed isn't good and they point a lot of fingers a lot of places, put their faith in charters or Walls, or leave the city never really understanding WHY things were the way they were or doing anything to improve them.

But I doubt many of the people screaming about the cluster are paying attention.

[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.

My DD8 and DS6 are real human beings and not "test cases" for some crazy left-wing experiment. Besides, DCPS already got to run a massive experiment on all the children in the Watkins cluster, and we know how all that turned out.

So until DCPS presents a real plan and backs up with actual data, they should no longer be allowed to run half-baked experiments on our children.

That isn't how this works. If you don't want DCPS to do this, I guess take it up with the mayor or something? You are not going to dictate this process and you don't get to decide what DCPS is "allowed" to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"I'm choosing Miner because it gives me a path to EH." Said no one, ever, on Earth.

More myopia.

If you lived East of the river, you absolutely would seek out an EH feed. Where do you think all the OOB kids at EH and Eastern come from, friend?

By the way, if you are a Maury parent and this is your attitude about its MS feed, go ahead and leave because of the cluster. You were always going to leave anyway, and you aren't really the asset to the community you think you are.

That's a silly response. The people whom you dismiss are invested in trying to keep their ES on a positive track, and by association, EH on a positive trajectory. If those people pull out you'll have an EH with 60% at risk and 20% special ed. Sure, your kid and every other one in that school will be in a failing environment, but at least you'll feel morally superior. After all that's what counts, right?

Like it or not, UMC families who attend DCPS schools are an asset. Don't take my word for it, ask DME and DCPS. They're about to upend two schools to spread around the very people you dismiss. You don't have to like us, but you darn well sure need us to have a functioning public school system. If that hurts to hear, TFB.

[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.

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.

Would it have been better? What happens to all the families that want Reggio, or Montessori, or language immersion, etc? It's hard for one school to satisfy everyone, unless of course everyone thinks the same way, the way they do in NW DC or at Maury.

[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.

My DD8 and DS6 are real human beings and not "test cases" for some crazy left-wing experiment. Besides, DCPS already got to run a massive experiment on all the children in the Watkins cluster, and we know how all that turned out.

So until DCPS presents a real plan and backs up with actual data, they should no longer be allowed to run half-baked experiments on our children.

That isn't how this works. If you don't want DCPS to do this, I guess take it up with the mayor or something? You are not going to dictate this process and you don't get to decide what DCPS is "allowed" to do.

Actually historically speaking it does work that way, at least for families at Maury. When this was proposed in 2017 they complained test scores would go down if they merged and with Miner and before even discussing it with Miner, the planned was nixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is fascinating because if you actually pay attention, you can get a little master class in aspects of public education in DC that people who live IB for schools like Maury often never manage to learn, to their own detriment. Then they get mad when their MS or HS feed isn't good and they point a lot of fingers a lot of places, put their faith in charters or Walls, or leave the city never really understanding WHY things were the way they were or doing anything to improve them.

But I doubt many of the people screaming about the cluster are paying attention.

So you have answers? By all means share them... Or is your answer just to put Maury families down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

"I'm choosing Miner because it gives me a path to EH." Said no one, ever, on Earth.

More myopia.

If you lived East of the river, you absolutely would seek out an EH feed. Where do you think all the OOB kids at EH and Eastern come from, friend?

By the way, if you are a Maury parent and this is your attitude about its MS feed, go ahead and leave because of the cluster. You were always going to leave anyway, and you aren't really the asset to the community you think you are.

That's a silly response. The people whom you dismiss are invested in trying to keep their ES on a positive track, and by association, EH on a positive trajectory. If those people pull out you'll have an EH with 60% at risk and 20% special ed. Sure, your kid and every other one in that school will be in a failing environment, but at least you'll feel morally superior. After all that's what counts, right?

Like it or not, UMC families who attend DCPS schools are an asset. Don't take my word for it, ask DME and DCPS. They're about to upend two schools to spread around the very people you dismiss. You don't have to like us, but you darn well sure need us to have a functioning public school system. If that hurts to hear, TFB.

You assume that there are no MC and UMC families inbound to Miner that wouldn’t attend cluster and on the EH?

Also-TFB? I know it’s anon, but once again, we are neighbors, let’s try to be a bit more civil.