Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

+1. Are UMC people really an asset? This thread makes me think otherwise.

This comment and those that ask similar questions are empirically dumb. Schools with all or virtually all low SES do not do well. Look at Miner! If you'd rather feel superior and convince yourself you don't need UMC families (and their tax base!) then you deserve to have terrible schools and bad educational outcomes that perpetuate generational failure and economic segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so disheartened by the anonymous Karens up in this thread about how Maury is going to be destroyed when combined with Miner. Geez- can they sit at the same lunch counter at the Roost too? All evidence shows that kids do well when they are in racially and socioeconoimcally diverse schools. 1% white kids at Maury will benefit from not living in an educational bubble, as will socioecoonomcally disadvantaged Black kids at Miner. And problems in our community will improve when integration occurs. The segregation that has resulted between the two schools cannot persist. In bounds for Miner and a former Moner family, there are wonderful families, Black and White, wealthy, poor and middle class, at Miner. I sure thought I was in Biloxi for a moment, not Capitol Hill.

People are acting like Maury is Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

+1. Are UMC people really an asset? This thread makes me think otherwise.

This comment and those that ask similar questions are empirically dumb. Schools with all or virtually all low SES do not do well. Look at Miner! If you'd rather feel superior and convince yourself you don't need UMC families (and their tax base!) then you deserve to have terrible schools and bad educational outcomes that perpetuate generational failure and economic segregation.

But the problem is many of the UMC families think they matter more, their kids matter more, and their needs are more important because they pay more. That’s not how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

+1. Are UMC people really an asset? This thread makes me think otherwise.

This comment and those that ask similar questions are empirically dumb. Schools with all or virtually all low SES do not do well. Look at Miner! If you'd rather feel superior and convince yourself you don't need UMC families (and their tax base!) then you deserve to have terrible schools and bad educational outcomes that perpetuate generational failure and economic segregation.

But the problem is many of the UMC families think they matter more, their kids matter more, and their needs are more important because they pay more. That’s not how this works.

I have not seen anyone say Maury kids matter more than Miner kids (though obviously everyone's own kids are the most important to them). But they matter just as much, and DC is just as responsible for their welfare and education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

I hear what you are saying and I understand the sentiment. I would ask you to consider what it means to "look down on" at risk students. If I don't want 60% of my school to be at risk, is that "looking down on" them? Or is that an acknowledgement that all data tells us the challenges that come with at risk require significant resources and that those kids tend to need intervention to catch up. Is it "looking down on at risk" to want my above grade level kid to be catered to as well, with coursework appropriate to their level and not just being warehoused?

I understand why "dilute" is a cringy and imprecise way to describe the issue. If we take our Language Police Hats off for a moment and react to what they meant, are they wrong to have expressed concern that if the demographics shift there may well be some challenges that accompany that? Do they not have the right to express that concern?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

I hear what you are saying and I understand the sentiment. I would ask you to consider what it means to "look down on" at risk students. If I don't want 60% of my school to be at risk, is that "looking down on" them? Or is that an acknowledgement that all data tells us the challenges that come with at risk require significant resources and that those kids tend to need intervention to catch up. Is it "looking down on at risk" to want my above grade level kid to be catered to as well, with coursework appropriate to their level and not just being warehoused?

I understand why "dilute" is a cringy and imprecise way to describe the issue. If we take our Language Police Hats off for a moment and react to what they meant, are they wrong to have expressed concern that if the demographics shift there may well be some challenges that accompany that? Do they not have the right to express that concern?

Sure that’s fair. Everyone has the right to express concerns. It’s also fair to say hey, step up and help your neighbors by ensuring even kids who don’t have your advantages get a good education. Because even if your school is suddenly more at risk, your specific child isn’t going to be directly affected. He’s still going to get good grades. He’s still going to score well on PARCC (or whatever the new test they have switched to is called). And now a kid who is at risk is going to have access to a school with stability and support. And your kid’s school might be a 4 star or even a 3 star instead of a 5, but it’s not going to hurt him because there are still going to be the high performing kids at Maury play even a few from Miner (they’re rare but they exist).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

+1. Are UMC people really an asset? This thread makes me think otherwise.

This comment and those that ask similar questions are empirically dumb. Schools with all or virtually all low SES do not do well. Look at Miner! If you'd rather feel superior and convince yourself you don't need UMC families (and their tax base!) then you deserve to have terrible schools and bad educational outcomes that perpetuate generational failure and economic segregation.

But the problem is many of the UMC families think they matter more, their kids matter more, and their needs are more important because they pay more. That’s not how this works.

I think what you are seeing is a societal shift. The pendulum is swinging back from the last few years where UMC white folks were told they needed to apologize for existing. Where people screamed "equity" and white UMC folks hid. What I see is families done apologizing for existing. Families who have seen educational outcomes dramatically improve BECAUSE of their investment and engagement. Maury's metrics tell us it is a good school. That isn't in spite of the UMC folks who are sending their kids there, it is because of it. I think (and hope) the day has passed when UMC families had to apologize for existing, where high test scores were associated with racism.

I demand a seat at the table. I matter. The needs of my kids are important and need to be reflected. Why can't UMC folks say those things just as at risk folks can?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I have not seen anyone say Maury kids matter more than Miner kids (though obviously everyone's own kids are the most important to them). But they matter just as much, and DC is just as responsible for their welfare and education.

This, sadly, is correct.

The responses have been about:

Property values
Income tax brackets
Personal safety
Walking too much
"Hey Google...How much it costs to move to Virginia?"
"Why should I help others?"
"But how will I justify my falsely conjured SES to others?"
.
.
Strollers
.
.
Education standards

[Anonymous]

We’re going to end up with two bad schools with minimal high SES families, which is exactly what DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

+1. Are UMC people really an asset? This thread makes me think otherwise.

This comment and those that ask similar questions are empirically dumb. Schools with all or virtually all low SES do not do well. Look at Miner! If you'd rather feel superior and convince yourself you don't need UMC families (and their tax base!) then you deserve to have terrible schools and bad educational outcomes that perpetuate generational failure and economic segregation.

But the problem is many of the UMC families think they matter more, their kids matter more, and their needs are more important because they pay more. That’s not how this works.

I think what you are seeing is a societal shift. The pendulum is swinging back from the last few years where UMC white folks were told they needed to apologize for existing. Where people screamed "equity" and white UMC folks hid. What I see is families done apologizing for existing. Families who have seen educational outcomes dramatically improve BECAUSE of their investment and engagement. Maury's metrics tell us it is a good school. That isn't in spite of the UMC folks who are sending their kids there, it is because of it. I think (and hope) the day has passed when UMC families had to apologize for existing, where high test scores were associated with racism.

I demand a seat at the table. I matter. The needs of my kids are important and need to be reflected. Why can't UMC folks say those things just as at risk folks can?

You act like UMC families aren’t saying that. Until last week the Miner families didn’t even know the table existed (and honestly the only ones who currently know now are the UMC families at Miner because people at Maury who they’re friends with told them about it). So don’t act like you don’t control the table and own the chairs. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think what you are seeing is a societal shift. The pendulum is swinging back from the last few years where UMC white folks were told they needed to apologize for existing. Where people screamed "equity" and white UMC folks hid. What I see is families done apologizing for existing. Families who have seen educational outcomes dramatically improve BECAUSE of their investment and engagement. Maury's metrics tell us it is a good school. That isn't in spite of the UMC folks who are sending their kids there, it is because of it. I think (and hope) the day has passed when UMC families had to apologize for existing, where high test scores were associated with racism.

I demand a seat at the table. I matter. The needs of my kids are important and need to be reflected. Why can't UMC folks say those things just as at risk folks can?

Honey.

This WhatAboutMeIsm, as if the White UMC isn't the most self-victimized and "oppressed" demographic everywhere, is the precise reason the pushback exists.

You think you call the shots in society.
You think that when people disagree with you it's oppression.
You pick up and leave when your temper tantrums don't get you what you want.
You demand to be specialized, even as a majority.

Give me a goddamn break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

I hear what you are saying and I understand the sentiment. I would ask you to consider what it means to "look down on" at risk students. If I don't want 60% of my school to be at risk, is that "looking down on" them? Or is that an acknowledgement that all data tells us the challenges that come with at risk require significant resources and that those kids tend to need intervention to catch up. Is it "looking down on at risk" to want my above grade level kid to be catered to as well, with coursework appropriate to their level and not just being warehoused?

I understand why "dilute" is a cringy and imprecise way to describe the issue. If we take our Language Police Hats off for a moment and react to what they meant, are they wrong to have expressed concern that if the demographics shift there may well be some challenges that accompany that? Do they not have the right to express that concern?

Sure that’s fair. Everyone has the right to express concerns. It’s also fair to say hey, step up and help your neighbors by ensuring even kids who don’t have your advantages get a good education. Because even if your school is suddenly more at risk, your specific child isn’t going to be directly affected. He’s still going to get good grades. He’s still going to score well on PARCC (or whatever the new test they have switched to is called). And now a kid who is at risk is going to have access to a school with stability and support. And your kid’s school might be a 4 star or even a 3 star instead of a 5, but it’s not going to hurt him because there are still going to be the high performing kids at Maury play even a few from Miner (they’re rare but they exist).

I will reply because (at least from my perspective) this is a respectful and substantive conversation.

If I'm being honest, my emotional reaction to "step up and help your neighbors" is to scream "9+%!!!" That's the tax rate for every marginal dollar of income I earn. You can ask me to do more, but, with all due respect, the UMC folks who are told constantly they don't support low income communities are paying for the social services and interventions in those schools. So I don't react well when people act like I'm not contributing. I'd also suggest to you that you simply do not know whether more at risk kids will directly affect my kid. Two of my kids are now in MS. I can assure you that behavioral issues in upper ES derail learning on a near daily basis. You simply don't know what the impact will be, because even DME doesn't have projections (will they still be Title 1? what to enrollment projections look like?) Yes, my kid will do well on PARCC. But I will share with you some wisdom of a parent with an older kid. A 4 or 5 on PARCC does not mean the kid is at or above grade level. My oldest was getting 4s and 5s. Then they got to a non-DCSP MS and took a real national assessment test. The results were not pretty. We had to remediate, and my kid was top of his class in ES.

The gains at Maury were hard fought over a number of years. I think it a bit dismissive and possibly even disrespectful for you to come along and dismiss these concerns with "there there, your kid will be fine." You don't know that. Whether Maury is still Maury in 6 years or is Watkins is a big deal. Same way at risk folks don't want their existence and concerns dismissed, UMC families don't want our concerns and demands for a quality education dismissed with phrases like "good enough" and "you'll be fine".

I think I'm not supposed to say this part out loud, but I am happy to help, but NOT if it means my kid gets a sub-par education. Not if it means my kid is in classes constantly disrupted by fights and outbursts. Not if it means my kid is way behind when they leave DCPS. I will not apologize for not being ok with sacrificing my kids' educations in the name of some perverted view of "equity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

+1. Are UMC people really an asset? This thread makes me think otherwise.

This comment and those that ask similar questions are empirically dumb. Schools with all or virtually all low SES do not do well. Look at Miner! If you'd rather feel superior and convince yourself you don't need UMC families (and their tax base!) then you deserve to have terrible schools and bad educational outcomes that perpetuate generational failure and economic segregation.

But the problem is many of the UMC families think they matter more, their kids matter more, and their needs are more important because they pay more. That’s not how this works.

I think what you are seeing is a societal shift. The pendulum is swinging back from the last few years where UMC white folks were told they needed to apologize for existing. Where people screamed "equity" and white UMC folks hid. What I see is families done apologizing for existing. Families who have seen educational outcomes dramatically improve BECAUSE of their investment and engagement. Maury's metrics tell us it is a good school. That isn't in spite of the UMC folks who are sending their kids there, it is because of it. I think (and hope) the day has passed when UMC families had to apologize for existing, where high test scores were associated with racism.

I demand a seat at the table. I matter. The needs of my kids are important and need to be reflected. Why can't UMC folks say those things just as at risk folks can?

You act like UMC families aren’t saying that. Until last week the Miner families didn’t even know the table existed (and honestly the only ones who currently know now are the UMC families at Miner because people at Maury who they’re friends with told them about it). So don’t act like you don’t control the table and own the chairs. Nice try.

Of course they are saying it. The point here (and the discussion) is whether or not they have a right to say it. What I am arguing is they damn well do and the time has passed when they are going to apologize. Just above my reply is one of the cliche responses about centering my world in whiteness, blah blah blah. That poster is confused. She thinks she can silence folks with 2021 era phrases designed to create white guilt. Ship sailed on that! My kids are the most important thing to me just as I assume your and hers are you to you. I will not be apologizing for wanting them to continue to receive a quality education.

I would also note that irony of people like her pretending like she doesn't want or need us while demanding access to what we have. When what we have is a school predominantly filled with the people she dismisses.

I won't defend the meeting schedule. It was utter BS. The meetings should have been scheduled in tandem and occurred proximately. The optics were bad and the messaging was bad. You are misplacing your anger by directing it at Maury families. They didn't schedule the meetings or prevent Miner from having one or getting access to information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think what you are seeing is a societal shift. The pendulum is swinging back from the last few years where UMC white folks were told they needed to apologize for existing. Where people screamed "equity" and white UMC folks hid. What I see is families done apologizing for existing. Families who have seen educational outcomes dramatically improve BECAUSE of their investment and engagement. Maury's metrics tell us it is a good school. That isn't in spite of the UMC folks who are sending their kids there, it is because of it. I think (and hope) the day has passed when UMC families had to apologize for existing, where high test scores were associated with racism.

I demand a seat at the table. I matter. The needs of my kids are important and need to be reflected. Why can't UMC folks say those things just as at risk folks can?

Honey.

This WhatAboutMeIsm, as if the White UMC isn't the most self-victimized and "oppressed" demographic everywhere, is the precise reason the pushback exists.

You think you call the shots in society.
You think that when people disagree with you it's oppression.
You pick up and leave when your temper tantrums don't get you what you want.
You demand to be specialized, even as a majority.

Give me a goddamn break.

Pick a side. Either you don't need or want UMC white folks (in which case the current Miner stand-alone configuration is fine) or you want more UMC white folks in your school to make it better. Seems to me you don't actually have an opinion on the matter, you just want to stir up SJW racist tropes. Your time has passed. Either contribute the discussion or go howl at the moon with your commentary on society. The rest of us are trying to get our kids educated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

I hear what you are saying and I understand the sentiment. I would ask you to consider what it means to "look down on" at risk students. If I don't want 60% of my school to be at risk, is that "looking down on" them? Or is that an acknowledgement that all data tells us the challenges that come with at risk require significant resources and that those kids tend to need intervention to catch up. Is it "looking down on at risk" to want my above grade level kid to be catered to as well, with coursework appropriate to their level and not just being warehoused?

I understand why "dilute" is a cringy and imprecise way to describe the issue. If we take our Language Police Hats off for a moment and react to what they meant, are they wrong to have expressed concern that if the demographics shift there may well be some challenges that accompany that? Do they not have the right to express that concern?

Sure that’s fair. Everyone has the right to express concerns. It’s also fair to say hey, step up and help your neighbors by ensuring even kids who don’t have your advantages get a good education. Because even if your school is suddenly more at risk, your specific child isn’t going to be directly affected. He’s still going to get good grades. He’s still going to score well on PARCC (or whatever the new test they have switched to is called). And now a kid who is at risk is going to have access to a school with stability and support. And your kid’s school might be a 4 star or even a 3 star instead of a 5, but it’s not going to hurt him because there are still going to be the high performing kids at Maury play even a few from Miner (they’re rare but they exist).

I will reply because (at least from my perspective) this is a respectful and substantive conversation.

If I'm being honest, my emotional reaction to "step up and help your neighbors" is to scream "9+%!!!" That's the tax rate for every marginal dollar of income I earn. You can ask me to do more, but, with all due respect, the UMC folks who are told constantly they don't support low income communities are paying for the social services and interventions in those schools. So I don't react well when people act like I'm not contributing. I'd also suggest to you that you simply do not know whether more at risk kids will directly affect my kid. Two of my kids are now in MS. I can assure you that behavioral issues in upper ES derail learning on a near daily basis. You simply don't know what the impact will be, because even DME doesn't have projections (will they still be Title 1? what to enrollment projections look like?) Yes, my kid will do well on PARCC. But I will share with you some wisdom of a parent with an older kid. A 4 or 5 on PARCC does not mean the kid is at or above grade level. My oldest was getting 4s and 5s. Then they got to a non-DCSP MS and took a real national assessment test. The results were not pretty. We had to remediate, and my kid was top of his class in ES.

The gains at Maury were hard fought over a number of years. I think it a bit dismissive and possibly even disrespectful for you to come along and dismiss these concerns with "there there, your kid will be fine." You don't know that. Whether Maury is still Maury in 6 years or is Watkins is a big deal. Same way at risk folks don't want their existence and concerns dismissed, UMC families don't want our concerns and demands for a quality education dismissed with phrases like "good enough" and "you'll be fine".

I think I'm not supposed to say this part out loud, but I am happy to help, but NOT if it means my kid gets a sub-par education. Not if it means my kid is in classes constantly disrupted by fights and outbursts. Not if it means my kid is way behind when they leave DCPS. I will not apologize for not being ok with sacrificing my kids' educations in the name of some perverted view of "equity."

And there is the Maury sentiment in a nutshell:

1). You say you make more money and you already do enough so you shouldn’t have to do more. YOU GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL.

2). You’re right, no one can know if your kids will be directly affected or not. Guess what, that means you also don’t know if there will be a horrible detriment to your child. While I can understand not wanting your kid to be an experiment, just remember if you want to control all the aspects of who attends your school, maybe you should PAY FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL.

3). I made the PARCC comments because that’s what everyone has been basing the academics on. I actually totally agree that standardized tests aren’t the answer to determining how well kids are doing, but at the end of the day the point is your kid will be fine (hence the woman who commented that her upper grader at Miner scored in the 99th percentile city wide despite being with all those awful at-risk children).

4). Also you say you had to remediate AND that you left DCPS. So you aren’t someone who is going to make the effort to stick with DCPS anyway and you have the money for tutoring. You are really not helping your case here.

5). At least you admit you aren’t supposed to say the “not in my backyard” comment out loud. But you did. You make all these comments about fights in class and outbursts. Why don’t you just say “I don’t want poor Black kids in my class.” And yes I may have made the race comment but we all know what you meant.