Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day some of us are trying to engage with human behavior as it actually is and make our predictions data-based and realistic. Are you?

Absolutely and data shows that kids who go to a more diverse school (whether racially, socioeconomically, or academically) can benefit ALL the students.

No it does not. Busing (which is basically what this is) is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure by all sides. In contrast, creating diversity through actual community participation - ie creating schools where IB families chose to go - can result in positive impacts. But at the end of the day there are not enough rich white kids to be the medicine to fix DCPS - and that it what fundamentally makes this a PR exercise and not a legitimate attempt for DCPS to solve its problems.

This is not "basically" busing. If they cluster the schools, no one will be bussed. They will go to their IB, neighborhood school unless they choose to lottery out or go private.

Bussing is when you take kids in one neighborhood and put them on an actual bus to send them to a school in another neighborhood. It has nothing to do with this situation at all.

You clearly don’t understand the analogy, and therefore, also must not understand the history.

Busing was used to integrate schools that were experiencing de facto segregation. Literally NOTHING was done to address racially segregated neighborhoods. Bad leaders simply said, hey, if we swap these kids over here for some over there, then the schools no longer *seem* segregated! Except that ended up ruining the communities of both schools, and many families, including a high percentage of MC black families, ended up choosing parochial schools in their own neighborhoods over their public schools. Busing was most certainly a failed experiment, and led to a steady decline in public education as MC and UMC families exited the public schools. A better, long-term strategy would have been to work on policies to improve racial integration in housing.

Here, you have the same lazy approach, minus physical buses. Hey, there is a low number of at-risk kids over here, with high IB attendance, and a large number over there with low IB attendance. Let’s just mix them together so that the average *seems* better.

Get it? This is not a proposal based on equitable principles and goals. It is lazy governance at its finest.

(By the way, there should be a drinking game for every person who mentions equity and has no actual understanding of it or intention of actually solving problems. The race baiters are so manipulative and evil.)

The notion that Maury families think families at Miner are race baiters who know nothing about equity and are “manipulative and evil” is literally the problem we Miner families have been talking about all along.

You think less of us.

You look down on us.

You insult us and then somehow turn it to sound like WE are the ones insulting YOU.

I would say it’s unbelievable but we are on page 95 of two groups of people fighting—the ones at Maury selfishly caring about only their own kids and the ones at Miner actually giving a damn about all of them. And THAT is equity. Making sure every kid gets what they need to succeed, even if it’s not equal.

PS I know this is not all Maury families but this thread sucks.

Isn’t the crux of the problem here that DME has not explained how every kid will get what they need to succeed? Why are Maury and Miner families fighting against each other when you both should be uniting against DME??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

I do really appreciate you engaging non-anonymously.

Some of the studies referenced in this write-up seem to actually lend support to some of the concerns being aired. Here is one excerpt that really stuck out to me (though it's about high school students):

**

The results can also be used to show what would happen if students were redistributed among low-, middle-, and high-SES schools, assuming that nothing else about the schools changed, an assumption we relax below. First, moving students from low-SES to middle-SES schools appears to have little potential impact on their achievement. For example, the achievement growth of a disadvantaged Black student would likely increase by .3 points, or about 2 months of learning; the achievement growth of an average Black student would increase by .4 points, and the achievement growth of an advantaged Black student would increase by .8 points. Whites would experience similar small improvements. Second, much greater impact would occur by moving students to high-SES, or affluent, schools. For example, the achievement of an average Black student would increase by 2 points, or about 1 full year of learning. Whites would also experience substantial improvements, but less than Blacks (1.5 points for an average White student vs. 2 points for an average Black student). . . .

Although moving small numbers of students from middle- to high-SES schools would have little impact on the social composition and the advantages that they enjoy, any large-scale integration of high-SES schools would effectively lower their SES composition and could lower their achievement advantage relative to middle-class schools by altering the school processes that make them so successful (e.g., lowering teacher expectations). If this occurred (an issue we discuss below), the achievement advantages enjoyed by White students in high-SES schools could decline, whereas the potential benefits to Black students in moving to high-SES schools would be less than the present simulations suggest. In the extreme and unlikely case that all low-SES and all high-SES schools were integrated and consequently transformed into middle-class schools, the present analysis suggests that gains in achievement to predominantly minority students moving from low-SES to middle-class schools would be less than the declines in achievement of White students moving from high-SES to middle-class schools. This suggests that integration would lower the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks, but it could also lower overall achievement levels.

One important takeaway of this particular study was that the four school process variables listed below "explain all the estimated effects of socioeconomic composition on achievement growth in all subjects except science. That is, the estimated coefficients for school SES became nonsignificant in the final model, which means that there were no independent effects of school SES after controlling for this set of school-level predictors."

1. Teachers’ expectations about students’ ability to learn
2. The average hours of homework that students completed per week
3. The average number of advanced (college prep) courses taken by students in the school
4. The percentage of students who reported feeling unsafe at school

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Hanover-Research-2015-Impacts-of-School-and-Class-Size-on-Student-Outcomes.pdf
This literature review of the impact of school size on student achievement is also interesting. Findings are generally that larger schools have poorer outcomes in all metrics (academic achievement, absenteeism, participation in extracurriculars), particularly for low income student. This is attributed in part to low teacher and student morale, which makes sense. Teachers on a team with three other teachers can collaborate and focus on individual students more easily than a team of 8. Plus the school can follow students over time. Those students may get lost, and may feel lost in a larger school. There will also inevitably be more bureaucracy in a larger school. For reference, Peabody-Watkins is half the size of this proposed cluster. No elementary school in DC is near this big (800-900 students).

I think Lafayette might be in that neighborhood but certainly that's the only elementary I can think of that's on that level.

[Anonymous]

DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is crazy that this school thread is already almost 100 pages!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

No it doesn't. DME can dictate this and people will like it or lump it.

It's mind-boggling to me that people think there is something wrong with parents who see their kids' school will become without a doubt worse and don't like that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chris,

To what type of school are your kids moving to?

Suburban Virginia?

Anonymous,

Public school. No.

- Chris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

I do really appreciate you engaging non-anonymously.

Some of the studies referenced in this write-up seem to actually lend support to some of the concerns being aired. Here is one excerpt that really stuck out to me (though it's about high school students):

**

The results can also be used to show what would happen if students were redistributed among low-, middle-, and high-SES schools, assuming that nothing else about the schools changed, an assumption we relax below. First, moving students from low-SES to middle-SES schools appears to have little potential impact on their achievement. For example, the achievement growth of a disadvantaged Black student would likely increase by .3 points, or about 2 months of learning; the achievement growth of an average Black student would increase by .4 points, and the achievement growth of an advantaged Black student would increase by .8 points. Whites would experience similar small improvements. Second, much greater impact would occur by moving students to high-SES, or affluent, schools. For example, the achievement of an average Black student would increase by 2 points, or about 1 full year of learning. Whites would also experience substantial improvements, but less than Blacks (1.5 points for an average White student vs. 2 points for an average Black student). . . .

Although moving small numbers of students from middle- to high-SES schools would have little impact on the social composition and the advantages that they enjoy, any large-scale integration of high-SES schools would effectively lower their SES composition and could lower their achievement advantage relative to middle-class schools by altering the school processes that make them so successful (e.g., lowering teacher expectations). If this occurred (an issue we discuss below), the achievement advantages enjoyed by White students in high-SES schools could decline, whereas the potential benefits to Black students in moving to high-SES schools would be less than the present simulations suggest. In the extreme and unlikely case that all low-SES and all high-SES schools were integrated and consequently transformed into middle-class schools, the present analysis suggests that gains in achievement to predominantly minority students moving from low-SES to middle-class schools would be less than the declines in achievement of White students moving from high-SES to middle-class schools. This suggests that integration would lower the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks, but it could also lower overall achievement levels.

One important takeaway of this particular study was that the four school process variables listed below "explain all the estimated effects of socioeconomic composition on achievement growth in all subjects except science. That is, the estimated coefficients for school SES became nonsignificant in the final model, which means that there were no independent effects of school SES after controlling for this set of school-level predictors."

1. Teachers’ expectations about students’ ability to learn
2. The average hours of homework that students completed per week
3. The average number of advanced (college prep) courses taken by students in the school
4. The percentage of students who reported feeling unsafe at school

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Hanover-Research-2015-Impacts-of-School-and-Class-Size-on-Student-Outcomes.pdf
This literature review of the impact of school size on student achievement is also interesting. Findings are generally that larger schools have poorer outcomes in all metrics (academic achievement, absenteeism, participation in extracurriculars), particularly for low income student. This is attributed in part to low teacher and student morale, which makes sense. Teachers on a team with three other teachers can collaborate and focus on individual students more easily than a team of 8. Plus the school can follow students over time. Those students may get lost, and may feel lost in a larger school. There will also inevitably be more bureaucracy in a larger school. For reference, Peabody-Watkins is half the size of this proposed cluster. No elementary school in DC is near this big (800-900 students).

I think Lafayette might be in that neighborhood but certainly that's the only elementary I can think of that's on that level.

I stand corrected, thank you. Doesn’t change the data, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

No it doesn't. DME can dictate this and people will like it or lump it.

It's mind-boggling to me that people think there is something wrong with parents who see their kids' school will become without a doubt worse and don't like that fact.

I don't think there is anything wrong with parents being concerned about how this proposal might negatively impact their kids. I DO think the way people have expressed their objections on this thread are a problem. I think the way people have centered Maury families in the discussion as though their needs are paramount, is wrong. I think the disparaging things people have said about Miner students is wrong. I think the way some have alleged that this proposal must exist to punish Maury somehow (and not as a solution for demographic challenges Miner faces, the actual stated reason) is wrong. I think the condescension and superiority in many of the comments from Maury parents is wrong. And I think the absence of amy willingness to view the present situation as a problem that Maury might need to be a part of, is wrong.

Believe it or not, I started this conversation sympathetic to Maury families. I don't have a lot of sympathy left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

No it doesn't. DME can dictate this and people will like it or lump it.

It's mind-boggling to me that people think there is something wrong with parents who see their kids' school will become without a doubt worse and don't like that fact.

I don't think there is anything wrong with parents being concerned about how this proposal might negatively impact their kids. I DO think the way people have expressed their objections on this thread are a problem. I think the way people have centered Maury families in the discussion as though their needs are paramount, is wrong. I think the disparaging things people have said about Miner students is wrong. I think the way some have alleged that this proposal must exist to punish Maury somehow (and not as a solution for demographic challenges Miner faces, the actual stated reason) is wrong. I think the condescension and superiority in many of the comments from Maury parents is wrong. And I think the absence of amy willingness to view the present situation as a problem that Maury might need to be a part of, is wrong.

Believe it or not, I started this conversation sympathetic to Maury families. I don't have a lot of sympathy left.

I feel ya, but a bunch of people have said Maury should have an at-risk set-aside even if it means shrinking the zone or cutting out PK3. Is that not Maury being part of a solution? Or are you only viewing it as a solution if it directly helps Miner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

No it doesn't. DME can dictate this and people will like it or lump it.

It's mind-boggling to me that people think there is something wrong with parents who see their kids' school will become without a doubt worse and don't like that fact.

I don't think there is anything wrong with parents being concerned about how this proposal might negatively impact their kids. I DO think the way people have expressed their objections on this thread are a problem. I think the way people have centered Maury families in the discussion as though their needs are paramount, is wrong. I think the disparaging things people have said about Miner students is wrong. I think the way some have alleged that this proposal must exist to punish Maury somehow (and not as a solution for demographic challenges Miner faces, the actual stated reason) is wrong. I think the condescension and superiority in many of the comments from Maury parents is wrong. And I think the absence of amy willingness to view the present situation as a problem that Maury might need to be a part of, is wrong.

Believe it or not, I started this conversation sympathetic to Maury families. I don't have a lot of sympathy left.

I feel ya, but a bunch of people have said Maury should have an at-risk set-aside even if it means shrinking the zone or cutting out PK3. Is that not Maury being part of a solution? Or are you only viewing it as a solution if it directly helps Miner?

Numerous people have explained that at risk set asides have not been very successful in DC, and also how since it would not be targeted at the Miner community, it would likely have no impact on the problems Miner faces. It's not really a solution to the specific problem of huge demographic disparities between two schools in the same neighborhood. I'm not saying don't do it, but it's not going to help Miner much and to an extent it feels like a distraction from the conversation at hand.

[Anonymous]

Here is an outside the box idea: what if Maury and Miner shared one boundary but remained two schools. If you lived in the boundary, you would get IB preference at both for PK, and would be guaranteed a spot at one for K-5, but you'd rank them and your lottery number would determine which you were assigned to.

In addition, Maury and Miner would become "sister" schools, which at least a couple joint events each year, and same-grade classrooms could pair up virtually for projects sometimes, that kind of thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

No it doesn't. DME can dictate this and people will like it or lump it.

It's mind-boggling to me that people think there is something wrong with parents who see their kids' school will become without a doubt worse and don't like that fact.

I don't think there is anything wrong with parents being concerned about how this proposal might negatively impact their kids. I DO think the way people have expressed their objections on this thread are a problem. I think the way people have centered Maury families in the discussion as though their needs are paramount, is wrong. I think the disparaging things people have said about Miner students is wrong. I think the way some have alleged that this proposal must exist to punish Maury somehow (and not as a solution for demographic challenges Miner faces, the actual stated reason) is wrong. I think the condescension and superiority in many of the comments from Maury parents is wrong. And I think the absence of amy willingness to view the present situation as a problem that Maury might need to be a part of, is wrong.

Believe it or not, I started this conversation sympathetic to Maury families. I don't have a lot of sympathy left.

Might. LMAO. Once you say that and want parents to accept it, there's no reasoning with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an outside the box idea: what if Maury and Miner shared one boundary but remained two schools. If you lived in the boundary, you would get IB preference at both for PK, and would be guaranteed a spot at one for K-5, but you'd rank them and your lottery number would determine which you were assigned to.

In addition, Maury and Miner would become "sister" schools, which at least a couple joint events each year, and same-grade classrooms could pair up virtually for projects sometimes, that kind of thing.

Everyone would list Maury as their first choice and be upset when they got Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

No it doesn't. DME can dictate this and people will like it or lump it.

It's mind-boggling to me that people think there is something wrong with parents who see their kids' school will become without a doubt worse and don't like that fact.

I don't think there is anything wrong with parents being concerned about how this proposal might negatively impact their kids. I DO think the way people have expressed their objections on this thread are a problem. I think the way people have centered Maury families in the discussion as though their needs are paramount, is wrong. I think the disparaging things people have said about Miner students is wrong. I think the way some have alleged that this proposal must exist to punish Maury somehow (and not as a solution for demographic challenges Miner faces, the actual stated reason) is wrong. I think the condescension and superiority in many of the comments from Maury parents is wrong. And I think the absence of amy willingness to view the present situation as a problem that Maury might need to be a part of, is wrong.

Believe it or not, I started this conversation sympathetic to Maury families. I don't have a lot of sympathy left.

Might. LMAO. Once you say that and want parents to accept it, there's no reasoning with you.

Same could be said about you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DME and the advisory board should be ashamed by this process- the fact that DCUM is the only place is the only place where there is actual conversation about a serious issue with lots of extremely invested parties is nuts. A cluster would need community buy in and this is not the place to get it.

No it doesn't. DME can dictate this and people will like it or lump it.

It's mind-boggling to me that people think there is something wrong with parents who see their kids' school will become without a doubt worse and don't like that fact.

I don't think there is anything wrong with parents being concerned about how this proposal might negatively impact their kids. I DO think the way people have expressed their objections on this thread are a problem. I think the way people have centered Maury families in the discussion as though their needs are paramount, is wrong. I think the disparaging things people have said about Miner students is wrong. I think the way some have alleged that this proposal must exist to punish Maury somehow (and not as a solution for demographic challenges Miner faces, the actual stated reason) is wrong. I think the condescension and superiority in many of the comments from Maury parents is wrong. And I think the absence of amy willingness to view the present situation as a problem that Maury might need to be a part of, is wrong.

Believe it or not, I started this conversation sympathetic to Maury families. I don't have a lot of sympathy left.

I feel ya, but a bunch of people have said Maury should have an at-risk set-aside even if it means shrinking the zone or cutting out PK3. Is that not Maury being part of a solution? Or are you only viewing it as a solution if it directly helps Miner?

Numerous people have explained that at risk set asides have not been very successful in DC, and also how since it would not be targeted at the Miner community, it would likely have no impact on the problems Miner faces. It's not really a solution to the specific problem of huge demographic disparities between two schools in the same neighborhood. I'm not saying don't do it, but it's not going to help Miner much and to an extent it feels like a distraction from the conversation at hand.

If the goal is to reduce the disparity between Maury and Miner, then anything that makes change at one or the other of the schools makes a difference even if it doesn't directly change both. It reduces the disparity, and the disparity is apparently the reason for this whole conversation. It's not a distraction. It goes directly to the core issue of demographic differences. People have also proposed-- I know it sounds crazy-- giving Miner more money and resources so that more people want to attend.

As I have explained before, the at-risk set aside haven't been very successful because they're mainly offered for preschool and K, not upper elementary. And they aren't located near enough to Miner. An at-risk set-aside at Maury, SWS, and Ludlow-Taylor would likely have an impact on Maury.

If you'll only be satisfied with something that directly impacts Maury and directly benefits Miner more than any other school, I think that's odd. Maury families are more than willing to have more at-risk kids, they just don't think the cluster proposal will be successful in other ways, and that the DME's presentation is shamefully half-baked.