Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

Let's imagine DCPS decided to invest massively in Miner, making it way better in every way, and also gave it a principal who isn't a f*ck-up. And lots of people came in enroll in Miner and its at-risk percentage went down. Would you decline that proposal because it doesn't affect Maury enough?

If you think kids at Miner wouldn't be interested in a seat at Maury via at-risk preference, why? Doesn't that undermine the whole rationale for this proposal, which is to make Miner kids go to school in the Maury building and with Maury kids? If they don't want that in significant numbers, how can this "cluster" succeed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chris,

To what type of school are your kids moving to?

Suburban Virginia?

Anonymous,

Public school. No.

- Chris

In which ward and why are the moving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, which would incentivize the neighborhood (as it really is one neighborhood) to invest in both schools, since you could end up at either by luck if the draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is essentially the choice set model, which someone mentioned upthread. If the lottery allocated a certain amount of at-risk seats to Maury, it could work.

It would avoid the disruption of essentially dissolving two schools and building a new one. The administrations and staff would remain the same. The socio-economic disparity would be addressed.

It would also probably be implemented over time, due to sibling preferences. This could increase buy in and would avoid the dual-drop off issue.

It makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's imagine DCPS decided to invest massively in Miner, making it way better in every way, and also gave it a principal who isn't a f*ck-up. And lots of people came in enroll in Miner and its at-risk percentage went down. Would you decline that proposal because it doesn't affect Maury enough?

If you think kids at Miner wouldn't be interested in a seat at Maury via at-risk preference, why? Doesn't that undermine the whole rationale for this proposal, which is to make Miner kids go to school in the Maury building and with Maury kids? If they don't want that in significant numbers, how can this "cluster" succeed?

These questions have false promises.

Miner has had excellent principals. The new acting principal is very well respected. The challenges of a school with a 65% at risk population makes this complicated. Do you work hard to address the high needs of your large at risk population? Or do you work hard to attract IB families, especially higher income families? You cannot do both.

I want both schools to succeed, and I think it is specifically a problem that these schools are so close together with such a big difference in populations and outcomes. Its very much a haves versus haves not situation. So yes, I do think a solution for miner implicates Maury. I think viewing these schools as independent and unrelated doesn't make sense.

[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.

You’re making stuff up that NEVER happened, on this thread or on the calls. I have been participating on this thread since the beginning and the concerns expressed have consistently been BOTH a) this plan will disrupt both Maury and Miner and b) this plan includes zero actual ideas to support at-risk students. Maury parents also noted that Maury is already struggling to serve the at-risk students in the upper grades. We stated many reasons the cluster would make it very difficult for parents to participate in both schools, commute times, and safety. We called for the Mayor to *actually help* Miner, over and over, insted of radically disturbing both schools based on nothing more than a theory. Finally we asked for DCPS and DME to support efforts to *voluntarily* attract more high SES students through getting Miner a principal who supports integration of IB families and through considering special programs that might attract MC/UMC families citywide.

The reaction of the Maury families has *consistently* been that the DME plan caused maximum disruption for no clear benefit to Maury OR Miner students beyond reducing the numbers on paper.

The PPs coming here to claim we are “disgusting” and “racist” are just sad examples of a type you find on the internet - people who enjoy making bad-faith claims of racism instead of actually dealing with complex realities.

[Anonymous]

I’m disappointed I live near this many republicans. Where were you guys on January 6th? Let’s hope we don’t have another covid wave…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, which would incentivize the neighborhood (as it really is one neighborhood) to invest in both schools, since you could end up at either by luck if the draw.

If Miner received the same neighborhood investment as Maury, that would be fantastic. However, as many posters have stated, they would rather lottery their MC and UMC children out or send them to private school, than Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is essentially the choice set model, which someone mentioned upthread. If the lottery allocated a certain amount of at-risk seats to Maury, it could work.

It would avoid the disruption of essentially dissolving two schools and building a new one. The administrations and staff would remain the same. The socio-economic disparity would be addressed.

It would also probably be implemented over time, due to sibling preferences. This could increase buy in and would avoid the dual-drop off issue.

It makes a lot of sense.

I view the three solutions that actually get at the real issue here (the vast disparity in demographics and outcomes between to schools located just .5 miles apart) to be:

1) Redraw boundaries to reallocate inbound populations by race and class

2) A cluster model

3) A choice set model with one boundary getting IB preference to both schools, lottery ranking, and EA set asides at Maury to address historic inequality there

Of these, I'd be curious which sound best and worst to people from both school communities

[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.

this is the “choice set” idea and it is a bad idea, but less bad than the cluster. personally I think it is obvious that tbey can gerrymander boundaries to change the demographics but someone in DME thinks the cluster is a nifty feather in their cap, so here we are.

[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.

You’re making stuff up that NEVER happened, on this thread or on the calls. I have been participating on this thread since the beginning and the concerns expressed have consistently been BOTH a) this plan will disrupt both Maury and Miner and b) this plan includes zero actual ideas to support at-risk students. Maury parents also noted that Maury is already struggling to serve the at-risk students in the upper grades. We stated many reasons the cluster would make it very difficult for parents to participate in both schools, commute times, and safety. We called for the Mayor to *actually help* Miner, over and over, insted of radically disturbing both schools based on nothing more than a theory. Finally we asked for DCPS and DME to support efforts to *voluntarily* attract more high SES students through getting Miner a principal who supports integration of IB families and through considering special programs that might attract MC/UMC families citywide.

The reaction of the Maury families has *consistently* been that the DME plan caused maximum disruption for no clear benefit to Maury OR Miner students beyond reducing the numbers on paper.

The PPs coming here to claim we are “disgusting” and “racist” are just sad examples of a type you find on the internet - people who enjoy making bad-faith claims of racism instead of actually dealing with complex realities.

You lack reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, which would incentivize the neighborhood (as it really is one neighborhood) to invest in both schools, since you could end up at either by luck if the draw.

If Miner received the same neighborhood investment as Maury, that would be fantastic. However, as many posters have stated, they would rather lottery their MC and UMC children out or send them to private school, than Miner.

Right, as do most of the families currently zoned for Miner, including the at-risk ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, which would incentivize the neighborhood (as it really is one neighborhood) to invest in both schools, since you could end up at either by luck if the draw.

If Miner received the same neighborhood investment as Maury, that would be fantastic. However, as many posters have stated, they would rather lottery their MC and UMC children out or send them to private school, than Miner.

Even if all your MC and UMC neighbors had equal likelihood of landing at Miner? One reason some string schools emerged on the Hill is that groups of parents got together with a shared desire for walkable neighborhood schools. That was a big driver for Maury. Would all the parents in this area really rather drive or bus their kids to privates or charters than try to create two solid schools in their neighborhood that both feed to the neighborhood MS? The advantages in terms of social development, convenience, and property values are pretty strong.

[Anonymous]

2nd grade!?!?!

Sounds like you should have noticed he was already behind. No wonder Miner parents are desperate for this move.

Hi Anonymous,

As my wife pointed out to me last night, he was K/1st grade. Oops. Those years all run together; you know? It's interesting that this would be your only takeaway though. I wonder if we were chatting at the playground you'd say the same thing. I indicated no support for or against this move, only an offer to answer questions about one family's experience with Miner since there seems to be a lot of assumptions floating around. Clearly that was a mistake. I know your last line was meant as an attempt at some good old fashioned mean-spirited humor, but I'll bite. I think Miner families are desperate for support from a school system that through no fault of their own is failing them and are open to any idea that helps get the school back on track. I don't get the sense there is overwhelming support for this on the Miner side, simply a desire for the conversation around this issue to be respectful and the process to be fair. You're obviously not up to the task.

- Chris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is essentially the choice set model, which someone mentioned upthread. If the lottery allocated a certain amount of at-risk seats to Maury, it could work.

It would avoid the disruption of essentially dissolving two schools and building a new one. The administrations and staff would remain the same. The socio-economic disparity would be addressed.

It would also probably be implemented over time, due to sibling preferences. This could increase buy in and would avoid the dual-drop off issue.

It makes a lot of sense.

I view the three solutions that actually get at the real issue here (the vast disparity in demographics and outcomes between to schools located just .5 miles apart) to be:

1) Redraw boundaries to reallocate inbound populations by race and class

2) A cluster model

3) A choice set model with one boundary getting IB preference to both schools, lottery ranking, and EA set asides at Maury to address historic inequality there

Of these, I'd be curious which sound best and worst to people from both school communities

A survey would be very helpful.