Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mean, if you believe it is incompatible for an administrator to serve a 65% at-risk population while at the same time making the school a good fit for MC/UMC families, then why do you think a cluster would work?

There’s this complete fantasy that getting the at risk population below 1/3 alone somehow helps those kids, as opposed to now dominating the school with kids whose parents will (rightfully) expect classes to be primarily on grade level.

My kid is at a Title 1 school right now that over 1/2 at risk and I honestly believe that the at-risk kids are well served by having a school that is focused primarily on their needs.

DME has provided zero information about how the cluster would be supported to serve at risk kids, zero ideas about what can be done for Miner now. And, we know that no matter what happens here, even if it is successful, its no solution for the rest of DC. Even if DC got rid of IB schools and instituted busing, schools would still be 50% at risk.

[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 are speaking on behalf of Miner parents without having spoken TO Miner parents. That's your first mistake.

Also, no one has called you disgusting or racist. People have called some aspects of this discussion offensive, and I agree. I also think some people f the commentary about both Miner and at risk kids has carried clear racist undertones (again, using words like "dilute" to describe combining a majority black and a majority white population has a racist undertones NO MATTER how it was intended-- reflect on this). I also think that a lot of the strong reactions to the proposal reflect some classist and racist beliefs that people might not be self-aware of.

It's very clear from this discussion which people are familiar with what Miner is actually like, and which are imagining what it might be like based on the demographic numbers and test scores that are their only information. Hint: Miner looks and feels like a functional school full of caring educators and enthusiastic kids about 90% of the time. The challenges faced by many Miner students have to do with lack of stability and support outside school. It's not the hell hole some of you are clearly imagining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mean, if you believe it is incompatible for an administrator to serve a 65% at-risk population while at the same time making the school a good fit for MC/UMC families, then why do you think a cluster would work?

There’s this complete fantasy that getting the at risk population below 1/3 alone somehow helps those kids, as opposed to now dominating the school with kids whose parents will (rightfully) expect classes to be primarily on grade level.

My kid is at a Title 1 school right now that over 1/2 at risk and I honestly believe that the at-risk kids are well served by having a school that is focused primarily on their needs.

DME has provided zero information about how the cluster would be supported to serve at risk kids, zero ideas about what can be done for Miner now. And, we know that no matter what happens here, even if it is successful, its no solution for the rest of DC. Even if DC got rid of IB schools and instituted busing, schools would still be 50% at risk.

The cluster would have a much lower at risk percentage because Maury is the bigger school and is only 12% at risk.

Why are people talking about the cluster as if it would have all Miner's challenges and none of Maury's advantages? It's weird. Maury has like 200 more students.

[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.

This is a fact for many schools on the Hill and all over DC. Miner itself is full of kids who lotteried from a school they assessed as presumably worse.

Miner however absolutely could attract IB families if it had an administration that prioritized it. This happened at Brent, Maury, and most recently Payne. There’s no reason to think it couldn’t happen at Miner. If the DME were honest, it would study Maury, LT, Brent and Payne and ask “how can we replicate this at Miner”? But the fact is, these voluntary, community-driven efforts to integrate Hill schools are actually perceived as negative because the high SES/white parents “take over” the school. It only works ideologically if it is forced equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mean, if you believe it is incompatible for an administrator to serve a 65% at-risk population while at the same time making the school a good fit for MC/UMC families, then why do you think a cluster would work?

There’s this complete fantasy that getting the at risk population below 1/3 alone somehow helps those kids, as opposed to now dominating the school with kids whose parents will (rightfully) expect classes to be primarily on grade level.

My kid is at a Title 1 school right now that over 1/2 at risk and I honestly believe that the at-risk kids are well served by having a school that is focused primarily on their needs.

DME has provided zero information about how the cluster would be supported to serve at risk kids, zero ideas about what can be done for Miner now. And, we know that no matter what happens here, even if it is successful, its no solution for the rest of DC. Even if DC got rid of IB schools and instituted busing, schools would still be 50% at risk.

The cluster would have a much lower at risk percentage because Maury is the bigger school and is only 12% at risk.

Why are people talking about the cluster as if it would have all Miner's challenges and none of Maury's advantages? It's weird. Maury has like 200 more students.

Because given what we see at Watkins and the attrition already in Maury upper grades, the assumption is that the upper school would end up 50% at-risk anyway. The lower school might be more like Peabody.

[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.

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 are speaking on behalf of Miner parents without having spoken TO Miner parents. That's your first mistake.

Also, no one has called you disgusting or racist. People have called some aspects of this discussion offensive, and I agree. I also think some people f the commentary about both Miner and at risk kids has carried clear racist undertones (again, using words like "dilute" to describe combining a majority black and a majority white population has a racist undertones NO MATTER how it was intended-- reflect on this). I also think that a lot of the strong reactions to the proposal reflect some classist and racist beliefs that people might not be self-aware of.

It's very clear from this discussion which people are familiar with what Miner is actually like, and which are imagining what it might be like based on the demographic numbers and test scores that are their only information. Hint: Miner looks and feels like a functional school full of caring educators and enthusiastic kids about 90% of the time. The challenges faced by many Miner students have to do with lack of stability and support outside school. It's not the hell hole some of you are clearly imagining.

The reason this started out as Maury parents only is because the DME dropped this on everyone out of nowhere and Miner was apparently not informed at all! Please place the blame where it belongs.

I’m not sure why the word “dilute”
is so triggering but I’ll take your word on it. But the fact remains that the SOLE mechanism of this plan is to decrease the concentration of at risk (mostly black) students at Miner and high SES (mostly white) students at Maury. You can use the verb you like, but that is the goal.

I’m glad to hear Miner is working for you. If you take a second to read what I’ve written, nothing suggests Miner is a “hell hole” although I understand there is some sort of rhetorical trap whereby the unwary fail to express exactly correctly that Miner is a) a great place and b) failing its students so severely that it needs to be taken apart.

[Anonymous]

So if this cluster is awesome, if it will improve performance and everyone will love it, doesn't that mean more IB families will choose it? And doesn't that have the effect of reducing Miner's OOB population? What is the impact on those kids, who I would think are choosing Miner because their IB schools are worse? This discussion is "centering" Maury and Miner current and future IB students. What about the others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a fact for many schools on the Hill and all over DC. Miner itself is full of kids who lotteried from a school they assessed as presumably worse.

Miner however absolutely could attract IB families if it had an administration that prioritized it. This happened at Brent, Maury, and most recently Payne. There’s no reason to think it couldn’t happen at Miner. If the DME were honest, it would study Maury, LT, Brent and Payne and ask “how can we replicate this at Miner”? But the fact is, these voluntary, community-driven efforts to integrate Hill schools are actually perceived as negative because the high SES/white parents “take over” the school. It only works ideologically if it is forced equity.

This x1000

Miner could be a great school for ALL kids if DCPS actually bothered to engage with the larger community. Again and again, progressive MC and UMC families on the hill have shown how they want to engage and help if one given the chance.

But no, DCPS is run by ideologues who want enforce some kind of rigid racial narrative about victims and oppressors. DCPS has done nothing to build trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Again, isn’t this the problem?? Miner families are desperate and are open to anything that might work? Why are we letting ourselves be bullied by DME in this way?? Why not demand them to give us something that *definitely* will work instead of proposing ideas might work but they don’t know??? Why should kids lose years of their lives to failed experiments?? Why can’t they show actual data showing why they think it will work for these 2 specific schools? Why are parents afraid to ask why DCPS repeatedly fails them? Why are families sniping at each other instead of the common enemy??

If you really want to talk about actual racism and discrimination to low-income families, why not look at DME who didn’t even bother to figure out why the Miner admin didn’t respond to this critical matter?? Why not ask why DCPS repeatedly gives Miner a poor principal??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if this cluster is awesome, if it will improve performance and everyone will love it, doesn't that mean more IB families will choose it? And doesn't that have the effect of reducing Miner's OOB population? What is the impact on those kids, who I would think are choosing Miner because their IB schools are worse? This discussion is "centering" Maury and Miner current and future IB students. What about the others?

OOB commuter families are probably the most engaged families, so maybe they can go to their local schools and work on improving those? Ironically they're creating their own set of problems by abandonig their own local school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if this cluster is awesome, if it will improve performance and everyone will love it, doesn't that mean more IB families will choose it? And doesn't that have the effect of reducing Miner's OOB population? What is the impact on those kids, who I would think are choosing Miner because their IB schools are worse? This discussion is "centering" Maury and Miner current and future IB students. What about the others?

Short answer: DC has no actual plan to help the preponderance of at-risk students.

[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.

I think one of the places where it sounds like we diverge is I don't understand why it's a bigger problem to have a huge disparity between Maury and Miner than it is to have a huge disparity between, say, Janney and Miner (or, for that matter, LT and Miner). Both the 50pp threshold and the focus on proximity don't make a lot of sense to me. It makes it sound like it would be a great outcome if all of the Capitol Hill schools were 30-40% at-risk while the upper NW enclave remains overwhelmingly affluent -- it's not like they're close together!

[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.

I think one of the places where it sounds like we diverge is I don't understand why it's a bigger problem to have a huge disparity between Maury and Miner than it is to have a huge disparity between, say, Janney and Miner (or, for that matter, LT and Miner). Both the 50pp threshold and the focus on proximity don't make a lot of sense to me. It makes it sound like it would be a great outcome if all of the Capitol Hill schools were 30-40% at-risk while the upper NW enclave remains overwhelmingly affluent -- it's not like they're close together!

And a lot is hinging on how people are defining "neighborhood."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think one of the places where it sounds like we diverge is I don't understand why it's a bigger problem to have a huge disparity between Maury and Miner than it is to have a huge disparity between, say, Janney and Miner (or, for that matter, LT and Miner). Both the 50pp threshold and the focus on proximity don't make a lot of sense to me. It makes it sound like it would be a great outcome if all of the Capitol Hill schools were 30-40% at-risk while the upper NW enclave remains overwhelmingly affluent -- it's not like they're close together!

And a lot is hinging on how people are defining "neighborhood."

Speaking of neighborhoods. One irony of this discussion is that low SES kids are concentrated in the Miner zone in part because the very same people wringing their hands about disparities ALSO pushed the Historical Zone designation for Kingman Park the central, which means that affordable housing literally cannot be built in most of the Maury zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think one of the places where it sounds like we diverge is I don't understand why it's a bigger problem to have a huge disparity between Maury and Miner than it is to have a huge disparity between, say, Janney and Miner (or, for that matter, LT and Miner). Both the 50pp threshold and the focus on proximity don't make a lot of sense to me. It makes it sound like it would be a great outcome if all of the Capitol Hill schools were 30-40% at-risk while the upper NW enclave remains overwhelmingly affluent -- it's not like they're close together!

And a lot is hinging on how people are defining "neighborhood."

Speaking of neighborhoods. One irony of this discussion is that low SES kids are concentrated in the Miner zone in part because the very same people wringing their hands about disparities ALSO pushed the Historical Zone designation for Kingman Park the central, which means that affordable housing literally cannot be built in most of the Maury zone.

Kingman Park Historic is not part of Maury zone.