New opposition petition to the Maury-Miner boundary proposal from DME

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

"DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools" is not an appealing argument for a merger. Who would want to send their young children to a school like that, especially with no permanent principal and some sort of weird curse that causes it to constantly have leadership problems.

I'm not too young to remember Andrea Mial.

PP here and I don't think DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools, nor do I think this is the argument of Miner parents supporting the merger.

I think the issue is that a combination of location, demographics, history, and cultural dysfunction have made it so that Miner cannot be improved simply by committed IB family investment. These factors I think have also contributed to dysfunction at the administrative level.

Personally based on my outsider understanding, I think the best solution would be to close Miner and expand Maury and Payne to absorb the boundary -- just make those schools bigger overall. But that's not on the table I guess. And it would be harder to accomplish because I believe Maury and Payne are already at capacity, plus then what do you do with the Miner facility, which just got the new ECE building. So I can see this merger being a compromise that allows DCPS to maintain the Miner building instead of having to find a tenant or sell it.

I just think Miner is a failed school community and I don't know that there are good solutions that will change that without significantly impacting Maury one way or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

As of now, the "pro" list of signers is longer than the "con" list of signers, so definitely some folks have spoken up.

The "con" petition was started a day ago vs. the "pro" which was circulated about a week ago. I would also add that a joint petition from Maury and Miner PTAs opposing the cluster was circulated several weeks back.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScYpdInF27WoBV24cPaRbxPHHliUejbTPcOQzldP127xWKcLw/viewform

This statement doesn't oppose. It asks for more info/options. It is worded like that to get Miner PTO buy-in. Miner's PTO was unwilling to oppose. Just FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

"DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools" is not an appealing argument for a merger. Who would want to send their young children to a school like that, especially with no permanent principal and some sort of weird curse that causes it to constantly have leadership problems.

I'm not too young to remember Andrea Mial.

PP here and I don't think DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools, nor do I think this is the argument of Miner parents supporting the merger.

I think the issue is that a combination of location, demographics, history, and cultural dysfunction have made it so that Miner cannot be improved simply by committed IB family investment. These factors I think have also contributed to dysfunction at the administrative level.

Personally based on my outsider understanding, I think the best solution would be to close Miner and expand Maury and Payne to absorb the boundary -- just make those schools bigger overall. But that's not on the table I guess. And it would be harder to accomplish because I believe Maury and Payne are already at capacity, plus then what do you do with the Miner facility, which just got the new ECE building. So I can see this merger being a compromise that allows DCPS to maintain the Miner building instead of having to find a tenant or sell it.

I just think Miner is a failed school community and I don't know that there are good solutions that will change that without significantly impacting Maury one way or another.

There is a reason elementary schools typically max out at around 500-600 students. Studies show that smaller schools have better outcomes, particularly for at-risk populations. Just combining the boundaries to make mega schools isn't a great option. Kids will get lost and administration will suffer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

Yes, thank you for correcting my typo. That is all exactly correct as I see it. The parents of our kid's bestie are on that list and fall into the highlighted group. They are really idealistic, good people and nothing but well-intentioned. I have no doubt that they honestly believe that the cluster would be better for IB Miner families than anything else likely to be offered after their 6 years as a Miner family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about a petition to give Miner what it actually needs, or a petition for DME/DCPS to provide some real answers?

This is exactly what this petition is asking for. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScYpdInF27WoBV24cPaRbxPHHliUejbTPcOQzldP127xWKcLw/viewform

Again, DME hasn't answered any of these questions. Just continues to say trust us, we'll figure it out as we go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

As of now, the "pro" list of signers is longer than the "con" list of signers, so definitely some folks have spoken up.

The "con" petition was started a day ago vs. the "pro" which was circulated about a week ago. I would also add that a joint petition from Maury and Miner PTAs opposing the cluster was circulated several weeks back.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScYpdInF27WoBV24cPaRbxPHHliUejbTPcOQzldP127xWKcLw/viewform

This statement doesn't oppose. It asks for more info/options. It is worded like that to get Miner PTO buy-in. Miner's PTO was unwilling to oppose. Just FYI.

Fair point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

"DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools" is not an appealing argument for a merger. Who would want to send their young children to a school like that, especially with no permanent principal and some sort of weird curse that causes it to constantly have leadership problems.

I'm not too young to remember Andrea Mial.

PP here and I don't think DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools, nor do I think this is the argument of Miner parents supporting the merger.

I think the issue is that a combination of location, demographics, history, and cultural dysfunction have made it so that Miner cannot be improved simply by committed IB family investment. These factors I think have also contributed to dysfunction at the administrative level.

Personally based on my outsider understanding, I think the best solution would be to close Miner and expand Maury and Payne to absorb the boundary -- just make those schools bigger overall. But that's not on the table I guess. And it would be harder to accomplish because I believe Maury and Payne are already at capacity, plus then what do you do with the Miner facility, which just got the new ECE building. So I can see this merger being a compromise that allows DCPS to maintain the Miner building instead of having to find a tenant or sell it.

I just think Miner is a failed school community and I don't know that there are good solutions that will change that without significantly impacting Maury one way or another.

I agree with you. The Miner building could be turned into a new childcare/PK center with all new staff and leadership. Miner has failed as an institution and should be broken up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

"DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools" is not an appealing argument for a merger. Who would want to send their young children to a school like that, especially with no permanent principal and some sort of weird curse that causes it to constantly have leadership problems.

I'm not too young to remember Andrea Mial.

PP here and I don't think DCPS treats Miner worse than other schools, nor do I think this is the argument of Miner parents supporting the merger.

I think the issue is that a combination of location, demographics, history, and cultural dysfunction have made it so that Miner cannot be improved simply by committed IB family investment. These factors I think have also contributed to dysfunction at the administrative level.

Personally based on my outsider understanding, I think the best solution would be to close Miner and expand Maury and Payne to absorb the boundary -- just make those schools bigger overall. But that's not on the table I guess. And it would be harder to accomplish because I believe Maury and Payne are already at capacity, plus then what do you do with the Miner facility, which just got the new ECE building. So I can see this merger being a compromise that allows DCPS to maintain the Miner building instead of having to find a tenant or sell it.

I just think Miner is a failed school community and I don't know that there are good solutions that will change that without significantly impacting Maury one way or another.

There is a reason elementary schools typically max out at around 500-600 students. Studies show that smaller schools have better outcomes, particularly for at-risk populations. Just combining the boundaries to make mega schools isn't a great option. Kids will get lost and administration will suffer.

Splitting Miner between Maury and Payne would result in two schools that are smaller than the proposed Miner/Maury cluster.

Alternatively, you could argue that the cluster model is more beneficial because while technically clustered, the schools will operate somewhat individually, so that neither school feels like a large school, even if the cluster itself is quite large.

I mean, I agree with you about smaller schools being better as a general matter, but the problem currently being addressed is that Miner isn't working regardless of its small size. From a policy standpoint, DCPS can't let a preference for smaller elementaries generally stand in the way of addressing the failure of Miner as an institution.

There are ideals and then there are realities and you can do your best to match them up but you are never going to get everything you want.

[Anonymous]

I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Maury is a very well-regarded school with lots of inbound buy in and high test scores. Miner is not a well-regarded school and has very low inbound buy in (especially past the ECE grades) and terrible test scores. So families at Maury are understandably upset that the plan will jeopardize the good thing they have going.

All of this is compounded by the fact that these schools are very close to each other, so there's a bit of neighbor-versus-neighbor issue here. Also the DC lottery system complicates things a lot because these are neighborhood schools but a significant percentage of students attending Miner live out of bounds.

Pardon the pun, but the whole thing is a real cluster already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

For some that's a reason, but there are other reasons.

*They don't want the bad commute and logistics of their kids in two different locations.
*They don't believe that DCPS will come through with the implementation and support that is being vaguely implied but never explicitly promised.
*Miner continually has leadership problems and DCPS never gives it a good principal, so that would need to change first.
*The Peabody-Watkins cluster doesn't function well, and the other cluster in North Carolina that DME hand-picked as an example also has poor results.

The higher at-risk percentage can be accomplished with a lottery set-aside or preference and it can be accomplished with boundary changes. Or at least, DME has yet to disprove those two assertions. So the question is why make people's logistics so bad when the same income targets could be reached in other ways.

[Anonymous]

Because there are a lot of Miner parents who are secretly hoping to send their kids to Maury through the lottery in the upper grades. And they mean Maury *as it currently exists*, not the imaginary Maury that DME wants to create.