New DME slide deck about Maury/Miner, with maps!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

They're not marginal if they affect the quality of your kids' school. And your snide little dismissal is irrelevant: the entire plan hinges on parents going along with it and not lotterying out, moving, or doing private school. So the worse you think they are, well, there goes the plan.

Like I said, it makes sense and the haves don't want it because it takes away their privileges. Glib, snide, sure. We all self-justify.

Why have one bad school when we can create two?

[Anonymous]

And I am sure that the reasons for it being ""bad" filter back to demographics. This isht is pretty tiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly changes on Option 4? Trying to compare maps and my eyes are watering.

Pretty much all of the boundaries for the schools on the map (compare colors to thick line borders) in relatively minor ways that allegedly creates much better at risk balancing, but of course they don't share the specifics. Also, they admit the utilization rates don't really work (in particular, I can't see how JOW remains a viable school if you shrink it's boundary further, unless there are adjustments to the areas of its boundary that you can't see on this map) and I'd be curious to see what this would do to L-T's IB population size, because it looks to be a pretty substantial increase of its boundary. All that said, it seems like this could have been a promising approach if this is how they had started on day 1. There are definitely winners and losers though, so every school's population would be somewhat up in arms most likely, so I don't think it's something they could just drop now with no further engagement (especially as they haven't engaged with some of these schools at all previously, since their boundaries weren't affected by any of the proposals).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I am sure that the reasons for it being ""bad" filter back to demographics. This isht is pretty tiring.

Not entirely. Is it because of demographics that the principal of Miner was suddenly moved to an AP job at Hardy with no explanation other than entertaining rumors? Is it because of demographics that Miner can't seem to hang on to a principal, for the past seven years? And what accounts for schools like Garrison and Langley, which 5-7 years ago had demographics very similar to Miner, and now are doing much better than Miner? There's a lot going on here and it's a disservice to everyone-- *especially* to Miner kids and families-- to say it's all demographics when there are other very real reasons that could be addressed.

[Anonymous]

The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years.

I've also been following and you're absolutely right -- the boundary stuff at the final Maury/Miner meetings was so disingenuous. As someone pointed out upthread, they didn't even give the specifics about how they predicted demographics/utilization would change for most of their boundary "options." It was all just a way to say, tried it, nah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years.

Good to know. I just thought it was neat to see the maps. I'm still unclear on why they aren't good options, but I guess the DME wants it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

Meaningfully increasing diversity across DCPS schools means no more neighborhood schools and bussing. It’s incredibly unpopular, but doable (Berkeley, CA did it in the 70s and still does it today). Barring that, we will have the same schools and (roughly) the same demographic make up throughout the city. Everything else is just virtue signaling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

Meaningfully increasing diversity across DCPS schools means no more neighborhood schools and bussing. It’s incredibly unpopular, but doable (Berkeley, CA did it in the 70s and still does it today). Barring that, we will have the same schools and (roughly) the same demographic make up throughout the city. Everything else is just virtue signaling.

Only 17% of students in DCPS and 7% of charter school students are white, and those numbers sure aren't going to go up if you somehow successfully killed neighborhood schools (and charters). If you think that good schools are contingent on having some number of white kids in them, that is not mathematically possible in DC.

[Anonymous]

ANC 7D and 6A held a community meeting last night to discuss implementation considerations for the proposed pairing. The idea was not to discuss whether it should be implemented, but rather if it is implemented, what needs to be figured out. I continue to think the strategy of focusing so much on DME's total lack of any logistics planning will backfire on cluster opponents; once DME/DCPS has details like how shuttles will work in hand, I think it will be a lot harder to stop momentum for the cluster.

Apparently some concerns discussed were "how to keep conversation going in the interim" before the working group forms (and the idea of having a "pre-working group working group"). This is going to be a nightmare two years, isn't it.

One topic discussed was "community building" between the schools. I wonder if cluster supporters will try to set up some of those activities before the working group forms. It is a decent gambit -- Maury parents will look exactly the way cluster supporters want them to if they turn up their nose at attending events with Miner families. But if the idea is to use these events to support the idea of pairing the schools, my family will not be participating. (But maybe no one will try to set these up unless/until a cluster is actually approved.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ANC 7D and 6A held a community meeting last night to discuss implementation considerations for the proposed pairing. The idea was not to discuss whether it should be implemented, but rather if it is implemented, what needs to be figured out. I continue to think the strategy of focusing so much on DME's total lack of any logistics planning will backfire on cluster opponents; once DME/DCPS has details like how shuttles will work in hand, I think it will be a lot harder to stop momentum for the cluster.

Apparently some concerns discussed were "how to keep conversation going in the interim" before the working group forms (and the idea of having a "pre-working group working group"). This is going to be a nightmare two years, isn't it.

One topic discussed was "community building" between the schools. I wonder if cluster supporters will try to set up some of those activities before the working group forms. It is a decent gambit -- Maury parents will look exactly the way cluster supporters want them to if they turn up their nose at attending events with Miner families. But if the idea is to use these events to support the idea of pairing the schools, my family will not be participating. (But maybe no one will try to set these up unless/until a cluster is actually approved.)

what a waste of effort. how about spending that time taking a hard look at the instructional methods that are failing high risk kids? or behavioral approaches to actually be able to teach without disruption? no, these narcissists only get exciting by grandstanding about “equity” in ways that allow them to feel superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years.

So if the working group starts in 2026 - 2027 at the earliest, what is the earliest the paired model can be started? Assuming SY 2027 - 2028, but they would have to make that official before the lottery in March 2027, right? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on this issue? The mayor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ANC 7D and 6A held a community meeting last night to discuss implementation considerations for the proposed pairing. The idea was not to discuss whether it should be implemented, but rather if it is implemented, what needs to be figured out. I continue to think the strategy of focusing so much on DME's total lack of any logistics planning will backfire on cluster opponents; once DME/DCPS has details like how shuttles will work in hand, I think it will be a lot harder to stop momentum for the cluster.

Apparently some concerns discussed were "how to keep conversation going in the interim" before the working group forms (and the idea of having a "pre-working group working group"). This is going to be a nightmare two years, isn't it.

One topic discussed was "community building" between the schools. I wonder if cluster supporters will try to set up some of those activities before the working group forms. It is a decent gambit -- Maury parents will look exactly the way cluster supporters want them to if they turn up their nose at attending events with Miner families. But if the idea is to use these events to support the idea of pairing the schools, my family will not be participating. (But maybe no one will try to set these up unless/until a cluster is actually approved.)

what a waste of effort. how about spending that time taking a hard look at the instructional methods that are failing high risk kids? or behavioral approaches to actually be able to teach without disruption? no, these narcissists only get exciting by grandstanding about “equity” in ways that allow them to feel superior.

Exactly. What a tremendous amount of time and resources to have wasted (and, it sounds like, continue to waste) on something that I can't imagine will ever actually be forced through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So if the working group starts in 2026 - 2027 at the earliest, what is the earliest the paired model can be started? Assuming SY 2027 - 2028, but they would have to make that official before the lottery in March 2027, right? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on this issue? The mayor?

I’m not sure who has the ultimate decision-making authority; but DME has said that, even if the pairing goes forward, it would take several years to implement so maybe more like school year 2029-2030?