Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chris,

To what type of school are your kids moving to?

Suburban Virginia?

Anonymous,

Public school. No.

- Chris

In which ward and why are the moving?

If staying in DC, why not remain at Miner?

[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.

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.

Yes there is one chunk of it that is IB for Maury. And the Western end of the Maury zone is historical district as well. Also much of LT and Brent I believe. Now that is a hornet’s nest nobody will dare disturb! When it comes to policing vinyl windows vs diversity we all know the windows win.

[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!

I agree it's a problem that there are big disparities between Janney and Miner, or LT and Miner. But I think it's a BIGGER problem that there are such stark disparities between Maury and Miner. Yes, proximity matters because it indicates that the Maury zone carves out the most affluent (and whitest) parts of the neighborhood. I am aware this didn't happen on purpose, but the effect is the same. Even LT has more low income housing in-zone than Maury does. And LT has a lot more multi-family housing, even if some of it is higher income, because of its proximity to multiple commercial strips. Maury occupies a unique position because in a neighborhood of a lot of mixed use residential and commercial corridors, with quite a bit of low income and multi-family housing, Maury has very little of either. The effect of this is to create an island of high income, predominantly white families, amidst a sea of schools including Miner, Payne, Tyler, JO Wilson, and Watkins (and Wheatley, though it's Ward 5) with much higher percentage of of IB at risk kids, and greater attraction to OOB kids because of their more convenient locations in some cases. I absolutely view this as a problem, and I don't see a way to solve it without diversifying the Maury zone somehow. There are different ways to do that and I don't think the cluster is the best one.

But I agree with the DME that the large disparity between Maury and Miner geographically, which results in an upward spiral for Maury and a downward one for Miner, is a problem. If you don't see that as a problem, I don't see how we can even start to have this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Before people go out of their way to disparage the Miner parents who have decided to drop anonymity in this conversation, perhaps some of the Maury parents who feel so convinced that their participation in the conversation has been inoffensive and fair would like to do the same?

[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!

I agree it's a problem that there are big disparities between Janney and Miner, or LT and Miner. But I think it's a BIGGER problem that there are such stark disparities between Maury and Miner. Yes, proximity matters because it indicates that the Maury zone carves out the most affluent (and whitest) parts of the neighborhood. I am aware this didn't happen on purpose, but the effect is the same. Even LT has more low income housing in-zone than Maury does. And LT has a lot more multi-family housing, even if some of it is higher income, because of its proximity to multiple commercial strips. Maury occupies a unique position because in a neighborhood of a lot of mixed use residential and commercial corridors, with quite a bit of low income and multi-family housing, Maury has very little of either. The effect of this is to create an island of high income, predominantly white families, amidst a sea of schools including Miner, Payne, Tyler, JO Wilson, and Watkins (and Wheatley, though it's Ward 5) with much higher percentage of of IB at risk kids, and greater attraction to OOB kids because of their more convenient locations in some cases. I absolutely view this as a problem, and I don't see a way to solve it without diversifying the Maury zone somehow. There are different ways to do that and I don't think the cluster is the best one.

But I agree with the DME that the large disparity between Maury and Miner geographically, which results in an upward spiral for Maury and a downward one for Miner, is a problem. If you don't see that as a problem, I don't see how we can even start to have this conversation.

Personally I care much more about actual results than numbers on paper. Given that DC overall cannot improve the educational status of at-risk kids by even totally getting rid of IB zones, I don’t see this as an honest attempt to actually improve things for kids at Miner. Especially given that the disparity is due to OOB students and not even the actual neighborhood. I’d rather see the city make an honest attempt at building more affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes there is one chunk of it that is IB for Maury. And the Western end of the Maury zone is historical district as well. Also much of LT and Brent I believe. Now that is a hornet’s nest nobody will dare disturb! When it comes to policing vinyl windows vs diversity we all know the windows win.

I am not a fan of Historic Districts but Kingman Park is C Street to the southern half of D Street for one block. Claiming that it prevents a bunch of affordable housing in-bounds for Maury is not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before people go out of their way to disparage the Miner parents who have decided to drop anonymity in this conversation, perhaps some of the Maury parents who feel so convinced that their participation in the conversation has been inoffensive and fair would like to do the same?

No, because in the current climate and on this thread, there will be false accusations of racism. Address that first if you want an open discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes there is one chunk of it that is IB for Maury. And the Western end of the Maury zone is historical district as well. Also much of LT and Brent I believe. Now that is a hornet’s nest nobody will dare disturb! When it comes to policing vinyl windows vs diversity we all know the windows win.

I am not a fan of Historic Districts but Kingman Park is C Street to the southern half of D Street for one block. Claiming that it prevents a bunch of affordable housing in-bounds for Maury is not accurate.

A big chunk of the Western end is historical as well.

[Anonymous]

So is the ultimate goal here to become like SFUSD and get rid of all neighborhood schools? Which actually ended up increasing racial segregation?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/san-francisco-school-segregation.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Causal driveby observer with kids in a different DC school and I think it’s hilarious how badly the Maury families will get screwed.

I’m also a driveby observer and agree that Maury parents will get screwed but I think it’s unfortunate. Instead of having one great school and one bad school in the neighborhood, we are going to end up with one gigantic bad school. That’s not good for the city. As a parent in-bound for the current Watkins cluster, which has been going BACKWARDS for about 15 years despite parents year after year trying to get traction (but being unable to due to the size of the school and the cluster model), I think this is really unfortunate and not great for our community as a whole.

[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!

I agree it's a problem that there are big disparities between Janney and Miner, or LT and Miner. But I think it's a BIGGER problem that there are such stark disparities between Maury and Miner. Yes, proximity matters because it indicates that the Maury zone carves out the most affluent (and whitest) parts of the neighborhood. I am aware this didn't happen on purpose, but the effect is the same. Even LT has more low income housing in-zone than Maury does. And LT has a lot more multi-family housing, even if some of it is higher income, because of its proximity to multiple commercial strips. Maury occupies a unique position because in a neighborhood of a lot of mixed use residential and commercial corridors, with quite a bit of low income and multi-family housing, Maury has very little of either. The effect of this is to create an island of high income, predominantly white families, amidst a sea of schools including Miner, Payne, Tyler, JO Wilson, and Watkins (and Wheatley, though it's Ward 5) with much higher percentage of of IB at risk kids, and greater attraction to OOB kids because of their more convenient locations in some cases. I absolutely view this as a problem, and I don't see a way to solve it without diversifying the Maury zone somehow. There are different ways to do that and I don't think the cluster is the best one.

But I agree with the DME that the large disparity between Maury and Miner geographically, which results in an upward spiral for Maury and a downward one for Miner, is a problem. If you don't see that as a problem, I don't see how we can even start to have this conversation.

Personally I care much more about actual results than numbers on paper. Given that DC overall cannot improve the educational status of at-risk kids by even totally getting rid of IB zones, I don’t see this as an honest attempt to actually improve things for kids at Miner. Especially given that the disparity is due to OOB students and not even the actual neighborhood. I’d rather see the city make an honest attempt at building more affordable housing.

This is simply false. Yes, Miner has low IB buy-in. But many of the OOB families that lottery in are actually higher income than many of the school's IB students, because Miner is a better school than many across the river, and parents who work downtown and care about giving their kids a good education view Miner as an upgrade that still gets them to work on time.

The truth is that Miner has multiple low-income housing facilities in its boundary, plus a lot of Section 8 housing, and Maury has almost none. Even if both schools were 100% IB and the lottery did not exist, Miner would still have a much higher at risk percentage. The DME even said as much -- the IB demographics reflect the same disparities you see in school populations, even with Miner's large OOB contingent.

[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

Sounds like you are completely checked out of your kids education. Not sure why we should be listening to anything you have to say about Miner.

[Anonymous]

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

LOL. I’m a very liberal Democrat and think this plan is ill conceived and it’s going to absolutely ruin one of the only successful schools in Ward 6.

[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.

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!

I agree it's a problem that there are big disparities between Janney and Miner, or LT and Miner. But I think it's a BIGGER problem that there are such stark disparities between Maury and Miner. Yes, proximity matters because it indicates that the Maury zone carves out the most affluent (and whitest) parts of the neighborhood. I am aware this didn't happen on purpose, but the effect is the same. Even LT has more low income housing in-zone than Maury does. And LT has a lot more multi-family housing, even if some of it is higher income, because of its proximity to multiple commercial strips. Maury occupies a unique position because in a neighborhood of a lot of mixed use residential and commercial corridors, with quite a bit of low income and multi-family housing, Maury has very little of either. The effect of this is to create an island of high income, predominantly white families, amidst a sea of schools including Miner, Payne, Tyler, JO Wilson, and Watkins (and Wheatley, though it's Ward 5) with much higher percentage of of IB at risk kids, and greater attraction to OOB kids because of their more convenient locations in some cases. I absolutely view this as a problem, and I don't see a way to solve it without diversifying the Maury zone somehow. There are different ways to do that and I don't think the cluster is the best one.

But I agree with the DME that the large disparity between Maury and Miner geographically, which results in an upward spiral for Maury and a downward one for Miner, is a problem. If you don't see that as a problem, I don't see how we can even start to have this conversation.

Personally I care much more about actual results than numbers on paper. Given that DC overall cannot improve the educational status of at-risk kids by even totally getting rid of IB zones, I don’t see this as an honest attempt to actually improve things for kids at Miner. Especially given that the disparity is due to OOB students and not even the actual neighborhood. I’d rather see the city make an honest attempt at building more affordable housing.

This is simply false. Yes, Miner has low IB buy-in. But many of the OOB families that lottery in are actually higher income than many of the school's IB students, because Miner is a better school than many across the river, and parents who work downtown and care about giving their kids a good education view Miner as an upgrade that still gets them to work on time.

The truth is that Miner has multiple low-income housing facilities in its boundary, plus a lot of Section 8 housing, and Maury has almost none. Even if both schools were 100% IB and the lottery did not exist, Miner would still have a much higher at risk percentage. The DME even said as much -- the IB demographics reflect the same disparities you see in school populations, even with Miner's large OOB contingent.

Right, the point is that nothing in this plan touches the OOB schools the Miner students are leaving. That’s galling and makes the whole thing seen like a farce to me.

Yes, differences in housing affordability mean that the Maury and Miner demographics would always differ but I personally do not believe that 100% uniformity is a reasonable goal to the exclusion of all other goals. The fact is there is immense room for Miner to diversify if only DCPS would prioritize attracting IB families. We’ve seen this happen all over the Hill and it’s happening now at Eliot-Hine which is I think 60% at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before people go out of their way to disparage the Miner parents who have decided to drop anonymity in this conversation, perhaps some of the Maury parents who feel so convinced that their participation in the conversation has been inoffensive and fair would like to do the same?

No, because in the current climate and on this thread, there will be false accusations of racism. Address that first if you want an open discussion.

Where are the false accusations of racism?

Maybe putting names with some of these comments would engender more understanding.

As it stands, I find myself so bothered by some of the commentary from alleged Maury families that I have some distrust of the whole community now. Impossible to know if some of these sentiments are widely held or not.