Maury Capitol Hill

[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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, I can’t help you if a handful of anonymous comments on the internet lead you to “distrust the whole community.” And I have not read any commentary that reflects what you are saying which makes me believe that people are primed to make bad-faith accusations of racism. So no, not interested in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, I can’t help you if a handful of anonymous comments on the internet lead you to “distrust the whole community.” And I have not read any commentary that reflects what you are saying which makes me believe that people are primed to make bad-faith accusations of racism. So no, not interested in that.

If you can't see any comments in this thread or elsewhere that would cause Miner parents to distrust Maury parents or question their good faith involvement in this process, then you are blind to your own biases.

[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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

Oh FFS. People think the cluster is bad and there are other ways to increase at-risk percentage. If you think maintaining exactly the same at-risk percentage at all schools is the goal, please do explain that to Ward 3.

[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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

I think that the costs of trying to engineer a perfect racial balance are likely greater than the benefits, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, I can’t help you if a handful of anonymous comments on the internet lead you to “distrust the whole community.” And I have not read any commentary that reflects what you are saying which makes me believe that people are primed to make bad-faith accusations of racism. So no, not interested in that.

If you can't see any comments in this thread or elsewhere that would cause Miner parents to distrust Maury parents or question their good faith involvement in this process, then you are blind to your own biases.

Spell it out please. All I saw was some complaining about a verb people don’t like and claims that Maury is “centering” itself (ignoring that the DME is supposed to be the ones informing Miner and apparently Miner only found out because a Maury parent told them!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

I think that the costs of trying to engineer a perfect racial balance are likely greater than the benefits, yes.

No one is looking for perfect racial balance. There are strong arguments for a less completely lopsided division, both racially and (probably more importantly) socioeconomically.

You want your rich, white island. I get it. But you're in a majority black school district with more than 40% at risk students. If you want a rich white island, go to a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

I think that the costs of trying to engineer a perfect racial balance are likely greater than the benefits, yes.

No one is looking for perfect racial balance. There are strong arguments for a less completely lopsided division, both racially and (probably more importantly) socioeconomically.

You want your rich, white island. I get it. But you're in a majority black school district with more than 40% at risk students. If you want a rich white island, go to a private school.

You’re absolutely distorting what I said. My point was that Miner could become more demographically level by attracting IB families. The response was “well that will still not be totally equal.” My answer to that is that the pursuit of totally equal numbers isn’t worthwhile.

But thanks for showing you are on an ideological mission and don’t actually care. I bet you don’t even have kids in Maury or Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But I bet, as a miner family, you’re still gung ho to get all those high SES kids into your school, amirite?

[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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

DP. I love all the Miner families ripping on Maury families for having the gall to actually attend their IB school. That’s literally all they had to do to make it better. Attend and invest. Meanwhile the MAJORITY of those same Miner families won’t even attend Miner themselves!!!

[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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

There hasn't been a lot of engagement with the study findings posted earlier, including the findings that there are school policy/process variables that almost entirely account for differences in outcome between high SES and low SES schools. Now, one study isn't the be all end all obviously, but there's good reason to think that outcome differences aren't really *because* of the SES -- which means combining the schools without doing anything else won't actually help the students who need it most. Plus, that same study found that if you add enough low SES students into a high SES school to make the result more middle SES, the detriment to the high SES kids is greater than the benefit to the low SES kids (who don't benefit very much).

So no, I'm not troubled by the current relative demographics of the schools in themselves. I'm interested in interventions that could really help the Miner students who need it, as well as the Miner community as a whole to increase buy-in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2nd grade!?!?!

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

Hi Anonymous,

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

- Chris

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

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

I don't disagree with you. Again, I haven't landed on an opinion about this proposal. And I think ultimately DCPS is failing many schools here and should have to answer for it. Not sure why you are calling Miner families afraid. Many Miner families have been sounding the alarm for years. We could use some allies. Interested?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ha....dude, unplug for a while. This isn't good for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

There hasn't been a lot of engagement with the study findings posted earlier, including the findings that there are school policy/process variables that almost entirely account for differences in outcome between high SES and low SES schools. Now, one study isn't the be all end all obviously, but there's good reason to think that outcome differences aren't really *because* of the SES -- which means combining the schools without doing anything else won't actually help the students who need it most. Plus, that same study found that if you add enough low SES students into a high SES school to make the result more middle SES, the detriment to the high SES kids is greater than the benefit to the low SES kids (who don't benefit very much).

So no, I'm not troubled by the current relative demographics of the schools in themselves. I'm interested in interventions that could really help the Miner students who need it, as well as the Miner community as a whole to increase buy-in.

You do not care about Miner students.

You care about keeping them out of Maury.

Which, you know what, fine. You are not required to care about the welfare of kids that aren't yours. But please just engage honestly in this conversation. Don't condescend like the educational experience of kids at Miner is something you've ever spent any time thinking about until now. And don't tell Miner families that you know what is and what isn't best for them given that you've spent a tiny fraction of the time they've spent considering these issues and have zero first hand knowledge

Advocate for your own kid, that's fine. We both know you don't give two $hits about mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

So you think it's fine for Maury's zone to continue to have fewer at risk students, or black students, than any nearby school? Including Ludlow Taylor? It's okay to have a little white, wealthy island with their own school in the middle of a much more diverse neighborhood? Just to be clear.

There hasn't been a lot of engagement with the study findings posted earlier, including the findings that there are school policy/process variables that almost entirely account for differences in outcome between high SES and low SES schools. Now, one study isn't the be all end all obviously, but there's good reason to think that outcome differences aren't really *because* of the SES -- which means combining the schools without doing anything else won't actually help the students who need it most. Plus, that same study found that if you add enough low SES students into a high SES school to make the result more middle SES, the detriment to the high SES kids is greater than the benefit to the low SES kids (who don't benefit very much).

So no, I'm not troubled by the current relative demographics of the schools in themselves. I'm interested in interventions that could really help the Miner students who need it, as well as the Miner community as a whole to increase buy-in.

You do not care about Miner students.

You care about keeping them out of Maury.

Which, you know what, fine. You are not required to care about the welfare of kids that aren't yours. But please just engage honestly in this conversation. Don't condescend like the educational experience of kids at Miner is something you've ever spent any time thinking about until now. And don't tell Miner families that you know what is and what isn't best for them given that you've spent a tiny fraction of the time they've spent considering these issues and have zero first hand knowledge

Advocate for your own kid, that's fine. We both know you don't give two $hits about mine.

You just described the DME and this proposal.