Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Someone needs to contact the news-abc on your side! Let’s air these grievances!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

It goes ways. To falsely pretend that this half-baked plan wouldn't make Maury worse is super disingenuous of Miner families, who are obviously pursuing their own narrow self-interest and don't give a damn about current Maury students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

People have given many reasons the cluster model is unwanted from a logistics perspective. That’s probably at least 50% of the problem and has nothing to do with Miner. I don’t think anyone would want to cluster with Brent either although at least Brent is closer to the metro.

I have a kid at EH so in fact I do understand what it’s like to attend a school with a high proportion of at risk kids. It’s fine in some ways but as (almost) everyone acknowledges, the academics are weaker than high SES schools because (appropriately!) the school focuses mainly on remedial and social/emotional. Redoing our budget now to afford math tutoring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

Seriously???? Just stop. We are not at Maury, nor are we in-bounds, but the idea that splitting Maury across two campuses and dumping a huge number of high needs students into it will not make it “worse” is so intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day some of us are trying to engage with human behavior as it actually is and make our predictions data-based and realistic. Are you?

Absolutely and data shows that kids who go to a more diverse school (whether racially, socioeconomically, or academically) can benefit ALL the students.

No it does not. Busing (which is basically what this is) is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure by all sides. In contrast, creating diversity through actual community participation - ie creating schools where IB families chose to go - can result in positive impacts. But at the end of the day there are not enough rich white kids to be the medicine to fix DCPS - and that it what fundamentally makes this a PR exercise and not a legitimate attempt for DCPS to solve its problems.

This is not "basically" busing. If they cluster the schools, no one will be bussed. They will go to their IB, neighborhood school unless they choose to lottery out or go private.

Bussing is when you take kids in one neighborhood and put them on an actual bus to send them to a school in another neighborhood. It has nothing to do with this situation at all.

Combining schools like this to redistribute demographics is just busing on a small scale. Obviously.

Busing as a concept requires that the district physically transport kids to another school. If you can walk to the school in question, it's not busing.

When opponents to the cluster plan say stuff like "this is basically busing" in outrage, it becomes harder to argue that there is not a racial component to their objections. Read a freaking book about desegregation.

I mean, this is a plan intended to move kids around to change the racial demographics of the school. It’s the same thing. There’s absolutely NOTHING racist in questioning whether this helps black kids. What does seem oddly racist is the DME’s belief that a majority black school cannot be a good school, and that the only way for it to be “improved” is to add white kids. PS Maury is desegregated.

Well, that was literally the theory in Brown v. Board—not because a majority black school can’t be great, but because those schools are chronically under-resourced, and whites kids and their parents bring resources (and demands for resources that get responses) with them. So take it up with Thurgood Marshall, I guess. And that’s what is happening at Miner, by the way. There are tons of wonderful, dedicated parents there, but the segregation also means it is a higher proportion of parents who don’t have things like regular work hours or any extra help, or paid leave, so it’s just harder to keep tabs on the school and even do things like volunteer and lobby for changes. It’s not just about the money the PTA can bring, it’s a critical mass of watchful and involved parents who—busy as they may be—have the privilege and flexibility to participate in the school.

Why doesn't DCPS respond to calls for better resources from majority black schools? Why has DME not even bothered to meet with Miner parents? Why are DME and DCPS shifting their responsibilities to make Miner a better resourced school to the parents of another school?

To answer these questions, you should literally go read the briefing and some of the research behind Brown v. Board. This isn’t just about resources in terms of cash on hand that you can just supplement and replace. It’s the millions of little things that come with socioeconomic privilege—which both historically and today is closely linked with race. Wealthier parents have more time to volunteer, to engage with teachers, to come play music for the class, to chaperone a trip to the nutcracker or whatever, to bring in books, to ask the principal questions about school priorities—all of it. And when an overwhelming number of kids are at risk, there’s also less bandwidth for things that make a school fun and joyful. AND yes, seeing your peers succeed at school and being excited about it does matter, and yes, without even doing anything else. That is what the research consistently shows. it makes a different. in fact, integration appears to matter a lot more than other interventions, like more money. for those truly interested, maybe start with this episode of This American Life. it summarizes research and talks through some barriers. let ira walk you through it: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one

By the way, for the Maury parents: consider that combining with poorer kids at Miner could have some really good benefits for the kids that test scores don’t measure. They get a chance to learn that people have different types of families and different barriers. They will know better how to engage with the world and might have insight about how to solve it’s problems, as many of these kids will likely strive to do. They won’t only know how to talk to people in their own social class. It really matters and it’s a great opportunity if you take it.

This is the most idiotic, condescending horseshit. These kids live IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA at a school that is 44% minority and 12% at risk. They are already at a diverse school, in a diverse neighborhood, in a diverse city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not in DC, if I was we'd still be at Miner. How about this...if you have questions about my experience at Miner shoot me an email and I'm happy to engage.

- Chris

That’s real easy to say from your soapbox in Bethesda, Chris. But since you pulled your kids out, I guess we’ll never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not in DC, if I was we'd still be at Miner. How about this...if you have questions about my experience at Miner shoot me an email and I'm happy to engage.

- Chris

That’s real easy to say from your soapbox in Bethesda, Chris. But since you pulled your kids out, I guess we’ll never know.

lol! no way. is he actually in Bethesda?

[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: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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

It goes ways. To falsely pretend that this half-baked plan wouldn't make Maury worse is super disingenuous of Miner families, who are obviously pursuing their own narrow self-interest and don't give a damn about current Maury students.

I think you and I merely have different metrics for what it means for a school to be better or worse. I genuinely do not think that more at risk kids at Maury will make it worse, in fact I think in some ways it would make it better. In fact, reading this thread really hammers this home for me because the degree to which is clear some Maury families genuinely fear poverty indicates that there is a real need in at Maury for greater exposure to people who are different than people who live IB for Maury.

I would be curious to know what percent of the people from Maury weighing in on this matter have every been inside Miner, spent time on its playgrounds interacting with families, attended Miner community events like the Christmas tree sale, or otherwise have first hand experience with Miner, its students, its families, or its staff. Because based on the comments here, I sense you have almost know experience with the school, but most Miner families I know have been to Maury and know more about it, in part out of an interest in learning what we can from a neighboring school with high test scores.

Being told, angrily, by Maury families that if they were combined with my school, they would lottery out immediately (although the threat to "lottery into Brent" is funny -- I guess a lot of Maury families have very limited experience with the lottery!) or sell their homes, before anyone at Miner has even had a CHANCE to weigh in on this proposal, is offensive. If you can's see why, maybe we need to add some social-emotional learning and empathy lessons to the list of educational goals in which Maury may be lacking.

Enjoy your weekend. When I see you at Lincoln Park, try not to run away screaming if you encounter us on the playground. We actually do not bite.

[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: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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

It goes ways. To falsely pretend that this half-baked plan wouldn't make Maury worse is super disingenuous of Miner families, who are obviously pursuing their own narrow self-interest and don't give a damn about current Maury students.

I think you and I merely have different metrics for what it means for a school to be better or worse. I genuinely do not think that more at risk kids at Maury will make it worse, in fact I think in some ways it would make it better. In fact, reading this thread really hammers this home for me because the degree to which is clear some Maury families genuinely fear poverty indicates that there is a real need in at Maury for greater exposure to people who are different than people who live IB for Maury.

I would be curious to know what percent of the people from Maury weighing in on this matter have every been inside Miner, spent time on its playgrounds interacting with families, attended Miner community events like the Christmas tree sale, or otherwise have first hand experience with Miner, its students, its families, or its staff. Because based on the comments here, I sense you have almost know experience with the school, but most Miner families I know have been to Maury and know more about it, in part out of an interest in learning what we can from a neighboring school with high test scores.

Being told, angrily, by Maury families that if they were combined with my school, they would lottery out immediately (although the threat to "lottery into Brent" is funny -- I guess a lot of Maury families have very limited experience with the lottery!) or sell their homes, before anyone at Miner has even had a CHANCE to weigh in on this proposal, is offensive. If you can's see why, maybe we need to add some social-emotional learning and empathy lessons to the list of educational goals in which Maury may be lacking.

Enjoy your weekend. When I see you at Lincoln Park, try not to run away screaming if you encounter us on the playground. We actually do not bite.

How old are your kids? Can you appreciate being forced to combine schools is different from what every other school on the Hill did, which is work to create voluntary IB buy in? Why is Miner exempt from that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At the end of the day some of us are trying to engage with human behavior as it actually is and make our predictions data-based and realistic. Are you?

Absolutely and data shows that kids who go to a more diverse school (whether racially, socioeconomically, or academically) can benefit ALL the students.

No it does not. Busing (which is basically what this is) is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure by all sides. In contrast, creating diversity through actual community participation - ie creating schools where IB families chose to go - can result in positive impacts. But at the end of the day there are not enough rich white kids to be the medicine to fix DCPS - and that it what fundamentally makes this a PR exercise and not a legitimate attempt for DCPS to solve its problems.

This is not "basically" busing. If they cluster the schools, no one will be bussed. They will go to their IB, neighborhood school unless they choose to lottery out or go private.

Bussing is when you take kids in one neighborhood and put them on an actual bus to send them to a school in another neighborhood. It has nothing to do with this situation at all.

Combining schools like this to redistribute demographics is just busing on a small scale. Obviously.

Busing as a concept requires that the district physically transport kids to another school. If you can walk to the school in question, it's not busing.

When opponents to the cluster plan say stuff like "this is basically busing" in outrage, it becomes harder to argue that there is not a racial component to their objections. Read a freaking book about desegregation.

I mean, this is a plan intended to move kids around to change the racial demographics of the school. It’s the same thing. There’s absolutely NOTHING racist in questioning whether this helps black kids. What does seem oddly racist is the DME’s belief that a majority black school cannot be a good school, and that the only way for it to be “improved” is to add white kids. PS Maury is desegregated.

Well, that was literally the theory in Brown v. Board—not because a majority black school can’t be great, but because those schools are chronically under-resourced, and whites kids and their parents bring resources (and demands for resources that get responses) with them. So take it up with Thurgood Marshall, I guess. And that’s what is happening at Miner, by the way. There are tons of wonderful, dedicated parents there, but the segregation also means it is a higher proportion of parents who don’t have things like regular work hours or any extra help, or paid leave, so it’s just harder to keep tabs on the school and even do things like volunteer and lobby for changes. It’s not just about the money the PTA can bring, it’s a critical mass of watchful and involved parents who—busy as they may be—have the privilege and flexibility to participate in the school.

Why doesn't DCPS respond to calls for better resources from majority black schools? Why has DME not even bothered to meet with Miner parents? Why are DME and DCPS shifting their responsibilities to make Miner a better resourced school to the parents of another school?

To answer these questions, you should literally go read the briefing and some of the research behind Brown v. Board. This isn’t just about resources in terms of cash on hand that you can just supplement and replace. It’s the millions of little things that come with socioeconomic privilege—which both historically and today is closely linked with race. Wealthier parents have more time to volunteer, to engage with teachers, to come play music for the class, to chaperone a trip to the nutcracker or whatever, to bring in books, to ask the principal questions about school priorities—all of it. And when an overwhelming number of kids are at risk, there’s also less bandwidth for things that make a school fun and joyful. AND yes, seeing your peers succeed at school and being excited about it does matter, and yes, without even doing anything else. That is what the research consistently shows. it makes a different. in fact, integration appears to matter a lot more than other interventions, like more money. for those truly interested, maybe start with this episode of This American Life. it summarizes research and talks through some barriers. let ira walk you through it: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one

By the way, for the Maury parents: consider that combining with poorer kids at Miner could have some really good benefits for the kids that test scores don’t measure. They get a chance to learn that people have different types of families and different barriers. They will know better how to engage with the world and might have insight about how to solve it’s problems, as many of these kids will likely strive to do. They won’t only know how to talk to people in their own social class. It really matters and it’s a great opportunity if you take it.

This is the most idiotic, condescending horseshit. These kids live IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA at a school that is 44% minority and 12% at risk. They are already at a diverse school, in a diverse neighborhood, in a diverse city.

Please don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for sending your kids to a school with a handful of poor kids. Especially since as we've been told several times on this thread, those 12% at risk kids at Maury are "concentrated in the upper grades!" and "causing serious issues that must be addressed!"

Yes, a picture of diversity and inclusion, that's Maury!

[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: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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

It goes ways. To falsely pretend that this half-baked plan wouldn't make Maury worse is super disingenuous of Miner families, who are obviously pursuing their own narrow self-interest and don't give a damn about current Maury students.

I think you and I merely have different metrics for what it means for a school to be better or worse. I genuinely do not think that more at risk kids at Maury will make it worse, in fact I think in some ways it would make it better. In fact, reading this thread really hammers this home for me because the degree to which is clear some Maury families genuinely fear poverty indicates that there is a real need in at Maury for greater exposure to people who are different than people who live IB for Maury.

I would be curious to know what percent of the people from Maury weighing in on this matter have every been inside Miner, spent time on its playgrounds interacting with families, attended Miner community events like the Christmas tree sale, or otherwise have first hand experience with Miner, its students, its families, or its staff. Because based on the comments here, I sense you have almost know experience with the school, but most Miner families I know have been to Maury and know more about it, in part out of an interest in learning what we can from a neighboring school with high test scores.

Being told, angrily, by Maury families that if they were combined with my school, they would lottery out immediately (although the threat to "lottery into Brent" is funny -- I guess a lot of Maury families have very limited experience with the lottery!) or sell their homes, before anyone at Miner has even had a CHANCE to weigh in on this proposal, is offensive. If you can's see why, maybe we need to add some social-emotional learning and empathy lessons to the list of educational goals in which Maury may be lacking.

Enjoy your weekend. When I see you at Lincoln Park, try not to run away screaming if you encounter us on the playground. We actually do not bite.

The whole premise of this proposal is that the concentration of at-risk kids at Miner is a problem. That's what this is based on.

[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:

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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

It goes ways. To falsely pretend that this half-baked plan wouldn't make Maury worse is super disingenuous of Miner families, who are obviously pursuing their own narrow self-interest and don't give a damn about current Maury students.

I think you and I merely have different metrics for what it means for a school to be better or worse. I genuinely do not think that more at risk kids at Maury will make it worse, in fact I think in some ways it would make it better. In fact, reading this thread really hammers this home for me because the degree to which is clear some Maury families genuinely fear poverty indicates that there is a real need in at Maury for greater exposure to people who are different than people who live IB for Maury.

I would be curious to know what percent of the people from Maury weighing in on this matter have every been inside Miner, spent time on its playgrounds interacting with families, attended Miner community events like the Christmas tree sale, or otherwise have first hand experience with Miner, its students, its families, or its staff. Because based on the comments here, I sense you have almost know experience with the school, but most Miner families I know have been to Maury and know more about it, in part out of an interest in learning what we can from a neighboring school with high test scores.

Being told, angrily, by Maury families that if they were combined with my school, they would lottery out immediately (although the threat to "lottery into Brent" is funny -- I guess a lot of Maury families have very limited experience with the lottery!) or sell their homes, before anyone at Miner has even had a CHANCE to weigh in on this proposal, is offensive. If you can's see why, maybe we need to add some social-emotional learning and empathy lessons to the list of educational goals in which Maury may be lacking.

Enjoy your weekend. When I see you at Lincoln Park, try not to run away screaming if you encounter us on the playground. We actually do not bite.

How old are your kids? Can you appreciate being forced to combine schools is different from what every other school on the Hill did, which is work to create voluntary IB buy in? Why is Miner exempt from that?

Good god, this again. I have a 2nd grader and a PK student. There, did I pass your litmus test? How old are your kids? Did they do PK at Maury and if not, where? What is your direct experience with any school other than Maury?

Do you not understand that the obstacles to IB buy-in at Miner are steeper than they were at Maury for a variety of reasons? Do you actually think Maury would be in the position it is now if it was located closer to Benning, had several large low-income housing projects and lots of Section 8 units, and fewer single family homes, and lacked the proximity to Lincoln Park and Eastern Market where housing is even pricier? Because I do not.

Why is Maury exempt from serving any of the low income families in Ward 6? Why do Miner, Payne, Tyler, and JO Wilson have to serve much larger populations of these kids while Maury has a minuscule percentage and STILL complains that the at risk kids in their upper grades are a "problem" they need help with?

[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:

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.

So if you basically already hate the Maury community, why do you even still want to join them? Or is this just about taking them down a peck by ruining one of the few performing schools?

For the record a lot of people thought the Maury community was great until this thread and the comments from the meetings.
Also, it was never about ruining the high performing schools, but rather making neighborhood schools more equitable for all.

Why would you form any impression about “the Maury community” at all when you don’t have a kid there? It made no sense to have a favorable impression before and even less sense to now have a negative impression based on what a few anonymous posters wrote who may not even have kids at the school!

To the extent you think the “Maury community” should just silently roll over, that was obviously never going to happen.

Not at all what I was thinking, just expected people to be nice or at least civil.
Regarding my impression on Maury community:
I have an impression of the Maury community because i have been in this neighborhood since 2009 and it is the school where many of my neighbors kids attend. Maury is not an island-its a school that is part of the community.
My negative impression comes from comments like yours: comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster.

Speaking of comments that fail to address the problem but rather attack the poster:

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.

No effort to engage on the substance. Just attacks and dismissiveness.

The post you are criticizing was responding directly to the fact that Maury families have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the well being of Miner students, whether IB or OOB, but are now lecturing Miner families on the benefits or lack thereof of reducing the overall percent of at risk students in a school. That would be a more convincing argument if:

(1) You were not making it for the very first time just now, after it was proposed that the percent of at risk kids at Miner be reduced through a merger with Maury, and

(2) If the renaissance of Maury Elementary School had not been premised in large part on the reduction of at risk students through IB buy-in (with the advantage of being located in a part of the neighborhood that is primarily single family homes with no low income housing projects or commercial corridors with much multi-family housing, as Miner has).

Maury parents on this thread have stated that one of the reasons they oppose the cluster is that they are already struggling with a [slightly!] higher percent of at risk students in 5th grade, after many Maury students leave the school (and it's feeder) for charters.

So Maury families are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, their 12% at risk population (one of the lowest on the Hill) poses an incredibly challenge that they should be left alone to deal with. But on the other hand, all it would take for Miner families to improve the school is some additional funding and investment from DCPS and more effort, despite a 65% at risk population. Which argument is used depends on who you are talking to and what you are trying to refute.

Further, Maury parents on the thread have argue that instead of a cluster, Maury should simply get an at risk set aside for OOB families, and a reduction in the boundary to make space for these students. When people have repeatedly explained that at risk set asides in DC have shown to be ineffective -- they do not substantively change the percent of at risk students at schools because for some reason, they are undersubscribed, the Maury parents shrug and say "oh well that would have to be figured out." So have proof of concept is VERY important for a cluster program, but not important at all for the at risk set asides. I wonder if the reason for this is that creating an at risk set aside that gets undersubscribed, while shrinking Maury's already surprisingly homogenous zone further, is a feature, not a bug. Maury addresses overcrowding concerns (smaller zone) while appearing to be making an effort to diversify (at risk set aside) but can shrug and say "gosh I don't know what the problem is" when the set aside does not actually result in more at risk students at Maury.

Throughout this thread, some of us have pointed out these inconsistencies or challenged some of these both-side arguments. Those posts are ignored and deflected. No matter what argument is made or what flaws in reasoning are pointed out, the goal post are shifted and blame deflected. Consistently the response is "well what about Ludlow and JO? what about SWS? what about Brent?" No one denies there may be issues with these other schools, but it's not in question in this thread or this proposal. But this gets deflected further with the accusation that Maury is being unfairly targeted by the DME (for vague reasons that have to do with someone who 8 years ago floated a cluster idea, is not the DME, and is not on the Advisory Council, but did actually send all his kids through Maury so I truly do not understand this argument at all) and that this is being done with the express purpose not to help Miner but to "ruin" Maury.

And guess what, in my eyes, it's already ruined Maury. Because here's what I've learned. If the cluster idea proceeds, Maury families will not try to make it work to the benefit of both schools. They will abandon their neighborhood schools for charters, privates, or sell and leave the area altogether, rather than try to make the idea work. If, on the other hand, the cluster idea is defeated, it will not have happened because Miner and Maury families came together and found a better option or united against having this idea foisted on them by the DME. It will be because Maury families so freaked out about the idea of having to diversify their school that they melted down and refused to cooperate, making any chance of a successful cluster an impossibility.

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

How could you possibly expect a parent to watch their school deliberately made worse and stay if they have any other option?

I don't believe a cluster will automatically make Maury worse. I think there is potential for it to be good with community but in, but it's clear that's unlikely.

I don't expect anything if Maury parents and everyone is free to make their own decisions about their kids' education. But you can't tell me, a Miner parent, that on the one hand if you are forced to merge with Miner you will leave altogether, but in the other hand insist you know better than me or any person there Miner parent what Miner needs. How can you know what we need when you are apparently afraid to set foot on campus?

It goes ways. To falsely pretend that this half-baked plan wouldn't make Maury worse is super disingenuous of Miner families, who are obviously pursuing their own narrow self-interest and don't give a damn about current Maury students.

I think you and I merely have different metrics for what it means for a school to be better or worse. I genuinely do not think that more at risk kids at Maury will make it worse, in fact I think in some ways it would make it better. In fact, reading this thread really hammers this home for me because the degree to which is clear some Maury families genuinely fear poverty indicates that there is a real need in at Maury for greater exposure to people who are different than people who live IB for Maury.

I would be curious to know what percent of the people from Maury weighing in on this matter have every been inside Miner, spent time on its playgrounds interacting with families, attended Miner community events like the Christmas tree sale, or otherwise have first hand experience with Miner, its students, its families, or its staff. Because based on the comments here, I sense you have almost know experience with the school, but most Miner families I know have been to Maury and know more about it, in part out of an interest in learning what we can from a neighboring school with high test scores.

Being told, angrily, by Maury families that if they were combined with my school, they would lottery out immediately (although the threat to "lottery into Brent" is funny -- I guess a lot of Maury families have very limited experience with the lottery!) or sell their homes, before anyone at Miner has even had a CHANCE to weigh in on this proposal, is offensive. If you can's see why, maybe we need to add some social-emotional learning and empathy lessons to the list of educational goals in which Maury may be lacking.

Enjoy your weekend. When I see you at Lincoln Park, try not to run away screaming if you encounter us on the playground. We actually do not bite.

The whole premise of this proposal is that the concentration of at-risk kids at Miner is a problem. That's what this is based on.

Do you not understand that there are degrees of concentration? What is an acceptable amount of at risk kids? Is it possible that number is higher than 12% but lower than 65%? If so, what would be a good way to bring both Maury and Miner closer to that threshold?

[Anonymous]

My kids are at Maury...but I don't pay much attention to Miner, Brent, LT, or any other school.

I don't think less of anyone.

It's just the hamster wheel of parenting, working, health, etc.

Yes, I have picked up a Christmas tree at Miner. Yes, I have been inside the building. No, we don't go to that playground because it's a longer walk. But none of these would make me an expert or familiar with the Miner community -- there just isn't enough time or bandwidth.

We are all in the same community somewhat, but the city is huge and the "Hill" encompasses a huge area with like 8-10 elementary schools, depending on how you count them.

And for the record, I think the Cluster has failed at Watkins and I think it'll fail at Maury if implemented.