Maury Capitol Hill

[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:

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?

DP. No, you did not.

[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:

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?

DP. No, you did not.

Why not?

[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:

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?

DP. No, you did not.

Why not?

Because parents of 8 year olds have no idea what it’s like to be in a high needs 5th grade classroom so it’s real easy to be Pollyanna about this ill conceived plan.

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, that you just don’t understand why Maury would inevitably be “worse” if this plan happens and you’re not just blowing smoke.

-Same DP and not a Maury parent

[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:

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?

I have a kid at EH so spare me your superiority complex … I don’t think anyone objects to changing Maury boundaries - it’s the radical change with no basis to believe in a benefit. As you know the Miner IB participation is very low - so look to the school admins to figure out why they cannot attract more IB families. Meanwhile I bet you $1 mil you will be lotterying for Latin in 2 years.

[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:

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?

DP. No, you did not.

Why not?

Because parents of 8 year olds have no idea what it’s like to be in a high needs 5th grade classroom so it’s real easy to be Pollyanna about this ill conceived plan.

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, that you just don’t understand why Maury would inevitably be “worse” if this plan happens and you’re not just blowing smoke.

-Same DP and not a Maury parent

If only people who have kids in 5th grade with high needs kids are allowed to participate, than I guess all the Maury families who left for BASIS and Latin need to sit down and be quiet then.

[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:

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?

Maury’s “low income” percentage is low because people in the neighborhood actually attend. Go talk to your wealthy Hill East neighbors and tell them to actually enroll in Miner *their IB school* instead of lotterying elsewhere.

[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:

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?

I have a kid at EH so spare me your superiority complex … I don’t think anyone objects to changing Maury boundaries - it’s the radical change with no basis to believe in a benefit. As you know the Miner IB participation is very low - so look to the school admins to figure out why they cannot attract more IB families. Meanwhile I bet you $1 mil you will be lotterying for Latin in 2 years.

(1) "I don’t think anyone objects to changing Maury boundaries." -- that's because it's not on the table at the moment. I guarantee you that if they proposed a boundary change that would more equally distribute low-income families between the two schools, we will hear plenty of complaints about that. The one boundary change people have proposed on this thread is actually to shrink the Maury boundary.

(2) "it’s the radical change with no basis to believe in a benefit" -- why do you, personally, need a benefit? So you won't support any plan unless it benefits you personally? If all Maury families take this position, then I guarantee you that the DME is going to shove a plan you don't want down your throat because there's virtually no way to address some of these inequities without at least a little give from Maury.

(3) Why do you care where my kid attends MS? Are you worry that Latin will get diluted too?

[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.

This all goes to show that Miner would not actually benefit from a cluster with Maury. So why is DME pushing this again? Oh right. Because DME never met with Miner parents and actually asked them what they wanted.

[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:

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?

I have a kid at EH so spare me your superiority complex … I don’t think anyone objects to changing Maury boundaries - it’s the radical change with no basis to believe in a benefit. As you know the Miner IB participation is very low - so look to the school admins to figure out why they cannot attract more IB families. Meanwhile I bet you $1 mil you will be lotterying for Latin in 2 years.

(1) "I don’t think anyone objects to changing Maury boundaries." -- that's because it's not on the table at the moment. I guarantee you that if they proposed a boundary change that would more equally distribute low-income families between the two schools, we will hear plenty of complaints about that. The one boundary change people have proposed on this thread is actually to shrink the Maury boundary.

(2) "it’s the radical change with no basis to believe in a benefit" -- why do you, personally, need a benefit? So you won't support any plan unless it benefits you personally? If all Maury families take this position, then I guarantee you that the DME is going to shove a plan you don't want down your throat because there's virtually no way to address some of these inequities without at least a little give from Maury.

(3) Why do you care where my kid attends MS? Are you worry that Latin will get diluted too?

There’s zero offered here to actually help Miner at-risk kids. This entire plan is based on a slight-of-hand: look, the percentage of at-risk kids has magically decreased! DME cares about numbers only, not actually giving kids what they need.

Looking forward to you crying here in 2 yrs about your bad Latin number or smugly saying “oh, we loved Eliot, Latin is just a better fit for our family’l. Your high dudgeon about the unfairness of Maury will only take you so far.

[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.

Right. And what DME has never explained is why this is a problem! According to so many Miner families in this very thread, it isn't a problem.

[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:

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?

Why does Miner even need IB buy-in? It's an excellent school, based on all the OOB buy-in. Is this even what DME is focused on? I'm so confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2nd grade!?!?!

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

Hi Anonymous,

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

- Chris

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

Guys what the heck with these comments?! This is a nice parent not even taking a side on the issuing offering to help, and your response is to insult his parenting and his kid?! Touch grass or something. This is not how you want to spend your limited time on the pale blue dot. Chris, thanks for your generosity, and sorry for how it’s being repaid.

[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.

This all goes to show that Miner would not actually benefit from a cluster with Maury. So why is DME pushing this again? Oh right. Because DME never met with Miner parents and actually asked them what they wanted.

Reading this thread, it does sound like neither Miner parents nor Maury parents want a cluster, so maybe it's a matter of making this known at the town halls. And maybe next time, DME will do a better job of consulting with families, because whatever they were doing earlier in the year to collect feedback obviously didn't work.

[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.

Aw man...my soapbox. That's a good one. Happy to share my experience with Miner if you'd like to hear that perspective, anonymous. Can't share much on Bethesda I'm afraid, though I do recommend Louisiana Express for shrimp po boys.

- Chris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2nd grade!?!?!

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

Hi Anonymous,

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

- Chris

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

Guys what the heck with these comments?! This is a nice parent not even taking a side on the issuing offering to help, and your response is to insult his parenting and his kid?! Touch grass or something. This is not how you want to spend your limited time on the pale blue dot. Chris, thanks for your generosity, and sorry for how it’s being repaid.

Thank you and agreed, thank you, Chris!