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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
Brent made 38 offers for K this past year? It made 58 offers for K the year before?? What are you talking about?
So much baiting and thinly veiled jealousy of Maury on this thread. Say what you want, but all this excessive envy and wanting to take others down a peg is just not a good look.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
Brent made 38 offers for K this past year? It made 58 offers for K the year before?? What are you talking about?
Yes but that's out of 103 people waitlisted. You get that the lottery is random, right? You've got one year to get a high lottery rank, and after that Brent is making only a handful of offers per grade and not coming close clearing lists. That's not "very easy." Also I can't be bothered to look up how many of those offers for K went to people with sibling preference, but it's probably not zero.
But I get that if you've only ever been IB for Maury and your only experience with the lottery is PK, you might not understand these dynamics. It's understandable. Anyway, good luck! The lottery is a PITA.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
Brent made 38 offers for K this past year? It made 58 offers for K the year before?? What are you talking about?
Yes but that's out of 103 people waitlisted. You get that the lottery is random, right? You've got one year to get a high lottery rank, and after that Brent is making only a handful of offers per grade and not coming close clearing lists. That's not "very easy." Also I can't be bothered to look up how many of those offers for K went to people with sibling preference, but it's probably not zero.
But I get that if you've only ever been IB for Maury and your only experience with the lottery is PK, you might not understand these dynamics. It's understandable. Anyway, good luck! The lottery is a PITA.
I'm not a Maury family and I play the lottery every year, just because I enjoy it. That's how I know that when you have a school making that many offers for a grade, you actually have a great shot at getting in.
Anonymous wrote:So much baiting and thinly veiled jealousy of Maury on this thread. Say what you want, but all this excessive envy and wanting to take others down a peg is just not a good look.
The main things people from Miner want from this conversation are (1) to actually be consulted on this proposal that concerns the future of the school, and (2) to not be talked about by Maury parents and others as though we, or our kids, were an infection that might "destroy" Maury.
But since you brought it up, I do envy Maury, and I think many parents at Miner do. This should come as a shock to exactly no one. But I'm not the one proposing the cluster. I just don't want to be treated poorly as we COLLECTIVELY evaluate it and respond to the DME. I am asking for a modicum of respect from my Maury neighbors. Pretend for a moment that you actually care whether your neighbors like you. Because right now, I really don't.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
Brent made 38 offers for K this past year? It made 58 offers for K the year before?? What are you talking about?
Yes but that's out of 103 people waitlisted. You get that the lottery is random, right? You've got one year to get a high lottery rank, and after that Brent is making only a handful of offers per grade and not coming close clearing lists. That's not "very easy." Also I can't be bothered to look up how many of those offers for K went to people with sibling preference, but it's probably not zero.
But I get that if you've only ever been IB for Maury and your only experience with the lottery is PK, you might not understand these dynamics. It's understandable. Anyway, good luck! The lottery is a PITA.
I'm not a Maury family and I play the lottery every year, just because I enjoy it. That's how I know that when you have a school making that many offers for a grade, you actually have a great shot at getting in.
I mean, congrats I guess, but the entire Maury incoming Kindergarten class is not moving to Brent. I too play the lottery every year and in any given year, including K, you are as likely to get a terrible number as a great one, as likely to have a good shot at 6 decent schools as zero.
Anonymous wrote:So much baiting and thinly veiled jealousy of Maury on this thread. Say what you want, but all this excessive envy and wanting to take others down a peg is just not a good look.
The main things people from Miner want from this conversation are (1) to actually be consulted on this proposal that concerns the future of the school, and (2) to not be talked about by Maury parents and others as though we, or our kids, were an infection that might "destroy" Maury.
But since you brought it up, I do envy Maury, and I think many parents at Miner do. This should come as a shock to exactly no one. But I'm not the one proposing the cluster. I just don't want to be treated poorly as we COLLECTIVELY evaluate it and respond to the DME. I am asking for a modicum of respect from my Maury neighbors. Pretend for a moment that you actually care whether your neighbors like you. Because right now, I really don't.
Anonymous wrote:So much baiting and thinly veiled jealousy of Maury on this thread. Say what you want, but all this excessive envy and wanting to take others down a peg is just not a good look.
The main things people from Miner want from this conversation are (1) to actually be consulted on this proposal that concerns the future of the school, and (2) to not be talked about by Maury parents and others as though we, or our kids, were an infection that might "destroy" Maury.
But since you brought it up, I do envy Maury, and I think many parents at Miner do. This should come as a shock to exactly no one. But I'm not the one proposing the cluster. I just don't want to be treated poorly as we COLLECTIVELY evaluate it and respond to the DME. I am asking for a modicum of respect from my Maury neighbors. Pretend for a moment that you actually care whether your neighbors like you. Because right now, I really don't.
Blame the DME for creating conflict.
Are you mad the DME created conflict, or are you mad at the DME for threatening to "dilute" the Maury population?
Anonymous wrote:So much baiting and thinly veiled jealousy of Maury on this thread. Say what you want, but all this excessive envy and wanting to take others down a peg is just not a good look.
The main things people from Miner want from this conversation are (1) to actually be consulted on this proposal that concerns the future of the school, and (2) to not be talked about by Maury parents and others as though we, or our kids, were an infection that might "destroy" Maury.
But since you brought it up, I do envy Maury, and I think many parents at Miner do. This should come as a shock to exactly no one. But I'm not the one proposing the cluster. I just don't want to be treated poorly as we COLLECTIVELY evaluate it and respond to the DME. I am asking for a modicum of respect from my Maury neighbors. Pretend for a moment that you actually care whether your neighbors like you. Because right now, I really don't.
Blame the DME for creating conflict.
Are you mad the DME created conflict, or are you mad at the DME for threatening to "dilute" the Maury population?
The DME’s plan is literally to reduce the concentration of lower and higher SES students. If you’re so offended by that notion let the DME know.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
Brent made 38 offers for K this past year? It made 58 offers for K the year before?? What are you talking about?
Yes but that's out of 103 people waitlisted. You get that the lottery is random, right? You've got one year to get a high lottery rank, and after that Brent is making only a handful of offers per grade and not coming close clearing lists. That's not "very easy." Also I can't be bothered to look up how many of those offers for K went to people with sibling preference, but it's probably not zero.
But I get that if you've only ever been IB for Maury and your only experience with the lottery is PK, you might not understand these dynamics. It's understandable. Anyway, good luck! The lottery is a PITA.
I'm not a Maury family and I play the lottery every year, just because I enjoy it. That's how I know that when you have a school making that many offers for a grade, you actually have a great shot at getting in.
I mean, congrats I guess, but the entire Maury incoming Kindergarten class is not moving to Brent. I too play the lottery every year and in any given year, including K, you are as likely to get a terrible number as a great one, as likely to have a good shot at 6 decent schools as zero.
The far Western part of the Maury boundary will have proximity preference to Ludlow through 1st at least, so can get in there for sure by K. In the last month, I’ve suddenly taken an interest in the school and, while I know social media can be deceiving, the school seems to have a similar active community feel to Maury. Their event today looked amazing. I’m a clueless Pk parent according to many on this thread, but I’d definitely rather head there than be a guinea pig for a half baked cluster.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
Brent made 38 offers for K this past year? It made 58 offers for K the year before?? What are you talking about?
Yes but that's out of 103 people waitlisted. You get that the lottery is random, right? You've got one year to get a high lottery rank, and after that Brent is making only a handful of offers per grade and not coming close clearing lists. That's not "very easy." Also I can't be bothered to look up how many of those offers for K went to people with sibling preference, but it's probably not zero.
But I get that if you've only ever been IB for Maury and your only experience with the lottery is PK, you might not understand these dynamics. It's understandable. Anyway, good luck! The lottery is a PITA.
I'm not a Maury family and I play the lottery every year, just because I enjoy it. That's how I know that when you have a school making that many offers for a grade, you actually have a great shot at getting in.
I mean, congrats I guess, but the entire Maury incoming Kindergarten class is not moving to Brent. I too play the lottery every year and in any given year, including K, you are as likely to get a terrible number as a great one, as likely to have a good shot at 6 decent schools as zero.
The far Western part of the Maury boundary will have proximity preference to Ludlow through 1st at least, so can get in there for sure by K. In the last month, I’ve suddenly taken an interest in the school and, while I know social media can be deceiving, the school seems to have a similar active community feel to Maury. Their event today looked amazing. I’m a clueless Pk parent according to many on this thread, but I’d definitely rather head there than be a guinea pig for a half baked cluster.
LT is definitely easier to lottery into than Brent, especially if you have any kind of preference.
Though I do question how this would all work, if the cluster goes through and Maury families flee. There are more than 500 kids at Maury, mostly upper income. And families have bought heavily into the Maury zone in the last 10 years because of the school, with many people who have large mortgages locked in at low rates, but not a ton of equity yet.
Yes assume some people get into LT or Brent, some of the upcoming families will get into SWS and CHMS, as always. Maybe families focused on Spanish immersion will look at Tyler.
But then what? Does this help boost a flagging Two Rivers? Especially the Young campus, which is the one really struggling? Does JOW get renewed interest once their new building opens in a couple years? Or does Payne benefit? Hard to see the point of anyone from Maury going to Peabody/Watkins to flee the new cluster, so this probably has no impact on them.
Also curious if an exodus from Maury IB families could also result in a bunch of people from some of these other schools (Payne, JOW, and Wheatley up in Trinidad) figuring the "half-baked" cluster is still a step up from what they are offered IB, and giving it a shot. There are quite a few people on the Hill who strike out with the lottery and wind up looking for alternatives by 1st or 2nd. What might seem unacceptable to Maury's current families could look pretty good to someone at one of these schools.
Just a lot of different moving pieces here. If the cluster happens, it has the potential to shake things up quite a bit.
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.
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.
It's really easy to lottery into Brent these days. Seems like you are out of touch on a lot of issues.
Anyone can look at the lottery data. It's "easy" to lottery into Brent if you are okay lotterying at 3rd or 4th and are willing to play for a couple years until you get a good number.
If it were actually easy to lottery into good schools on the Hill or elsewhere, people wouldn't get so worked up about issues like this. But it's actually hard to access good schools if you are not IB for them.
Brent made 38 offers for K this past year? It made 58 offers for K the year before?? What are you talking about?
Yes but that's out of 103 people waitlisted. You get that the lottery is random, right? You've got one year to get a high lottery rank, and after that Brent is making only a handful of offers per grade and not coming close clearing lists. That's not "very easy." Also I can't be bothered to look up how many of those offers for K went to people with sibling preference, but it's probably not zero.
But I get that if you've only ever been IB for Maury and your only experience with the lottery is PK, you might not understand these dynamics. It's understandable. Anyway, good luck! The lottery is a PITA.
I'm not a Maury family and I play the lottery every year, just because I enjoy it. That's how I know that when you have a school making that many offers for a grade, you actually have a great shot at getting in.
I mean, congrats I guess, but the entire Maury incoming Kindergarten class is not moving to Brent. I too play the lottery every year and in any given year, including K, you are as likely to get a terrible number as a great one, as likely to have a good shot at 6 decent schools as zero.
The far Western part of the Maury boundary will have proximity preference to Ludlow through 1st at least, so can get in there for sure by K. In the last month, I’ve suddenly taken an interest in the school and, while I know social media can be deceiving, the school seems to have a similar active community feel to Maury. Their event today looked amazing. I’m a clueless Pk parent according to many on this thread, but I’d definitely rather head there than be a guinea pig for a half baked cluster.
I bet DME hasn’t thought the proximity preference through even this is exactly the thing that cause the Peabody/Watkins’ downturn to accelerate. The wealthiest part of the Peabody boundary has proximity preference, variously, to Brent, LT & Maury. Once those schools became more desirable than Watkins, jumping ship for 1st (or earlier for younger sibs) became the norm. The blocks right near the NE library are now nearly 100% LT families despite being zoned for Peabody/Watkins. It’s not surprising they opt for 4-6 block away LT rather than 1 mile away Watkins. I think if DCPS wants clusters to succeed, they have to measure from the closer of a cluster’s buildings, not the particular building the kid attends going forward.
Forum Index
»
DC Public and Public Charter Schools
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}