Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

I've seen the stat that about half of the kids in DCPS are at-risk. Does anyone know what the percentage of at-risk kids is in DCPS + charters? And does anyone know the percentage if you're using all the kids in DC (including in privates)? I did some cursory googling but couldn't find. Maybe it's all pretty close to half, but it would be interesting to know. I'm wondering what DC schools look like in an "ideal" world where the SES is spread around equally. If it's around half of the kids in every school being at-risk, then that's probably not good for the system without other changes, right? Because not a lot of high-resource families are going to sign up for that situation if their kids are on or above grade level (I don't think any of the kids get the attention they need in such a situation, and high-resource families, like it or not, are in a position to do something about it).

So what changes could DCPS make in that situation to provide all of the students it is supposed to serve with the academics they need? Meaningful differentiation? Availability of truly advanced programming? I think offering things like this could improve IB buy-in at a lot of schools, which would shift some things around, and after that is available is when it would make sense to look at the relative populations and see if there is a reason to make any changes.

Fundamentally, very high SES schools come with some advantages even for their lowest SES students. But middle SES schools don't -- the low SES students tend to do about as well as they do in low SES schools (obviously there are outliers, but these things are as a general matter highly correlated). The presence of high SES kids isn't some magic pill (unless, again, the school is overwhelmingly high SES, which this proposed cluster wouldn't be). The point is there is no reason to assume that even if SES is equally distributed throughout DCPS that that would *actually help* low or middle SES kids in any way. We need to figure out what actually works at high-performing high-poverty schools and implement those strategies. The research is out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But wanting to attract an IB population is no longer a dcps priority and even principals who support this need to be quiet about it or they will be accused of not wanting “equity”. It is no longer 2005.

I think it's possible, just not at Miner right now. Garrison has a principle like this who has attracted more IB buy in without alienating longtime OOB or low income families.

I think the disparities at Miner are presently too great to do this. Reworking the boundary, exploring a cluster, these should all be on the table if you care about improving Miner.

Could you please explain more what you mean about the disparities at Miner being too great to do this? Is it that it will just be too hard/impossible for a principal to attract more IB families with the scores at Miner being so low? (I.e., that the situation has gotten too bad?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Where are the false accusations of racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not care about Miner students.

You care about keeping them out of Maury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Is the preference because of distance true? I thought you would still have to do the lottery and hope for the best

It is true. If you are more than .5 a mile from your zoned school (calculated as the building you will attend in, currently) and closer to another school, you get proximity preference to the latter. It's why the houses all around the NE library get proximity preference for LT starting in 1st; Peabody is right there, but Watkins is WAY more than .5 of a mile a way and houses there are WAY closer to LT (literally down the street 4ish blocks rather than across the Hill).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should not feel like they are dependent on lottery luck to get their child a proper education!! Per https://dme.dc.gov/page/about-dme

The DME is responsible for developing and implementing the Mayor's vision for academic excellence and creating a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce).

Is DME fulfilling this job?!?! If you don’t feel like they are, it’s your job to let them know. The best thing is the entire Hill can come out and demand answers all at once. Don’t let them split you into tiny school boundary areas where you are breaking each other down. That’s how colonialists would divide and conquer. Unite and remember who has the power here.

They keep claiming that everything is in the idea stage. So demand new ideas that actually create “a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce)”!!! Don’t let them get away with saying “this worked in a completely different state that is barely similar to ours so I’m guessing it will work here too, so let’s put your kids through this next experiment!”

The problem with trying to unite the Hill around this issue is that presently there is great variability in school quality on the Hill. My kids are not at Maury or Miner, and I am sympathetic to the fact that this process has really sucked and understand why Maury and Miner parents are upset.

But truthfully, my kids go to a school with a lot more issues than Maury (thankfully fewer than Miner but their problems are like ours but more severe, so I commiserate). I have little interest in the status quo and retaining Maury's current status doesn't benefit my family in any way. I can even see the appeal in making Maury a little worse in order to make Miner a lot better-- from a utilitarian perspective, there's something to that, even if of course if I were a Maury parent, that idea would make me mad.

But I'm not a Maury parent and I am not fortunate enough to send my kids to Brent or LT, so I have little to lose in this scenario. I might even gain, depending on how it all shakes out. It's not really in my self-interest to oppose the cluster.

It is absolutely in your self-interest to oppose the cluster. Because whatever struggles your school is having, DME is saying “hey, all those kids need is some more white kids around!” DME has no plans to support your school. DME is wasting time, money and social capital on a window-dressing plan to make itself look good.

I have no love for the DME but I don't think that's what he's saying. Also, and I know people don't like to admit this, but sometimes the main thing a school needs really is more higher income families. More high income families means more resources and it usually means you get a critical mass of kids on or above grade level. This is honestly the main thing our school needs.

But if parents put a lot of work in to build an appealing school, and you get more buy-in from those families, then DME will come after you, too. There will never be enough of these kids to go around. There will always be an equity issue.

I don’t understand how Maury parents say they put in the work? Were they active in the school community before their children started? Have most of tbe families had kids at the school for 10 years? What’s the “work” these posters speak of? Why can’t it be replicated wherever your kid goes? From what I see, owning on the hill since 2009, is that a lot of the success of Maury is because the neighborhood became more gentrified….

Yes the work was done a while ago. Miner parents should reach out to the oldsters to find out. The first place to start is getting a new principal who takes recruiting IB families as a goal. Connecting with former Maury families who are currently “doing the work” at EH could also be good. And look up what was done at Deal and Hardy to increase IB attendance- I believe that the admins literally went door-to-door in the neighborhood.

Deal and Hardy have an extremely affluent inbound that has only become more affluent as the years have progressed-plus they feed into Wilson/Jackson-Reed! My mother in law sent her kids to Hardy-including my husband! It was a good school then! The point is that there is a direct correlation between affluent families moving to the area and school improvement. The way the boundary lines are drawn for Miner, it is not possible.
I am happy to connect with Maury parents “doing the work” and I invite every poster on this thread to come visit Miner and see what’s going on there yourself.

Agreed.

I will say that one question I have for the DME is precisely why a boundary redraw was thrown out as an option. I have some suspicions as to why, but would love to hear this explained more fully. For those from Maury who attended their DME meeting, can you offer any detail?

It's very obvious to me that a major cause of the disparities between Maury and Miner have to do with the fact that Miner takes on the vast majority of the low income kids in the neighborhood and Maury has almost none. Of course Maury winds up with higher test scores and better IB buy in. Obviously there have been committed families at Maury throughout who have also "done the work" but ignoring this basic fact as though the schools draw from identical populations is just silly. I think it's reasonable to argue that we need to address those disparities, because right now it feels like the entire neighborhood (both Hill East and Capitol Hill as a whole) writes off Miner as a school simply because of where it's located. It makes sense the DME has focused in on Miner as part of the boundary study, IMO.

I share your questions about the boundaries. Looking at the map, it seems like the boundaries could be redrawn to send more of Hill East to Miner, but send Azeez-Bates or the Pentacle to Maury and/or LT. This would look obviously gerrymandered but not any more ridiculous than the current Cluster map.

To get either of those into LT, you’d need to expand the boundary nearly 50% when the school is already full... and expand the boundary around Miner while excluding the school itself? To get either in Maury, you’d need to change the boundaries entirely (like the entire shape of how they’re drawn). I’m not sure what you mean by these being not more obviously gerrymandered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Where are the false accusations of racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not care about Miner students.

You care about keeping them out of Maury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Is the preference because of distance true? I thought you would still have to do the lottery and hope for the best

It is true. If you are more than .5 a mile from your zoned school (calculated as the building you will attend in, currently) and closer to another school, you get proximity preference to the latter. It's why the houses all around the NE library get proximity preference for LT starting in 1st; Peabody is right there, but Watkins is WAY more than .5 of a mile a way and houses there are WAY closer to LT (literally down the street 4ish blocks rather than across the Hill).

DP. If you qualify for proximity preference, do you still have to lottery? Or do you get rights I the closer school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Where are the false accusations of racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not care about Miner students.

You care about keeping them out of Maury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Is the preference because of distance true? I thought you would still have to do the lottery and hope for the best

It is true. If you are more than .5 a mile from your zoned school (calculated as the building you will attend in, currently) and closer to another school, you get proximity preference to the latter. It's why the houses all around the NE library get proximity preference for LT starting in 1st; Peabody is right there, but Watkins is WAY more than .5 of a mile a way and houses there are WAY closer to LT (literally down the street 4ish blocks rather than across the Hill).

DP. If you qualify for proximity preference, do you still have to lottery? Or do you get rights I the closer school?

Proximity preference is a preference in the lottery, so the school still has to have room. For LT and Brent, there’s consistently some room in K and proximity preference is enough to get in.

[Anonymous]

Proximity preference doesn’t start at 1st. We live by the NE library and are zoned for Peabody Watkins and since Prek3 have had proximity preference at LT and Maury. We got into Maury for K this year with proximity and would have gotten into LT (we ranked Maury higher).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Proximity preference doesn’t start at 1st. We live by the NE library and are zoned for Peabody Watkins and since Prek3 have had proximity preference at LT and Maury. We got into Maury for K this year with proximity and would have gotten into LT (we ranked Maury higher).

That's because you live far enough from Peabody (and close enough to Maury) to qualify. That's not true for everyone, many don't get proximity preference until they have a kid at Watkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should not feel like they are dependent on lottery luck to get their child a proper education!! Per https://dme.dc.gov/page/about-dme

The DME is responsible for developing and implementing the Mayor's vision for academic excellence and creating a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce).

Is DME fulfilling this job?!?! If you don’t feel like they are, it’s your job to let them know. The best thing is the entire Hill can come out and demand answers all at once. Don’t let them split you into tiny school boundary areas where you are breaking each other down. That’s how colonialists would divide and conquer. Unite and remember who has the power here.

They keep claiming that everything is in the idea stage. So demand new ideas that actually create “a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce)”!!! Don’t let them get away with saying “this worked in a completely different state that is barely similar to ours so I’m guessing it will work here too, so let’s put your kids through this next experiment!”

The problem with trying to unite the Hill around this issue is that presently there is great variability in school quality on the Hill. My kids are not at Maury or Miner, and I am sympathetic to the fact that this process has really sucked and understand why Maury and Miner parents are upset.

But truthfully, my kids go to a school with a lot more issues than Maury (thankfully fewer than Miner but their problems are like ours but more severe, so I commiserate). I have little interest in the status quo and retaining Maury's current status doesn't benefit my family in any way. I can even see the appeal in making Maury a little worse in order to make Miner a lot better-- from a utilitarian perspective, there's something to that, even if of course if I were a Maury parent, that idea would make me mad.

But I'm not a Maury parent and I am not fortunate enough to send my kids to Brent or LT, so I have little to lose in this scenario. I might even gain, depending on how it all shakes out. It's not really in my self-interest to oppose the cluster.

It is absolutely in your self-interest to oppose the cluster. Because whatever struggles your school is having, DME is saying “hey, all those kids need is some more white kids around!” DME has no plans to support your school. DME is wasting time, money and social capital on a window-dressing plan to make itself look good.

I have no love for the DME but I don't think that's what he's saying. Also, and I know people don't like to admit this, but sometimes the main thing a school needs really is more higher income families. More high income families means more resources and it usually means you get a critical mass of kids on or above grade level. This is honestly the main thing our school needs.

There are not enough high-income families to do this in DCPS. It’s not a plan at ALL. And in fact I actually do not think all a school needs is “more higher income families.” I think if it’s say a 70-30 split it’s more likely that the needs of the high-risk kids will be sidelined and they will be grouped together in the remedial classes and reading groups, with extreme test score gaps within the school.

People who believe UMC families are magic need to get a little more specific. PTA bakesales are nice but they actually do not provide all the support in behavior and academics that at-risk kids need. If anything (and I say this from first had experience) “active” parents in a high SES school gang up on “problem” kids to get them disciplined more harshly.

The funny thing is that there are many high SES families were both parents work full-time, and so can't participate in PTA bakesales, etc. anyway. Yes, they might be able to cut a check, but is that all DME is looking for? Or are they looking for the high SES parents who can also be "popping in to read to their K kid's classroom" as one parent put it earlier? Because as people return to office work, are there really that many of those kinds of families around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wanting to attract an IB population is no longer a dcps priority and even principals who support this need to be quiet about it or they will be accused of not wanting “equity”. It is no longer 2005.

I think it's possible, just not at Miner right now. Garrison has a principle like this who has attracted more IB buy in without alienating longtime OOB or low income families.

I think the disparities at Miner are presently too great to do this. Reworking the boundary, exploring a cluster, these should all be on the table if you care about improving Miner.

Could you please explain more what you mean about the disparities at Miner being too great to do this? Is it that it will just be too hard/impossible for a principal to attract more IB families with the scores at Miner being so low? (I.e., that the situation has gotten too bad?)

I think Miner's location, history, and current state make it harder to attract IB families and improve test scores. It's just kind of tucked away in the far corner or the Hill, right near Benning. As many of the comments in this thread indicated early on, people associate the neighborhood it's in with criminal activity at the Starburst and along Benning.

For all the talking on this thread of increasing IB percentage, I think many people here may not realize what that winds up looking like as it's happening. For schools like Brent and Maury, part of the process actually involves attracting OOB interest from nearby communities. For Brent, this meant attracting buy-in from higher SES families in Navy Yard (back before it looked anything like it does now), the current LT zone, and CH Cluster families who were happy with Peabody but not as happy with Watkins. Yes, there was also buy-in from IB families, but many of the families who built up Brent were actually OOB Hill families. Brent's location made this easier.

I am less familiar with how Maury developed it's IB buy-in, but I have to imagine that during that transition, the school benefitted from OOB families from the Payne, Tyler, Miner, and Watkins (and maybe even LT, it was still Title 1 at that time) zones who had heard that Maury was on the upswing.

This process helps a school build a reputation in the broader community, which in turn encourages more IB buy-in. Over time, OOB families are no longer able to get spots at these schools, at least not in the same numbers, but those early converts can be among the best marketers for an up and coming school.

Miner is boxed in. At the edge of the neighborhood and bordering a commercial corridor with a negative reputation throughout much of the rest of the neighborhood, it's very hard for Miner to attract converts. Payne and JO Wilson, which is where it would be most likely to draw these families, are both further along in this process, and as the Maury families on this thread have pointed out, Miner is in the "wrong direction" for people looking for a neighborhood school with a convenient location. I think for a time it had a shot at pulling from desperate Trinidad families, but I think they are much more likely to either go to JOW or head to charters in Brookland -- if they are willing to go to Miner, they might as well just go to Wheatley and try to build it up. And obviously Miner is not drawing from Miner or LT.

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but I think Miner's location really works against it in terms of developing that coveted "IB buy in" which requires you to build a coalition of high-investment families. There aren't enough to go around and Miner's location means they get less than they need to start building momentum. So the school fills with OOB families from across the river, who will never be able to invest the time and focus that in-neighborhood families could, and has just gotten kind of stuck there. Even if they had a principal really willing to work on this, I think they have more of an uphill battle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should not feel like they are dependent on lottery luck to get their child a proper education!! Per https://dme.dc.gov/page/about-dme

The DME is responsible for developing and implementing the Mayor's vision for academic excellence and creating a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce).

Is DME fulfilling this job?!?! If you don’t feel like they are, it’s your job to let them know. The best thing is the entire Hill can come out and demand answers all at once. Don’t let them split you into tiny school boundary areas where you are breaking each other down. That’s how colonialists would divide and conquer. Unite and remember who has the power here.

They keep claiming that everything is in the idea stage. So demand new ideas that actually create “a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce)”!!! Don’t let them get away with saying “this worked in a completely different state that is barely similar to ours so I’m guessing it will work here too, so let’s put your kids through this next experiment!”

The problem with trying to unite the Hill around this issue is that presently there is great variability in school quality on the Hill. My kids are not at Maury or Miner, and I am sympathetic to the fact that this process has really sucked and understand why Maury and Miner parents are upset.

But truthfully, my kids go to a school with a lot more issues than Maury (thankfully fewer than Miner but their problems are like ours but more severe, so I commiserate). I have little interest in the status quo and retaining Maury's current status doesn't benefit my family in any way. I can even see the appeal in making Maury a little worse in order to make Miner a lot better-- from a utilitarian perspective, there's something to that, even if of course if I were a Maury parent, that idea would make me mad.

But I'm not a Maury parent and I am not fortunate enough to send my kids to Brent or LT, so I have little to lose in this scenario. I might even gain, depending on how it all shakes out. It's not really in my self-interest to oppose the cluster.

It is absolutely in your self-interest to oppose the cluster. Because whatever struggles your school is having, DME is saying “hey, all those kids need is some more white kids around!” DME has no plans to support your school. DME is wasting time, money and social capital on a window-dressing plan to make itself look good.

I have no love for the DME but I don't think that's what he's saying. Also, and I know people don't like to admit this, but sometimes the main thing a school needs really is more higher income families. More high income families means more resources and it usually means you get a critical mass of kids on or above grade level. This is honestly the main thing our school needs.

But if parents put a lot of work in to build an appealing school, and you get more buy-in from those families, then DME will come after you, too. There will never be enough of these kids to go around. There will always be an equity issue.

I don’t understand how Maury parents say they put in the work? Were they active in the school community before their children started? Have most of tbe families had kids at the school for 10 years? What’s the “work” these posters speak of? Why can’t it be replicated wherever your kid goes? From what I see, owning on the hill since 2009, is that a lot of the success of Maury is because the neighborhood became more gentrified….

Yes the work was done a while ago. Miner parents should reach out to the oldsters to find out. The first place to start is getting a new principal who takes recruiting IB families as a goal. Connecting with former Maury families who are currently “doing the work” at EH could also be good. And look up what was done at Deal and Hardy to increase IB attendance- I believe that the admins literally went door-to-door in the neighborhood.

Deal and Hardy have an extremely affluent inbound that has only become more affluent as the years have progressed-plus they feed into Wilson/Jackson-Reed! My mother in law sent her kids to Hardy-including my husband! It was a good school then! The point is that there is a direct correlation between affluent families moving to the area and school improvement. The way the boundary lines are drawn for Miner, it is not possible.
I am happy to connect with Maury parents “doing the work” and I invite every poster on this thread to come visit Miner and see what’s going on there yourself.

I just think you are wrong on the Miner demographics. It’s not going to be 5% but if their was neighborhood buy-in there would likely be something more along the lines of 30% at risk.

Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Want to show me the numbers? There’s no question there could be more high SES IB families. Maybe never the same as Hardy but many more.

What numbers do you want? A breakdown of income, multi-family housing, and the school zone? Are you talking about the current demographics of the student population currently at Miner? Are you talking about the distribution of wealth at Deal/Hardy vs Maury? Or Miner?
I am confused, because you can go online and find this data yourself.

I think the people claiming a cluster is the only way to get SES balance are the ones who have to show me the data. To me it seems obvious that an effort to attract IB families could lower the at-risk rate well below 40%. Disprove that if you like.

If you were the DME or the mayor, making demands like this might work. But you're not, anymore than I am. I don't have to prove anything to you.

Just as an aside, it's always interesting to watch lawyers, consultants, and politicos in DC encounter the supreme dysfunction of DCPS and other city agencies for the first time. This is why, historically, wealthy people in DC sent their kids to private or lived outside the district. You will not be able to use the tactics you use at work to accomplish things. It's not, as they say, how it's done.

Actually, it is how it's done. It's how Anthony Williams got a lot of his stuff done. PP -- make your demands on DME and the Mayor. Some random anon doesn't have to answer to you, but the Mayor does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should not feel like they are dependent on lottery luck to get their child a proper education!! Per https://dme.dc.gov/page/about-dme

The DME is responsible for developing and implementing the Mayor's vision for academic excellence and creating a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce).

Is DME fulfilling this job?!?! If you don’t feel like they are, it’s your job to let them know. The best thing is the entire Hill can come out and demand answers all at once. Don’t let them split you into tiny school boundary areas where you are breaking each other down. That’s how colonialists would divide and conquer. Unite and remember who has the power here.

They keep claiming that everything is in the idea stage. So demand new ideas that actually create “a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce)”!!! Don’t let them get away with saying “this worked in a completely different state that is barely similar to ours so I’m guessing it will work here too, so let’s put your kids through this next experiment!”

The problem with trying to unite the Hill around this issue is that presently there is great variability in school quality on the Hill. My kids are not at Maury or Miner, and I am sympathetic to the fact that this process has really sucked and understand why Maury and Miner parents are upset.

But truthfully, my kids go to a school with a lot more issues than Maury (thankfully fewer than Miner but their problems are like ours but more severe, so I commiserate). I have little interest in the status quo and retaining Maury's current status doesn't benefit my family in any way. I can even see the appeal in making Maury a little worse in order to make Miner a lot better-- from a utilitarian perspective, there's something to that, even if of course if I were a Maury parent, that idea would make me mad.

But I'm not a Maury parent and I am not fortunate enough to send my kids to Brent or LT, so I have little to lose in this scenario. I might even gain, depending on how it all shakes out. It's not really in my self-interest to oppose the cluster.

It is absolutely in your self-interest to oppose the cluster. Because whatever struggles your school is having, DME is saying “hey, all those kids need is some more white kids around!” DME has no plans to support your school. DME is wasting time, money and social capital on a window-dressing plan to make itself look good.

I have no love for the DME but I don't think that's what he's saying. Also, and I know people don't like to admit this, but sometimes the main thing a school needs really is more higher income families. More high income families means more resources and it usually means you get a critical mass of kids on or above grade level. This is honestly the main thing our school needs.

There are not enough high-income families to do this in DCPS. It’s not a plan at ALL. And in fact I actually do not think all a school needs is “more higher income families.” I think if it’s say a 70-30 split it’s more likely that the needs of the high-risk kids will be sidelined and they will be grouped together in the remedial classes and reading groups, with extreme test score gaps within the school.

People who believe UMC families are magic need to get a little more specific. PTA bakesales are nice but they actually do not provide all the support in behavior and academics that at-risk kids need. If anything (and I say this from first had experience) “active” parents in a high SES school gang up on “problem” kids to get them disciplined more harshly.

The funny thing is that there are many high SES families were both parents work full-time, and so can't participate in PTA bakesales, etc. anyway. Yes, they might be able to cut a check, but is that all DME is looking for? Or are they looking for the high SES parents who can also be "popping in to read to their K kid's classroom" as one parent put it earlier? Because as people return to office work, are there really that many of those kinds of families around?

The Hill used to have a ton of this kind of family. It didn't used to be filled with super high-SES two income couples in million dollar row homes. It used to be filled with feds and non-profit folks and even, like, teachers and stuff. When a family did have a higher earner, very often it was a one-income family with a SAHM. Even many of the fed families had SAHMs, at least when the kids were small. The cluster, SWS, CHML, Brent, even Maury -- a lot of the movement for these schools came from stay-at-home parents or middle class families with more flexible schedules. They weren't built out by high powered lawyers and consultants. Those folks generally just wrote off the public schools and sent their kids to private back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wanting to attract an IB population is no longer a dcps priority and even principals who support this need to be quiet about it or they will be accused of not wanting “equity”. It is no longer 2005.

I think it's possible, just not at Miner right now. Garrison has a principle like this who has attracted more IB buy in without alienating longtime OOB or low income families.

I think the disparities at Miner are presently too great to do this. Reworking the boundary, exploring a cluster, these should all be on the table if you care about improving Miner.

Could you please explain more what you mean about the disparities at Miner being too great to do this? Is it that it will just be too hard/impossible for a principal to attract more IB families with the scores at Miner being so low? (I.e., that the situation has gotten too bad?)

I think Miner's location, history, and current state make it harder to attract IB families and improve test scores. It's just kind of tucked away in the far corner or the Hill, right near Benning. As many of the comments in this thread indicated early on, people associate the neighborhood it's in with criminal activity at the Starburst and along Benning.

For all the talking on this thread of increasing IB percentage, I think many people here may not realize what that winds up looking like as it's happening. For schools like Brent and Maury, part of the process actually involves attracting OOB interest from nearby communities. For Brent, this meant attracting buy-in from higher SES families in Navy Yard (back before it looked anything like it does now), the current LT zone, and CH Cluster families who were happy with Peabody but not as happy with Watkins. Yes, there was also buy-in from IB families, but many of the families who built up Brent were actually OOB Hill families. Brent's location made this easier.

I am less familiar with how Maury developed it's IB buy-in, but I have to imagine that during that transition, the school benefitted from OOB families from the Payne, Tyler, Miner, and Watkins (and maybe even LT, it was still Title 1 at that time) zones who had heard that Maury was on the upswing.

This process helps a school build a reputation in the broader community, which in turn encourages more IB buy-in. Over time, OOB families are no longer able to get spots at these schools, at least not in the same numbers, but those early converts can be among the best marketers for an up and coming school.

Miner is boxed in. At the edge of the neighborhood and bordering a commercial corridor with a negative reputation throughout much of the rest of the neighborhood, it's very hard for Miner to attract converts. Payne and JO Wilson, which is where it would be most likely to draw these families, are both further along in this process, and as the Maury families on this thread have pointed out, Miner is in the "wrong direction" for people looking for a neighborhood school with a convenient location. I think for a time it had a shot at pulling from desperate Trinidad families, but I think they are much more likely to either go to JOW or head to charters in Brookland -- if they are willing to go to Miner, they might as well just go to Wheatley and try to build it up. And obviously Miner is not drawing from Miner or LT.

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but I think Miner's location really works against it in terms of developing that coveted "IB buy in" which requires you to build a coalition of high-investment families. There aren't enough to go around and Miner's location means they get less than they need to start building momentum. So the school fills with OOB families from across the river, who will never be able to invest the time and focus that in-neighborhood families could, and has just gotten kind of stuck there. Even if they had a principal really willing to work on this, I think they have more of an uphill battle.

100% agree with this. Good accounting of the history of how many schools actually became desirable, because I remember when Brent itself wasn't desirable.

The responsibility of turning Miner around though, shouldn't be falling on parents or a principal in a vacuum. It should be falling on DME. There needs to be some real questioning of DME to see what they have tried to do specifically to help Miner, because that is their job. From what has been said by Miner families on this thread, DME has done very little. DME didn't bother to meet with them, Miner has repeatedly had bad principals foisted upon them, Miner parents have repeatedly asked for help and received silence. This is outrageous. People need to show up at the Town Halls and make their anger known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should not feel like they are dependent on lottery luck to get their child a proper education!! Per https://dme.dc.gov/page/about-dme

The DME is responsible for developing and implementing the Mayor's vision for academic excellence and creating a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce).

Is DME fulfilling this job?!?! If you don’t feel like they are, it’s your job to let them know. The best thing is the entire Hill can come out and demand answers all at once. Don’t let them split you into tiny school boundary areas where you are breaking each other down. That’s how colonialists would divide and conquer. Unite and remember who has the power here.

They keep claiming that everything is in the idea stage. So demand new ideas that actually create “a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce)”!!! Don’t let them get away with saying “this worked in a completely different state that is barely similar to ours so I’m guessing it will work here too, so let’s put your kids through this next experiment!”

The problem with trying to unite the Hill around this issue is that presently there is great variability in school quality on the Hill. My kids are not at Maury or Miner, and I am sympathetic to the fact that this process has really sucked and understand why Maury and Miner parents are upset.

But truthfully, my kids go to a school with a lot more issues than Maury (thankfully fewer than Miner but their problems are like ours but more severe, so I commiserate). I have little interest in the status quo and retaining Maury's current status doesn't benefit my family in any way. I can even see the appeal in making Maury a little worse in order to make Miner a lot better-- from a utilitarian perspective, there's something to that, even if of course if I were a Maury parent, that idea would make me mad.

But I'm not a Maury parent and I am not fortunate enough to send my kids to Brent or LT, so I have little to lose in this scenario. I might even gain, depending on how it all shakes out. It's not really in my self-interest to oppose the cluster.

It is absolutely in your self-interest to oppose the cluster. Because whatever struggles your school is having, DME is saying “hey, all those kids need is some more white kids around!” DME has no plans to support your school. DME is wasting time, money and social capital on a window-dressing plan to make itself look good.

I have no love for the DME but I don't think that's what he's saying. Also, and I know people don't like to admit this, but sometimes the main thing a school needs really is more higher income families. More high income families means more resources and it usually means you get a critical mass of kids on or above grade level. This is honestly the main thing our school needs.

But if parents put a lot of work in to build an appealing school, and you get more buy-in from those families, then DME will come after you, too. There will never be enough of these kids to go around. There will always be an equity issue.

I don’t understand how Maury parents say they put in the work? Were they active in the school community before their children started? Have most of tbe families had kids at the school for 10 years? What’s the “work” these posters speak of? Why can’t it be replicated wherever your kid goes? From what I see, owning on the hill since 2009, is that a lot of the success of Maury is because the neighborhood became more gentrified….

Yes the work was done a while ago. Miner parents should reach out to the oldsters to find out. The first place to start is getting a new principal who takes recruiting IB families as a goal. Connecting with former Maury families who are currently “doing the work” at EH could also be good. And look up what was done at Deal and Hardy to increase IB attendance- I believe that the admins literally went door-to-door in the neighborhood.

Deal and Hardy have an extremely affluent inbound that has only become more affluent as the years have progressed-plus they feed into Wilson/Jackson-Reed! My mother in law sent her kids to Hardy-including my husband! It was a good school then! The point is that there is a direct correlation between affluent families moving to the area and school improvement. The way the boundary lines are drawn for Miner, it is not possible.
I am happy to connect with Maury parents “doing the work” and I invite every poster on this thread to come visit Miner and see what’s going on there yourself.

I just think you are wrong on the Miner demographics. It’s not going to be 5% but if their was neighborhood buy-in there would likely be something more along the lines of 30% at risk.

Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Want to show me the numbers? There’s no question there could be more high SES IB families. Maybe never the same as Hardy but many more.

What numbers do you want? A breakdown of income, multi-family housing, and the school zone? Are you talking about the current demographics of the student population currently at Miner? Are you talking about the distribution of wealth at Deal/Hardy vs Maury? Or Miner?
I am confused, because you can go online and find this data yourself.

I think the people claiming a cluster is the only way to get SES balance are the ones who have to show me the data. To me it seems obvious that an effort to attract IB families could lower the at-risk rate well below 40%. Disprove that if you like.

If you were the DME or the mayor, making demands like this might work. But you're not, anymore than I am. I don't have to prove anything to you.

Just as an aside, it's always interesting to watch lawyers, consultants, and politicos in DC encounter the supreme dysfunction of DCPS and other city agencies for the first time. This is why, historically, wealthy people in DC sent their kids to private or lived outside the district. You will not be able to use the tactics you use at work to accomplish things. It's not, as they say, how it's done.

Actually, it is how it's done. It's how Anthony Williams got a lot of his stuff done. PP -- make your demands on DME and the Mayor. Some random anon doesn't have to answer to you, but the Mayor does.

Anthony Williams is black, though. I'm betting PP is not. As a white person, you don't get to march into DC government and make demands and tell people to disprove your theses about stuff like IB buy in. But sure, by all means, go try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But wanting to attract an IB population is no longer a dcps priority and even principals who support this need to be quiet about it or they will be accused of not wanting “equity”. It is no longer 2005.

I think it's possible, just not at Miner right now. Garrison has a principle like this who has attracted more IB buy in without alienating longtime OOB or low income families.

I think the disparities at Miner are presently too great to do this. Reworking the boundary, exploring a cluster, these should all be on the table if you care about improving Miner.

Could you please explain more what you mean about the disparities at Miner being too great to do this? Is it that it will just be too hard/impossible for a principal to attract more IB families with the scores at Miner being so low? (I.e., that the situation has gotten too bad?)

I think Miner's location, history, and current state make it harder to attract IB families and improve test scores. It's just kind of tucked away in the far corner or the Hill, right near Benning. As many of the comments in this thread indicated early on, people associate the neighborhood it's in with criminal activity at the Starburst and along Benning.

For all the talking on this thread of increasing IB percentage, I think many people here may not realize what that winds up looking like as it's happening. For schools like Brent and Maury, part of the process actually involves attracting OOB interest from nearby communities. For Brent, this meant attracting buy-in from higher SES families in Navy Yard (back before it looked anything like it does now), the current LT zone, and CH Cluster families who were happy with Peabody but not as happy with Watkins. Yes, there was also buy-in from IB families, but many of the families who built up Brent were actually OOB Hill families. Brent's location made this easier.

I am less familiar with how Maury developed it's IB buy-in, but I have to imagine that during that transition, the school benefitted from OOB families from the Payne, Tyler, Miner, and Watkins (and maybe even LT, it was still Title 1 at that time) zones who had heard that Maury was on the upswing.

This process helps a school build a reputation in the broader community, which in turn encourages more IB buy-in. Over time, OOB families are no longer able to get spots at these schools, at least not in the same numbers, but those early converts can be among the best marketers for an up and coming school.

Miner is boxed in. At the edge of the neighborhood and bordering a commercial corridor with a negative reputation throughout much of the rest of the neighborhood, it's very hard for Miner to attract converts. Payne and JO Wilson, which is where it would be most likely to draw these families, are both further along in this process, and as the Maury families on this thread have pointed out, Miner is in the "wrong direction" for people looking for a neighborhood school with a convenient location. I think for a time it had a shot at pulling from desperate Trinidad families, but I think they are much more likely to either go to JOW or head to charters in Brookland -- if they are willing to go to Miner, they might as well just go to Wheatley and try to build it up. And obviously Miner is not drawing from Miner or LT.

Anyway, sorry for rambling, but I think Miner's location really works against it in terms of developing that coveted "IB buy in" which requires you to build a coalition of high-investment families. There aren't enough to go around and Miner's location means they get less than they need to start building momentum. So the school fills with OOB families from across the river, who will never be able to invest the time and focus that in-neighborhood families could, and has just gotten kind of stuck there. Even if they had a principal really willing to work on this, I think they have more of an uphill battle.

100% agree with this. Good accounting of the history of how many schools actually became desirable, because I remember when Brent itself wasn't desirable.

The responsibility of turning Miner around though, shouldn't be falling on parents or a principal in a vacuum. It should be falling on DME. There needs to be some real questioning of DME to see what they have tried to do specifically to help Miner, because that is their job. From what has been said by Miner families on this thread, DME has done very little. DME didn't bother to meet with them, Miner has repeatedly had bad principals foisted upon them, Miner parents have repeatedly asked for help and received silence. This is outrageous. People need to show up at the Town Halls and make their anger known.

Yes, L-T's OOB families this year are actually (narrow) majority Watkins + JOW + Miner + Wheatley; that means the majority of OOB families can walk to school and simply live on the other side of arbitrary lines in a variety of directions.