Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

Since you asked, Maury pulled kids from Miner, LT and JOW boundaries when Brent wasn't accessible. LT pulled kids from JOW boundary once LT became a tough get. That's how those schools built their bases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of DME's states goals is to reduce what is perceived as an excessive concentration of at-risk kids at Miner. Know what the first antonym in Webster's is for "concentration"? "DILUTION".

Funny that so many Miner families are OK with the rationale for the cluster (excess concentration) but scream RACISM RACISM RACISM at diluting that overconcentration.

I have to assume you are the person who said this at the DME meeting, because these defenses are getting silly.

Yes, dilution is an antonym of concentration. But there is something called context and connotation.

Then DME refers to a concentration of at risk kids as an issue of resources for a school. At risk kids need more resources, and when you have a large concentration of at risk kids, it place a strain on available resources.

Meanwhile, the comment that the cluster will "dilute" Maury isn't directly about the resources needed to education kids. It's about the kids themselves. This phrasing implies that there is something inherently good about Maury's current demographics, and that shifting those demographics through the introduction of more at risk kids will have a negative impact on the student body itself. Not that it will strain resources but that the mere presence of these children will be harmful.

I cannot believe you are still defending this.

Not the person who said it at meeting; I didn't attend. I pointed out the plain meaning of the word you've tried very hard to make loaded and racist and you fell back on "yes, but context". Yes, context matters. In this case the context of the word was in addressing DME's stated goal to address concentration. In that context, considering the other side of that equation (dilution) is logical.

But here's the thing, even if that word could be read otherwise, why do you get to lecture everyone else about how they need to consider context and connotation but somehow you aren't burdened by that same obligation and consideration? You got all up in your feelings before you realized DME's goal was in fact dilution of UMC and low at-risk populations. You screamed "racism" and now, when faced with plain meaning of words, you can't get out of your own way and consider context or connotation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of DME's states goals is to reduce what is perceived as an excessive concentration of at-risk kids at Miner. Know what the first antonym in Webster's is for "concentration"? "DILUTION".

Funny that so many Miner families are OK with the rationale for the cluster (excess concentration) but scream RACISM RACISM RACISM at diluting that overconcentration.

I have to assume you are the person who said this at the DME meeting, because these defenses are getting silly.

Yes, dilution is an antonym of concentration. But there is something called context and connotation.

Then DME refers to a concentration of at risk kids as an issue of resources for a school. At risk kids need more resources, and when you have a large concentration of at risk kids, it place a strain on available resources.

Meanwhile, the comment that the cluster will "dilute" Maury isn't directly about the resources needed to education kids. It's about the kids themselves. This phrasing implies that there is something inherently good about Maury's current demographics, and that shifting those demographics through the introduction of more at risk kids will have a negative impact on the student body itself. Not that it will strain resources but that the mere presence of these children will be harmful.

I cannot believe you are still defending this.

Not the person who said it at meeting; I didn't attend. I pointed out the plain meaning of the word you've tried very hard to make loaded and racist and you fell back on "yes, but context". Yes, context matters. In this case the context of the word was in addressing DME's stated goal to address concentration. In that context, considering the other side of that equation (dilution) is logical.

But here's the thing, even if that word could be read otherwise, why do you get to lecture everyone else about how they need to consider context and connotation but somehow you aren't burdened by that same obligation and consideration? You got all up in your feelings before you realized DME's goal was in fact dilution of UMC and low at-risk populations. You screamed "racism" and now, when faced with plain meaning of words, you can't get out of your own way and consider context or connotation.

I never got up in my feelings nor did I ever scream "racism" at anyone.

The context and connotation of the person using the word "dilution" at that meeting was to express the fear that Maury's current population would be diluted by too many at risk kids. I thought it was an inappropriate comment then and I still think so now. Reading this thread has only made it more clear for me that many in the Miner community actively fear welcoming at risk students into their community. My opinion on this has not changed, nor has my understanding of what words mean.

I really think you and the Maury community would do a lot better to simply issue a mea culpa here, admit that talk like that is not productive, and find better, less offensive ways to object to the cluster if that's what you want to do. Continually doubling down on this or becoming angry with people for taking offense at comments that were intended to be offensive isn't helping anyone.

[Anonymous]

^ Meant to say "many in the Maury community", my 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:

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

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

Where are the false accusations of racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not care about Miner students.

You care about keeping them out of Maury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maury Elementary. Undefeated. Undiluted. Congrats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP. No, you did not.

Why not?

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

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

-Same DP and not a Maury parent

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

NP. You are conflating PPP's point that sh*t doesn't get real until upper ES with the idea that people who depart DCPS don't have important experience and feedback to help it improve.

I think this is an ignorant (but commonly expressed) take. DCPS actually should be asking parents who opted out why they did so. If the goal is to increase IB participation and retention YoY then they need to try and understand why people opted out. The mentality in PP's post is a creative way to ensure DCPS never has to face its failures or hear sincere feedback about ways in which it didn't meet the need. Before one of you comes over the top to misread what I've written, no, I am NOT suggesting DCPS only listen to people who departed the system. I am however suggesting that those voices are important to understanding how to improve the system.

And, yes, I am very much suggesting that DCPS and MS and HS could be greatly improved if it could keep the kids who depart for Latin, BASIS and private.

I agree we should get feedback from people who leave DCPS as well as feedback from families who opted out of Miner or any school struggling to build or maintain IB participation. I actually think this feedback could weigh in favor of a cluster in some ways.

But no one ever said we shouldn't. What was said was that a parent with a preschooler and a 2nd grader at Miner does not pass the "litmus test" for weighing in on the cluster because unless you have a child in the upper grades, your opinion about the proposal is invalid. Literally the word "litmus test" was used.

So actually, someone (you? who?) IS saying that DCPS should only listen to some parents and not others.

The phrase "litmus test" was introduced by someone (you?). Sure, someone answered "no," but I think it was clearly out of exasperation.

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

A poster expressed an opinion.

In response, the question was posed "how old are your kids."

The poster responded and asked if it was enough to have two kids at miner, one in ECE and one in the middle grade.

The response was "no".

Then it was asked "why not?"

At this point we got a lecture on how if you don't have kids in an upper grade, you can't know what the impact of the cluster could possibly be. Nevermind that a person with younger kids will actually send those kids through the cluster whereas a person with kids in 4th, 5th, or MS will not.

[Anonymous]

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….

The Maury parents who were active at the school prior and during the renovation really did put in the work. They did a great job building a school community that was positive and proactive, and that led to an involved PTO when the renovation happened, which resulted in a great school, plus Maury was able to retain IB buy in during the relocation phase, which can be challenging. Hill East used to be considerably less affluent so many of the families who did that work were just middle class families with a passion for public education and neighborhood schools. They really did put in the work.

Many of the people now IB for Maury simply had the cash to afford it and the know-how to evaluate schools (though truthfully, you don't need to be a genius to look up test scores and at risk percentages for Hill elementaries and conclude that Maury is a desirable school). This is not a knock on them -- nothing wrong with doing this. But some of the "put in the work" complaints from Maury families angry about this proposal are disingenuous. They didn't do anything but write a check and then choose to send their kid to the already well regarded inbound school in the nice facility.

Look, I think the cluster idea is bad and will hurt Maury and those kids. I think DME is taking a lazy approach and misapplying equity to mean closing the achievement gap mostly by lowering results from the better "whiter" school. But...all this talk about "doing the work" is BS. The work that was done was gentrification (which I don't view as a negative) of the IB area. Areas with more money have kids with more ECE advantages, more supplementation and more options for MS and HS if Maury or the MS lottery don't work out.

Gentrification - at least to a certain point - can happen without any increased buy-in and school improvement. Like, Bunker Hill Elementary is 55% at-risk, has 7% white kids, and there are more IB students going to Mundo Verde or Yu Ying (combined) than going to their zoned school. Only 10% of the IB students attend it. It's not fully gentrified, it's certainly not Capitol Hill, but there are people paying 700 k for a house, and they're not sending their kids to the local elementary school.

There are schools with much higher rates of at-risk populations than the zones they're pulling from, and part of what distinguishes schools in gentrifying areas that do get IB-buy in vs those that don't is parents (and schools) doing work to make it happen. Once that's happening, that further drives gentrification.

[Anonymous]

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….

The Maury parents who were active at the school prior and during the renovation really did put in the work. They did a great job building a school community that was positive and proactive, and that led to an involved PTO when the renovation happened, which resulted in a great school, plus Maury was able to retain IB buy in during the relocation phase, which can be challenging. Hill East used to be considerably less affluent so many of the families who did that work were just middle class families with a passion for public education and neighborhood schools. They really did put in the work.

Many of the people now IB for Maury simply had the cash to afford it and the know-how to evaluate schools (though truthfully, you don't need to be a genius to look up test scores and at risk percentages for Hill elementaries and conclude that Maury is a desirable school). This is not a knock on them -- nothing wrong with doing this. But some of the "put in the work" complaints from Maury families angry about this proposal are disingenuous. They didn't do anything but write a check and then choose to send their kid to the already well regarded inbound school in the nice facility.

Look, I think the cluster idea is bad and will hurt Maury and those kids. I think DME is taking a lazy approach and misapplying equity to mean closing the achievement gap mostly by lowering results from the better "whiter" school. But...all this talk about "doing the work" is BS. The work that was done was gentrification (which I don't view as a negative) of the IB area. Areas with more money have kids with more ECE advantages, more supplementation and more options for MS and HS if Maury or the MS lottery don't work out.

Gentrification - at least to a certain point - can happen without any increased buy-in and school improvement. Like, Bunker Hill Elementary is 55% at-risk, has 7% white kids, and there are more IB students going to Mundo Verde or Yu Ying (combined) than going to their zoned school. Only 10% of the IB students attend it. It's not fully gentrified, it's certainly not Capitol Hill, but there are people paying 700 k for a house, and they're not sending their kids to the local elementary school.

There are schools with much higher rates of at-risk populations than the zones they're pulling from, and part of what distinguishes schools in gentrifying areas that do get IB-buy in vs those that don't is parents (and schools) doing work to make it happen. Once that's happening, that further drives gentrification.

This. People who think that schools improve on their own as property values increase ignore both how the lottery and charters impact this process, and also the interplay between quality of neighborhood schools and property values.

It's very clear in this conversation which people moved to the Hill within the last 5-10 years and which people have been here much longer. There's just a lot of ignorance on this thread about how schools improve and what it takes to make it happen. It's not possible for parents to turn a struggling school into a good school on their own, no matter how much "work" they are willing to do. But you also can't turn a struggling school into a goods school without parents willing to work at it. It's not an "either/or" situation -- it's always both (plus you also need to not be directly thwarted by DCPS, sometimes hard to achieve).

[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:People choose Miner for a lot of reasons. They don't want language instruction or they don't want Montessori for whatever reason. Or because they think Two Rivers stinks. Same for SSMA. Or because they want Eliot-Hine rights. Or because they need a self-contained classrooms and Miner's what they're offered.

"I'm choosing Miner because it gives me a path to EH." Said no one, ever, on Earth.

More myopia.

If you lived East of the river, you absolutely would seek out an EH feed. Where do you think all the OOB kids at EH and Eastern come from, friend?

By the way, if you are a Maury parent and this is your attitude about its MS feed, go ahead and leave because of the cluster. You were always going to leave anyway, and you aren't really the asset to the community you think you are.

That's a silly response. The people whom you dismiss are invested in trying to keep their ES on a positive track, and by association, EH on a positive trajectory. If those people pull out you'll have an EH with 60% at risk and 20% special ed. Sure, your kid and every other one in that school will be in a failing environment, but at least you'll feel morally superior. After all that's what counts, right?

Like it or not, UMC families who attend DCPS schools are an asset. Don't take my word for it, ask DME and DCPS. They're about to upend two schools to spread around the very people you dismiss. You don't have to like us, but you darn well sure need us to have a functioning public school system. If that hurts to hear, TFB.

The problem isn’t that you are seen as unneeded. The problem (and I’m not speaking about you personally) is that some of the UMC people look down on the at risk students. One person on that townhall even used the words “dilute our population.” And those comments stand out, even if they aren’t representative of a community as a whole.

I hear what you are saying and I understand the sentiment. I would ask you to consider what it means to "look down on" at risk students. If I don't want 60% of my school to be at risk, is that "looking down on" them? Or is that an acknowledgement that all data tells us the challenges that come with at risk require significant resources and that those kids tend to need intervention to catch up. Is it "looking down on at risk" to want my above grade level kid to be catered to as well, with coursework appropriate to their level and not just being warehoused?

I understand why "dilute" is a cringy and imprecise way to describe the issue. If we take our Language Police Hats off for a moment and react to what they meant, are they wrong to have expressed concern that if the demographics shift there may well be some challenges that accompany that? Do they not have the right to express that concern?

Sure that’s fair. Everyone has the right to express concerns. It’s also fair to say hey, step up and help your neighbors by ensuring even kids who don’t have your advantages get a good education. Because even if your school is suddenly more at risk, your specific child isn’t going to be directly affected. He’s still going to get good grades. He’s still going to score well on PARCC (or whatever the new test they have switched to is called). And now a kid who is at risk is going to have access to a school with stability and support. And your kid’s school might be a 4 star or even a 3 star instead of a 5, but it’s not going to hurt him because there are still going to be the high performing kids at Maury play even a few from Miner (they’re rare but they exist).

I will reply because (at least from my perspective) this is a respectful and substantive conversation.

If I'm being honest, my emotional reaction to "step up and help your neighbors" is to scream "9+%!!!" That's the tax rate for every marginal dollar of income I earn. You can ask me to do more, but, with all due respect, the UMC folks who are told constantly they don't support low income communities are paying for the social services and interventions in those schools. So I don't react well when people act like I'm not contributing. I'd also suggest to you that you simply do not know whether more at risk kids will directly affect my kid. Two of my kids are now in MS. I can assure you that behavioral issues in upper ES derail learning on a near daily basis. You simply don't know what the impact will be, because even DME doesn't have projections (will they still be Title 1? what to enrollment projections look like?) Yes, my kid will do well on PARCC. But I will share with you some wisdom of a parent with an older kid. A 4 or 5 on PARCC does not mean the kid is at or above grade level. My oldest was getting 4s and 5s. Then they got to a non-DCSP MS and took a real national assessment test. The results were not pretty. We had to remediate, and my kid was top of his class in ES.

The gains at Maury were hard fought over a number of years. I think it a bit dismissive and possibly even disrespectful for you to come along and dismiss these concerns with "there there, your kid will be fine." You don't know that. Whether Maury is still Maury in 6 years or is Watkins is a big deal. Same way at risk folks don't want their existence and concerns dismissed, UMC families don't want our concerns and demands for a quality education dismissed with phrases like "good enough" and "you'll be fine".

I think I'm not supposed to say this part out loud, but I am happy to help, but NOT if it means my kid gets a sub-par education. Not if it means my kid is in classes constantly disrupted by fights and outbursts. Not if it means my kid is way behind when they leave DCPS. I will not apologize for not being ok with sacrificing my kids' educations in the name of some perverted view of "equity."

And there is the Maury sentiment in a nutshell:

1). You say you make more money and you already do enough so you shouldn’t have to do more. YOU GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL.

2). You’re right, no one can know if your kids will be directly affected or not. Guess what, that means you also don’t know if there will be a horrible detriment to your child. While I can understand not wanting your kid to be an experiment, just remember if you want to control all the aspects of who attends your school, maybe you should PAY FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL.

3). I made the PARCC comments because that’s what everyone has been basing the academics on. I actually totally agree that standardized tests aren’t the answer to determining how well kids are doing, but at the end of the day the point is your kid will be fine (hence the woman who commented that her upper grader at Miner scored in the 99th percentile city wide despite being with all those awful at-risk children).

4). Also you say you had to remediate AND that you left DCPS. So you aren’t someone who is going to make the effort to stick with DCPS anyway and you have the money for tutoring. You are really not helping your case here.

5). At least you admit you aren’t supposed to say the “not in my backyard” comment out loud. But you did. You make all these comments about fights in class and outbursts. Why don’t you just say “I don’t want poor Black kids in my class.” And yes I may have made the race comment but we all know what you meant.

Too much to respond to everything. I left DCPS middle schools because they aren't good enough. They were even worse 4 years ago when we had to make the decision. That response is lazy. It is a creative way to ignore or dismiss people whose opinions you don't like. I have a kid in ES now. I pay taxes now. I get a voice now. You don't have to like it. Too bad.

P.S. I didn't say "I make more money". I said I pay insanely high taxes that pay for programs. So I don't have patience for people like you telling me I don't contribute. You want my money but you don't want me to contribute to discussions on where and how it is spent, unless it is to be an amen chorus for people like you.

I don’t want your money. I don’t even necessarily agree with the cluster/merger. I do want people like you to realize you are the reason schools like Miner and Eliot-Hine and countless others need help because you leave when it gets tough because it’s not “good enough” and you get mad when people have the audacity to ask you to do more. It’s easy to run away. The people who worked hard to make Maury the good school it is today didn’t run away. I watched them work hard. Really hard. And people like you benefitted from that. Now maybe it’s time for other kids to benefit from it too.

The you don't want low student to teacher ratios. You don't want interventionists and mental health specialists and crossing guards and curriculum updates and books and computers and everything else that funds public education. What you seem to want to is to cut off your nose to spite your face. Genius!

ITA. The people who go on about parents “working hard” truly have an inflated sense of what PTAs do. About 90% of the effort is pointless, like ever more elaborate teacher appreciation days. The PTA activities are nice but in NO WAY provide what at-risk kids need. What active high SES parents are successful at sometimes is exerting pressure to get rid of teachers/admins/even kids they don’t like. But if only 30% (what we can expect given Watkins results) they aren’t even going to be able to do that. Most of what looks like a “good school” for a high SES school is just teachers teaching to a higher median.

The PTO at my kids' CH school guarantees that all FARMS-eligible students can have free before/aftercare & helps subsidize a sliding scale on top of that. They also guarantee kids who can't afford it get at least one free enrichment activity a week and they cover reading/math tutoring for all students for whom cost is a barrier. I'd guess the price tag just for all of those efforts to be $40K? In any case, that's not even counting initiatives that benefit all students, it's only the most important things specifically aimed at low income families. So while I 100% agree that DCPS money matters more, I totally disagree that PTO efforts are all/largely performative.

At a Title 1 school that would be paid for; and it’s not a substitute for smaller class size, more interventionists, and better curriculum. But sure, if DME’s goal is “get rid of Title 1 money and replace with PTA fundraising for after care” … go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

lol now I really want to know where Billy will send his kids to school …

I am pretty sure he lotteried them out of Miner and into Ludlow.

please let this be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of DME's states goals is to reduce what is perceived as an excessive concentration of at-risk kids at Miner. Know what the first antonym in Webster's is for "concentration"? "DILUTION".

Funny that so many Miner families are OK with the rationale for the cluster (excess concentration) but scream RACISM RACISM RACISM at diluting that overconcentration.

I have to assume you are the person who said this at the DME meeting, because these defenses are getting silly.

Yes, dilution is an antonym of concentration. But there is something called context and connotation.

Then DME refers to a concentration of at risk kids as an issue of resources for a school. At risk kids need more resources, and when you have a large concentration of at risk kids, it place a strain on available resources.

Meanwhile, the comment that the cluster will "dilute" Maury isn't directly about the resources needed to education kids. It's about the kids themselves. This phrasing implies that there is something inherently good about Maury's current demographics, and that shifting those demographics through the introduction of more at risk kids will have a negative impact on the student body itself. Not that it will strain resources but that the mere presence of these children will be harmful.

I cannot believe you are still defending this.

I can’t believe that you are still arguing that a single, accurate word that directly states the DME’s theory is offensive. DME wants to lower the concentration, ie dilute, of low SES and high SES students at Miner and Maury respectively. That is literally the plan.

[Anonymous]

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….

The Maury parents who were active at the school prior and during the renovation really did put in the work. They did a great job building a school community that was positive and proactive, and that led to an involved PTO when the renovation happened, which resulted in a great school, plus Maury was able to retain IB buy in during the relocation phase, which can be challenging. Hill East used to be considerably less affluent so many of the families who did that work were just middle class families with a passion for public education and neighborhood schools. They really did put in the work.

Many of the people now IB for Maury simply had the cash to afford it and the know-how to evaluate schools (though truthfully, you don't need to be a genius to look up test scores and at risk percentages for Hill elementaries and conclude that Maury is a desirable school). This is not a knock on them -- nothing wrong with doing this. But some of the "put in the work" complaints from Maury families angry about this proposal are disingenuous. They didn't do anything but write a check and then choose to send their kid to the already well regarded inbound school in the nice facility.

Look, I think the cluster idea is bad and will hurt Maury and those kids. I think DME is taking a lazy approach and misapplying equity to mean closing the achievement gap mostly by lowering results from the better "whiter" school. But...all this talk about "doing the work" is BS. The work that was done was gentrification (which I don't view as a negative) of the IB area. Areas with more money have kids with more ECE advantages, more supplementation and more options for MS and HS if Maury or the MS lottery don't work out.

Agree and disagree. Some of the work is gentrification. But we have low IB even with gentrification in some places. So a combination of IB parents and the school initially do have to do some work to get the first cohorts to increase IB enrollment. But I agree that a lot of “do the work” people have a bit of an inflated sense of the “work.” The “work” of the IB school admins is probably equally or more important.

[Anonymous]

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.

Are you suggesting Maury families chose and hired the Principal?

Parents are always on the selection committee. And yes, I think a well-organized Miner parent contingent could extert enough pressure to demand that the next principal panel have some great candidates with the necessary skills who get the message that IB recruitment is a key goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of DME's states goals is to reduce what is perceived as an excessive concentration of at-risk kids at Miner. Know what the first antonym in Webster's is for "concentration"? "DILUTION".

Funny that so many Miner families are OK with the rationale for the cluster (excess concentration) but scream RACISM RACISM RACISM at diluting that overconcentration.

I have to assume you are the person who said this at the DME meeting, because these defenses are getting silly.

Yes, dilution is an antonym of concentration. But there is something called context and connotation.

Then DME refers to a concentration of at risk kids as an issue of resources for a school. At risk kids need more resources, and when you have a large concentration of at risk kids, it place a strain on available resources.

Meanwhile, the comment that the cluster will "dilute" Maury isn't directly about the resources needed to education kids. It's about the kids themselves. This phrasing implies that there is something inherently good about Maury's current demographics, and that shifting those demographics through the introduction of more at risk kids will have a negative impact on the student body itself. Not that it will strain resources but that the mere presence of these children will be harmful.

I cannot believe you are still defending this.

Not the person who said it at meeting; I didn't attend. I pointed out the plain meaning of the word you've tried very hard to make loaded and racist and you fell back on "yes, but context". Yes, context matters. In this case the context of the word was in addressing DME's stated goal to address concentration. In that context, considering the other side of that equation (dilution) is logical.

But here's the thing, even if that word could be read otherwise, why do you get to lecture everyone else about how they need to consider context and connotation but somehow you aren't burdened by that same obligation and consideration? You got all up in your feelings before you realized DME's goal was in fact dilution of UMC and low at-risk populations. You screamed "racism" and now, when faced with plain meaning of words, you can't get out of your own way and consider context or connotation.

I never got up in my feelings nor did I ever scream "racism" at anyone.

The context and connotation of the person using the word "dilution" at that meeting was to express the fear that Maury's current population would be diluted by too many at risk kids. I thought it was an inappropriate comment then and I still think so now. Reading this thread has only made it more clear for me that many in the Miner community actively fear welcoming at risk students into their community. My opinion on this has not changed, nor has my understanding of what words mean.

I really think you and the Maury community would do a lot better to simply issue a mea culpa here, admit that talk like that is not productive, and find better, less offensive ways to object to the cluster if that's what you want to do. Continually doubling down on this or becoming angry with people for taking offense at comments that were intended to be offensive isn't helping anyone.

I don't know how to deal with people like you. The bolded that you suggest is some nefarious plot is quite literally DME's stated goal!!! The two sides of the coin here are dilute (or disburse if you prefer) UMC class kids from Maury and at the same time dilute (or disburse) at-risk kids and special ed kids from Miner. That is literally what is happening here!!!!!! If those concepts are offensive to you then aim your fire at DME and not at Maury families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of DME's states goals is to reduce what is perceived as an excessive concentration of at-risk kids at Miner. Know what the first antonym in Webster's is for "concentration"? "DILUTION".

Funny that so many Miner families are OK with the rationale for the cluster (excess concentration) but scream RACISM RACISM RACISM at diluting that overconcentration.

I have to assume you are the person who said this at the DME meeting, because these defenses are getting silly.

Yes, dilution is an antonym of concentration. But there is something called context and connotation.

Then DME refers to a concentration of at risk kids as an issue of resources for a school. At risk kids need more resources, and when you have a large concentration of at risk kids, it place a strain on available resources.

Meanwhile, the comment that the cluster will "dilute" Maury isn't directly about the resources needed to education kids. It's about the kids themselves. This phrasing implies that there is something inherently good about Maury's current demographics, and that shifting those demographics through the introduction of more at risk kids will have a negative impact on the student body itself. Not that it will strain resources but that the mere presence of these children will be harmful.

I cannot believe you are still defending this.

Not the person who said it at meeting; I didn't attend. I pointed out the plain meaning of the word you've tried very hard to make loaded and racist and you fell back on "yes, but context". Yes, context matters. In this case the context of the word was in addressing DME's stated goal to address concentration. In that context, considering the other side of that equation (dilution) is logical.

But here's the thing, even if that word could be read otherwise, why do you get to lecture everyone else about how they need to consider context and connotation but somehow you aren't burdened by that same obligation and consideration? You got all up in your feelings before you realized DME's goal was in fact dilution of UMC and low at-risk populations. You screamed "racism" and now, when faced with plain meaning of words, you can't get out of your own way and consider context or connotation.

I’m really going to love it if the person who wants to denounce a verb is the same one who moved to Bethesda or lotteried into LT from Miner …

[Anonymous]

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.

Are you suggesting Maury families chose and hired the Principal?

Parents are always on the selection committee. And yes, I think a well-organized Miner parent contingent could extert enough pressure to demand that the next principal panel have some great candidates with the necessary skills who get the message that IB recruitment is a key goal.

You must be new here. Bolded is not something anyone in DCPS would ever be allowed to say out loud. It would be received as racist and against equity. The SJW and "activists" who are so very present on DCUM would converge and destroy. Find me one principal candidate anywhere who has ever stated that as a goal and was hired. I'd also suggest that LT is a good example of how a school succeeds in spite of principals. They've been through a few and some have been loathed. The community has succeeded in spite of, not because of.

The Miner community that argues that UMC Maury parents are entitled and elitist would implode if anyone suggested IB participation was a goal.

You honestly have no clue what you are talking about.