Maury Capitol Hill

[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’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 …

How great would that be?

[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’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 …

You are going to be sad to discover, then, that there are many people who were offended by that word.

You are also going o be disappointed to learn that not everyone who was bothered by that comment, and by many of the comments on here, is in favor of a cluster. In fact, most Miner families still have no firm opinion on a cluster, because we haven't been consulted.

But while the DME wasn't consulting us, Maury parents were trashing Miner and fearing "dilution" of their pristine school with our kids. And that's on those parents whatever happens with the cluster.

It is depressing that those of you who continue to defend this language and behavior can't simply recognize that you were reacting emotionally to the DME's proposal (which I and other Miner families believe has been hastily conceived and pushed, just like you do) and used language and said things that were disparaging of the Miner community. It would be amazing if you could have the self-awareness and self-reflection to just say "you know what, we can do better -- sorry for these comments and we'll be more thoughtful about our neighbors moving forward."

And before you spin out again, I have never called anyone at Maury a racist and I do understand the concerns people at Maury have about this proposal. I have treated you with a respect you haven't bothered to reserve for me or my children or the other families at Miner. So maybe take a moment to consider that before you reply.

[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 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.

I agreed with you that DCPS money is more important. But I totally disagree that PTO efforts amount to more TA events. And no, Title 1 schools rarely have afterschool enrichment programs nor afterschool tutoring efforts like what our school has, not even close. (OSTP is fine, but pretty bare bones.) And, if a T1 school does have those programs (e.g., Payne), it's almost certainly because of their PTO/equivalent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can find him on Twitter/X. His kids are definitely at Ludlow now. I believe they used to be at Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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’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 …

You are going to be sad to discover, then, that there are many people who were offended by that word.

You are also going o be disappointed to learn that not everyone who was bothered by that comment, and by many of the comments on here, is in favor of a cluster. In fact, most Miner families still have no firm opinion on a cluster, because we haven't been consulted.

But while the DME wasn't consulting us, Maury parents were trashing Miner and fearing "dilution" of their pristine school with our kids. And that's on those parents whatever happens with the cluster.

It is depressing that those of you who continue to defend this language and behavior can't simply recognize that you were reacting emotionally to the DME's proposal (which I and other Miner families believe has been hastily conceived and pushed, just like you do) and used language and said things that were disparaging of the Miner community. It would be amazing if you could have the self-awareness and self-reflection to just say "you know what, we can do better -- sorry for these comments and we'll be more thoughtful about our neighbors moving forward."

And before you spin out again, I have never called anyone at Maury a racist and I do understand the concerns people at Maury have about this proposal. I have treated you with a respect you haven't bothered to reserve for me or my children or the other families at Miner. So maybe take a moment to consider that before you reply.

People like you amuse me. You'd rather have us blow smoke and use consultant speak than be honest. You don't really object to our "language", you object to our opinion. You aren't willing to debate policy desires and outcomes so you hide behind your feelings and the language police. It is ok for me to state my policy position even if it offends you. Over the last few years people like you have been coddled into thinking that other people can't say what they mean if it makes you mad or sad or offended. That's not how life or public policy works. It's just how you've been brainwashed to think it works in a world gone mad.

Accusing people of getting "emotional" or "spinning out" is mansplaining 101. You remind me of teenager who are exposed for their ignorance and scream "triggered" because it is all they have. Setting aside for a moment these are age old devices to diminish someone else's beliefs instead of addressing the substance of what they say, public education and my kids are by definition subjects about which I am very much emotionally invested. Any reaction will of course be emotional. The irony of people like you objecting to a word USED PROPERLY because of how it makes them feel and then accusing others of being emotional is laughable.

DME's proposal is designed to reduce concentrations of UMC kids and dilute concentrations of at risk. That is fact. I object to that goal and the proposal because I think it will result reduction is quality of education at Maury and for my kids. You can disagree. You can argue it may do that but it is better for your Miner kids, or for DC public education in general. But you don't want to have tat conversation. You quite literally suggested that instead of taking direct aim at the stated goal and implementation you want me instead to pretend like this is about commutes or some other pretend talking point. It isn't (at least for me). This is DCPS doing what it does; "closing the achievement gap" by bringing down scores to equalize them with already lousy scores.

Why are your opinions valid and our are not?

[Anonymous]

So just for the record, I watched the stupid DME Maury meeting again and this is what was actually said:

"And so while it'd be great to take things at Maury that are awesome and extrapolate that out throughout the rest of the district, what would be sad is to take what's good at Maury and dilute it. And so I really want everyone to consider that as they look forward to how we can best affect all of DC, as we can help all children throughout the district. It's not to take a school working really, really well and make it different, it's to take a school that's working really, really well and try to extrapolate what's good about that out."

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have a quick link to the meeting? I know it's in this thread, but after 116 pages, things are hard to find!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a quick link to the meeting? I know it's in this thread, but after 116 pages, things are hard to find!

https://dme.dc.gov/node/1693206

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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’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 …

You are going to be sad to discover, then, that there are many people who were offended by that word.

You are also going o be disappointed to learn that not everyone who was bothered by that comment, and by many of the comments on here, is in favor of a cluster. In fact, most Miner families still have no firm opinion on a cluster, because we haven't been consulted.

But while the DME wasn't consulting us, Maury parents were trashing Miner and fearing "dilution" of their pristine school with our kids. And that's on those parents whatever happens with the cluster.

It is depressing that those of you who continue to defend this language and behavior can't simply recognize that you were reacting emotionally to the DME's proposal (which I and other Miner families believe has been hastily conceived and pushed, just like you do) and used language and said things that were disparaging of the Miner community. It would be amazing if you could have the self-awareness and self-reflection to just say "you know what, we can do better -- sorry for these comments and we'll be more thoughtful about our neighbors moving forward."

And before you spin out again, I have never called anyone at Maury a racist and I do understand the concerns people at Maury have about this proposal. I have treated you with a respect you haven't bothered to reserve for me or my children or the other families at Miner. So maybe take a moment to consider that before you reply.

I don’t understand why you are so fixated on an (accurate!) word as opposed to the content. If your position is that any Maury parent who objects to the cluster because it would increase the percentage of at-risk kids is racist and offensive? Or is it just the word “dilute” that is offensive?

And you’re also ignoring the other way the word had been used, which is to refer to the fact that the DME’s only plan is to reduce the concentration of (ie dilute) at-risk kids at Miner. I think a plan that rests solely on “reducing the concentration of” is ridiculous and never going to actually work to directly help the kids at Miner, and is actually somewhat offensive itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just for the record, I watched the stupid DME Maury meeting again and this is what was actually said:

"And so while it'd be great to take things at Maury that are awesome and extrapolate that out throughout the rest of the district, what would be sad is to take what's good at Maury and dilute it. And so I really want everyone to consider that as they look forward to how we can best affect all of DC, as we can help all children throughout the district. It's not to take a school working really, really well and make it different, it's to take a school that's working really, really well and try to extrapolate what's good about that out."

There is nothing offensive about that comment. For someone to object shows how laughable you are.

[Anonymous]

I do really like the idea of Maury classes doing some events/projects with LT or Miner classes. It's always fun to see all the schools at something like the bike-to-school kick off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do really like the idea of Maury classes doing some events/projects with LT or Miner classes. It's always fun to see all the schools at something like the bike-to-school kick off.

Very hard to imagine Maury and Miner collaborating on something like that at this point. The Maury files would obviously view it as charity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do really like the idea of Maury classes doing some events/projects with LT or Miner classes. It's always fun to see all the schools at something like the bike-to-school kick off.

maury families are scared of the miner neighborhood, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do really like the idea of Maury classes doing some events/projects with LT or Miner classes. It's always fun to see all the schools at something like the bike-to-school kick off.

Very hard to imagine Maury and Miner collaborating on something like that at this point. The Maury files would obviously view it as charity.

Based on this thread my guess is Miner would both complain that Maury won't have anything to do with them while refusing to participate because it's condescending for Maury kids to get together with them. Much of this feels like an exercise in martyrdom. So many would rather whine and complain about being "made to feel less than" than pick a fight with DCPS and DME about persistent failures at and of Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do really like the idea of Maury classes doing some events/projects with LT or Miner classes. It's always fun to see all the schools at something like the bike-to-school kick off.

maury families are scared of the miner neighborhood, apparently.

Some of it, yes. The time has passed in DC when you can get away with playing the racism card against people who fear crime and avoid areas with empirically higher crime rates.

Or does being a victim of crime make me more of an "ally"?