Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Alternatively -- a world in which poor people who live in Ward 6 are better served by Ward 6 schools because they are good across the board instead of becoming landing places for poor children from the entire East side.

We're not talking about getting the at risk percentage to zero, we're talking about getting it down to a manageable percentage that actually allows schools to serve both at risk and non-at-risk at the same time.

I love these Miner parents who are trying to sell this half-cocked plan by any means necessary.

Not a Miner parent -- a Ward 6 parent who sees the benefit to having an entire Ward full of strong schools instead of a Ward with a few strong elementaries and that's it. The current situation doesn't really serve us very well, does it? We've got three middling, weak middle schools with limited buy-in, and a high school almost no one in the Ward will send their kids to. We love our elementary school but... then what? I'm not enthusiastic about sending my kid up to Latin or BASIS -- I'd prefer a neighborhood school. We'll probably do SH but don't view Eastern as a viable option. But it's hard to ever make the MSs and HS great if we still have so many weak elementaries in the Ward. So yes, I'm very invested in the idea that Miner and other schools can improve, and I'm absolutely open to out-of-the-box ideas for how that might happen. Even though we aren't IB for Miner and won't go there, having a good school there could be a net benefit.

“A Ward full of strong schools” does not begin with dismantling one of the three schools that have, over the past 10 years, managed to succeed at attracting a majority of IB families and forcing that school into a failed Cluster model that has made it impossible to attract IB families at a different Ward 6 school.

No one has suggested dismantling Maury. The suggestion is to combine it with Miner.

Now, the Maury families threatening to abandon the school of this happens are the ones capable of "dismantling" Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Alternatively -- a world in which poor people who live in Ward 6 are better served by Ward 6 schools because they are good across the board instead of becoming landing places for poor children from the entire East side.

We're not talking about getting the at risk percentage to zero, we're talking about getting it down to a manageable percentage that actually allows schools to serve both at risk and non-at-risk at the same time.

Got it. So we’re just getting rid of the Ward 8 poors.

If you're a Maury parent, this is such a weird thing to say. So you want elementaries filled with at-risk kids from across the river in the neighborhood, but just not at your school? Why?

Do people want more IB buy-in or not? I want more IB buy-in, on a ward-wide basis. I want what they have in Ward 3, which is a whole triangle of strong schools. They didn't get that by investing in Janney but saying "screw it, let Murch burn." Because they both feed to Deal so ideally they'll both be strong.

Then INVEST IN MINER!

Again, IB families TRIED to get momentum going at Miner and DCPS made it impossible through a series of bone-headed moves. There are plenty of “non-poor” children in the Miner catchment but they all flee Miner because Miner has been an administrative mess. Fix that problem.

We are not IB for Miner and my kids don't go there.

But yours might soon, so you'll get a chance to sort these problems out-- sounds like you have some ideas already!

So you’re a troll in addition to having dumb ideas. Thanks for your contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Alternatively -- a world in which poor people who live in Ward 6 are better served by Ward 6 schools because they are good across the board instead of becoming landing places for poor children from the entire East side.

We're not talking about getting the at risk percentage to zero, we're talking about getting it down to a manageable percentage that actually allows schools to serve both at risk and non-at-risk at the same time.

I love these Miner parents who are trying to sell this half-cocked plan by any means necessary.

Not a Miner parent -- a Ward 6 parent who sees the benefit to having an entire Ward full of strong schools instead of a Ward with a few strong elementaries and that's it. The current situation doesn't really serve us very well, does it? We've got three middling, weak middle schools with limited buy-in, and a high school almost no one in the Ward will send their kids to. We love our elementary school but... then what? I'm not enthusiastic about sending my kid up to Latin or BASIS -- I'd prefer a neighborhood school. We'll probably do SH but don't view Eastern as a viable option. But it's hard to ever make the MSs and HS great if we still have so many weak elementaries in the Ward. So yes, I'm very invested in the idea that Miner and other schools can improve, and I'm absolutely open to out-of-the-box ideas for how that might happen. Even though we aren't IB for Miner and won't go there, having a good school there could be a net benefit.

“A Ward full of strong schools” does not begin with dismantling one of the three schools that have, over the past 10 years, managed to succeed at attracting a majority of IB families and forcing that school into a failed Cluster model that has made it impossible to attract IB families at a different Ward 6 school.

No one has suggested dismantling Maury. The suggestion is to combine it with Miner.

Now, the Maury families threatening to abandon the school of this happens are the ones capable of "dismantling" Maury.

Combining the schools and spreading them across two campuses half a mile apart is indeed dismantling Maury.

- Watkins parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a subset of current families at Maury who very specifically and intentionally moved into the boundary in order to attend one of the “best” public elementary schools in DC. It's maybe contributing to the NIMBYism.

Yes, that's what parents do all over the country. Move to a specific neighborhood for the schools.

Yes but there's a difference between moving somewhere for a specific school district, or even a specific school triangle, and moving somewhere for a specific elementary. Especially in DC where elementary schools are small and boundaries often cut through neighborhoods, as is the case with Maury and Miner.

The NIMBYism in this situation is extra strange to me because these two elementaries feed to the same MS, which families at Maury are currently actively trying to improve. Moving into the Maury boundary while KNOWING that there is an elementary school a half mile away with essentially the opposite demographics and outcomes, and then being surprised when the suggested solutions for this problem impact the school you bought in-boundary for, reflects some ignorance about how school districts work. Districts are always seeking to balance populations, whether it's moving kids around to address overcrowding, balancing demographics, or trying to create feeder patterns that make sense.

In any case, there is a version of this cluster idea that could actually be an opportunity for Maury and Miner IB families to join forces and create two great schools that then feed to the same middle school. But it sounds like the vision for greatness at Maury is as much about who they keep out (poor kids, SpEd kids, at risk kids) as what they actually do at the school, so they do not feel up to that taks with a much more racially and socioeconomically diverse population.

Can you in any way demonstrate or provide anything other than vibes a feels that the Maury and Miner could "join forces and create two great schools"?

Maury parents would be for it! Spoiler: There's nothing but vibes and feels.

Premise #1: If Miner could get it's at risk percentage under 40%, it could more easily gear programming and resources towards a socioeconomically diverse student body.

Premise #2: If Miner could get its at risk percentage under 40%, it could more easily attract IB families who currently avoid the school because of the belief that most resources and programming at the school will be geared towards its large at risk population.

Premise #3: If Miner and Maury combined and Maury retained its current family composition, even before increasing IB buy-in for Miner, the at risk percentage for the combined school would be 33%.

Premise #4: The willingness of Maury families to stay at the combined school would attract IB Miner families the school, further dropping the at risk percentage and increasing programming and resources that could be aimed at non-at-risk students at both schools.

Permise #5: As the largest feeder to EH, families from the Miner-Maury cluster would have more influence over the culture and programming at EH, and be able to more effectively advocate for tracking that would further better serve students by meeting them where they were at.

Conclusion: A Miner-Maury cluster with buy in from both school's boundaries could not only produce two elementary schools with a favorable demographic balance, but could also help produce a MS with the same. While the cluster would initially change demographics at Maury in a way that would present challenges, the majority of students would still be high SES, and if the schools could retain existing families and build IB buy-n a the Miner zone, the benefits to both school communities in the form of a larger community of committed, IB, high SES families supporting multiple strong elementary schools and a strong neighborhood, by-right middle school would ultimately benefit Maury families more than the present situation, in which they have a very strong elementary that feeds to a struggling MS and HS, forcing many Maury families to turn to charters and other non-neighborhood options for MS and HS.

But the whole thing would hinge on Maury families being on board and Miner IB families being willing to buy in. I think the latter is likely if you get the former, but the former is unlikely based on what we've heard from the Maury community thus far.

I can't find it now, but I remember an earlier post making that point that the "at-risk" designation doesn't exactly correlate with the poverty rate/Title I eligibility. But I can't find data on the latter, so I will stick with this number. If the combined school is 33% at-risk (Premise #3), doesn't that indicate that Title I eligibility is very unlikely for, at a minimum, the lower school? You argue that combining the schools will increase resources to Miner students -- but will it actually? Nothing you say indicates that resources will increase for Maury students (except perhaps Title I funding in the upper school); in fact, it seems most likely to me that resources for the bulk of Maury students will decrease as more resources are dedicated the huge influx of below–grade level students.

The school-wide at-risk percentage also seems not that useful a data point. I think we all agree that the at-risk proportion is lowest in the early grades (at both schools) and increases in the higher grades -- most markedly at fifth grade. In a combined school, the fifth grade would be over 50% at-risk. I think this undermines your Premise #5 concerning EH. It is already a challenge to keep high-SES and/or education-focused at the IB (Miner OR Maury) through the end of 5th. I think the cluster would lead to increased attrition at 5th and will likely reverse some of the progress EH has made -- with negative effects across the hill.

Premise #2 and Premise #4 both come down to attracting more IB Miner families, which you say in Premise #4 will further drop the at-risk percentage of the combined school. But we've been told over and over on this thread that increasing IB participation for Miner wouldn't help decrease the at-risk percentage because the current Miner population mirrors the boundary population.

I'm also not sure about this statement: "the majority of students would still be high SES." Again, that depends on what grade you're looking at, but I also wonder what you mean by "high SES"? Do you just mean anyone who is not at-risk? Or is there data about how many students at Maury and Miner are middle SES versus high SES? (It may be that there is -- I have such trouble finding DCPS data sometimes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Right? The "30%" at-risk ideal doesn't make a lot of sense in a DCPS that is around 50% at-risk -- especially considering that we've got a group of schools up NW way that have a very small at-risk percentage (much smaller than Maury's). Is PP's ideal school system one in which upper NW is 5% at-risk, the Capitol Hill-ish area schools are all 30% at-risk, and the rest of the schools in the system are, what? Where are all the at-risk kids going? What level should Brookland schools be at? Can schools east of the river be majority at-risk, which is so unacceptable for Miner that we have to fundamentally reconfigure Maury? It's okay, because EOTR schools aren't that close to Capitol Hill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Alternatively -- a world in which poor people who live in Ward 6 are better served by Ward 6 schools because they are good across the board instead of becoming landing places for poor children from the entire East side.

We're not talking about getting the at risk percentage to zero, we're talking about getting it down to a manageable percentage that actually allows schools to serve both at risk and non-at-risk at the same time.

The borders of Ward 6 are every bit as arbitrary as the borders of the Maury and Miner zones.

While we're at it, by my reckoning the at-risk percentage across CH schools is about 25%, so the proposed cluster overcorrects Maury by quite a bit. If we correct SWS, Peabody, LT, CHMS, and most of all Brent up to 25%, that would be much more fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Alternatively -- a world in which poor people who live in Ward 6 are better served by Ward 6 schools because they are good across the board instead of becoming landing places for poor children from the entire East side.

We're not talking about getting the at risk percentage to zero, we're talking about getting it down to a manageable percentage that actually allows schools to serve both at risk and non-at-risk at the same time.

I love these Miner parents who are trying to sell this half-cocked plan by any means necessary.

Not a Miner parent -- a Ward 6 parent who sees the benefit to having an entire Ward full of strong schools instead of a Ward with a few strong elementaries and that's it. The current situation doesn't really serve us very well, does it? We've got three middling, weak middle schools with limited buy-in, and a high school almost no one in the Ward will send their kids to. We love our elementary school but... then what? I'm not enthusiastic about sending my kid up to Latin or BASIS -- I'd prefer a neighborhood school. We'll probably do SH but don't view Eastern as a viable option. But it's hard to ever make the MSs and HS great if we still have so many weak elementaries in the Ward. So yes, I'm very invested in the idea that Miner and other schools can improve, and I'm absolutely open to out-of-the-box ideas for how that might happen. Even though we aren't IB for Miner and won't go there, having a good school there could be a net benefit.

“A Ward full of strong schools” does not begin with dismantling one of the three schools that have, over the past 10 years, managed to succeed at attracting a majority of IB families and forcing that school into a failed Cluster model that has made it impossible to attract IB families at a different Ward 6 school.

No one has suggested dismantling Maury. The suggestion is to combine it with Miner.

Now, the Maury families threatening to abandon the school of this happens are the ones capable of "dismantling" Maury.

Combining the schools and spreading them across two campuses half a mile apart is indeed dismantling Maury.

- Watkins parent

+1 logistics are everything when they are that age. My kids also went through the cluster, when there was a bus. We closed out aftercare basically every day. If I’d had to get to two schools for pickup, I would have lotteried out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

A lot of dilution is called for in PP’s post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a subset of current families at Maury who very specifically and intentionally moved into the boundary in order to attend one of the “best” public elementary schools in DC. It's maybe contributing to the NIMBYism.

Yes, that's what parents do all over the country. Move to a specific neighborhood for the schools.

Yes but there's a difference between moving somewhere for a specific school district, or even a specific school triangle, and moving somewhere for a specific elementary. Especially in DC where elementary schools are small and boundaries often cut through neighborhoods, as is the case with Maury and Miner.

The NIMBYism in this situation is extra strange to me because these two elementaries feed to the same MS, which families at Maury are currently actively trying to improve. Moving into the Maury boundary while KNOWING that there is an elementary school a half mile away with essentially the opposite demographics and outcomes, and then being surprised when the suggested solutions for this problem impact the school you bought in-boundary for, reflects some ignorance about how school districts work. Districts are always seeking to balance populations, whether it's moving kids around to address overcrowding, balancing demographics, or trying to create feeder patterns that make sense.

In any case, there is a version of this cluster idea that could actually be an opportunity for Maury and Miner IB families to join forces and create two great schools that then feed to the same middle school. But it sounds like the vision for greatness at Maury is as much about who they keep out (poor kids, SpEd kids, at risk kids) as what they actually do at the school, so they do not feel up to that taks with a much more racially and socioeconomically diverse population.

It's not that strange. Most people move to the city for the convenience, and figure they'll pay for private school in exchange. If they can save on elementary and then move to private for MS, most people will jump for that? The Maury boundary was always lower priced than other Hill areas because it's relatively inconvenient, so if you don't have a lot of money and need time to save for private MS, then it was a great boundary to buy in. If you could afford to buy better, you'd buy in NW and go private for HS, or at least Brent and then send to private MS.

Most people in the city do not sen their kids to private for MS and HS. Not even most MC and UMC people.

Where are you getting this data?

[Anonymous]

To me it's clear something needs to be done to lower the at risk percentage at Miner. I understand the objections to the cluster, but you can make similar objections to any proposal.

It feels like a lot of people are basically arguing for the status quo, which means Miner remains a school with a lot of at risk kids who it ultimately fails.

It feels like no matter what is proposed, it will be rejected as infeasible, and nothing will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Alternatively -- a world in which poor people who live in Ward 6 are better served by Ward 6 schools because they are good across the board instead of becoming landing places for poor children from the entire East side.

We're not talking about getting the at risk percentage to zero, we're talking about getting it down to a manageable percentage that actually allows schools to serve both at risk and non-at-risk at the same time.

Got it. So we’re just getting rid of the Ward 8 poors.

If you're a Maury parent, this is such a weird thing to say. So you want elementaries filled with at-risk kids from across the river in the neighborhood, but just not at your school? Why?

Do people want more IB buy-in or not? I want more IB buy-in, on a ward-wide basis. I want what they have in Ward 3, which is a whole triangle of strong schools. They didn't get that by investing in Janney but saying "screw it, let Murch burn." Because they both feed to Deal so ideally they'll both be strong.

Then INVEST IN MINER!

Again, IB families TRIED to get momentum going at Miner and DCPS made it impossible through a series of bone-headed moves. There are plenty of “non-poor” children in the Miner catchment but they all flee Miner because Miner has been an administrative mess. Fix that problem.

This. One of the primary problems with a Maury/Miner cluster is that you will also inherit the administrative problems of Miner. That has nothing to do with any Miner families and everything to do with DME and DCPS. I'd fix that issue first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a subset of current families at Maury who very specifically and intentionally moved into the boundary in order to attend one of the “best” public elementary schools in DC. It's maybe contributing to the NIMBYism.

Yes, that's what parents do all over the country. Move to a specific neighborhood for the schools.

Yes but there's a difference between moving somewhere for a specific school district, or even a specific school triangle, and moving somewhere for a specific elementary. Especially in DC where elementary schools are small and boundaries often cut through neighborhoods, as is the case with Maury and Miner.

The NIMBYism in this situation is extra strange to me because these two elementaries feed to the same MS, which families at Maury are currently actively trying to improve. Moving into the Maury boundary while KNOWING that there is an elementary school a half mile away with essentially the opposite demographics and outcomes, and then being surprised when the suggested solutions for this problem impact the school you bought in-boundary for, reflects some ignorance about how school districts work. Districts are always seeking to balance populations, whether it's moving kids around to address overcrowding, balancing demographics, or trying to create feeder patterns that make sense.

In any case, there is a version of this cluster idea that could actually be an opportunity for Maury and Miner IB families to join forces and create two great schools that then feed to the same middle school. But it sounds like the vision for greatness at Maury is as much about who they keep out (poor kids, SpEd kids, at risk kids) as what they actually do at the school, so they do not feel up to that taks with a much more racially and socioeconomically diverse population.

It's not that strange. Most people move to the city for the convenience, and figure they'll pay for private school in exchange. If they can save on elementary and then move to private for MS, most people will jump for that? The Maury boundary was always lower priced than other Hill areas because it's relatively inconvenient, so if you don't have a lot of money and need time to save for private MS, then it was a great boundary to buy in. If you could afford to buy better, you'd buy in NW and go private for HS, or at least Brent and then send to private MS.

Most people in the city do not sen their kids to private for MS and HS. Not even most MC and UMC people.

Where are you getting this data?

https://edscape.dc.gov/page/pop-and-students-private-school-enrollment

About 15% of kids in DC attend private schools, including nursery school through 12th grade.

It doesn't break it down by socioecomic status but does break it down by Ward, which can be used as a proxy for socioeconomic status. In ward 3, the city's wealthiest ward, 47% of student attend private schools. So in ward 3, it's possible that more MS and HS students attend private than not, depending on how those numbers are allocated by grade level.

However, in Wards 1 and 6 where many of the city's MC and UMC families live, just 16% of students attend privates, making it a statistical impossibility for most MS and HS students to attend private schools. The percent is even lower in other wards.

Also, a factor not captured by these numbers is the percent of DC students who are moved out of the city at MS or HS to attend suburban public schools. Even if the numbers at the link supported the premise that the majority of MC and UMC MS and HS students in DC were at privates (it doesn't), if a considerable numbers of students are leaving the district for 6th or 9th grade, you could not argue that "most" MC and UMC families send their kids to private, since a considerable portion keep them in public school, just not in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

I am against the cluster but not against boundary adjustments to increase the low SES population. I think doubling or tripling could be ok but only with additional resources! And not as a cluster - big NO to that. DME needs to learn how to draw lines better to tweak the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Data point: Payne is doing overall really well recently. It is 34% at-risk.

Imagine if Payne continued this trajectory and a Miner-Maury cluster got it's at risk percentage to 30% or less. Then imagine EH gets its at risk percentage down to 30% or less. Now look at the trajectory of LT, and the potential for JOW to capitalize on the decline of Two Rivers and its new building to follow suit, and the impact this could have on SH. Now consider that Amidon-Bowen has also received increased neighborhood buy-in recently and is ALSO slated for an upcoming renovation, and it feeds to Jefferson along with Brent.

Now remember all of this happens and what the impact could be on Eastern High School.

But it requires families in Ward 6 to work together, instead of being pitted against each other. It means acting in collective interest instead of individual self-interest. Which is the entire premise behind public education.

I love the idyllic picture you have painted of a world in which we have managed to get rid of most of the poors.

Alternatively -- a world in which poor people who live in Ward 6 are better served by Ward 6 schools because they are good across the board instead of becoming landing places for poor children from the entire East side.

We're not talking about getting the at risk percentage to zero, we're talking about getting it down to a manageable percentage that actually allows schools to serve both at risk and non-at-risk at the same time.

Got it. So we’re just getting rid of the Ward 8 poors.

If you're a Maury parent, this is such a weird thing to say. So you want elementaries filled with at-risk kids from across the river in the neighborhood, but just not at your school? Why?

Do people want more IB buy-in or not? I want more IB buy-in, on a ward-wide basis. I want what they have in Ward 3, which is a whole triangle of strong schools. They didn't get that by investing in Janney but saying "screw it, let Murch burn." Because they both feed to Deal so ideally they'll both be strong.

Then INVEST IN MINER!

Again, IB families TRIED to get momentum going at Miner and DCPS made it impossible through a series of bone-headed moves. There are plenty of “non-poor” children in the Miner catchment but they all flee Miner because Miner has been an administrative mess. Fix that problem.

This. One of the primary problems with a Maury/Miner cluster is that you will also inherit the administrative problems of Miner. That has nothing to do with any Miner families and everything to do with DME and DCPS. I'd fix that issue first.

What administrator wants to take on a role where the community the school is located in wants the school to change, to attract more IB families and improve test scores, but the majority of attending families (a large percentage of whom do not live in the community) want the school to stay the same and actively dislike changes that might make the school more attractive to IB families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is also common practice to re-evaluate school boundaries.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/economic-disparities-in-the-washington-d-c-metro-region-provide-opportunities-for-policy-action/#:~:text=In%20Washington%2C%20D.C.%20specifically%2C%20the,Black%20residents%2C%20which%20is%20%2445%2C072.

this is NOT re-evaluating school boundaries. It’s destroying two schools to create a model that has been shown not to work as intended on the Hill.