Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

the problem with your analysis is that #1 and #2 are completely theoretical and yes “vibes” based, with the exception of a handful of shaky studies with a million confounders. There’s no good evidence that merely reducing the concentration of low-SES students improves their education, and that a single classroom with such big gaps can be taught to the needs of all students. Meanwhile DCPS discourages or forbids methods that would allow for tracking and fails to examine what the lower SES kids actually need in terms of instruction. The theory is literally ALL VIBES.

#1 and #2 are not theoretical.

Look at test scores in DCPS schools based on percent of at risk students. It's a direct correlation.

Look at the test scores of the at-risk students in those schools - is there really a difference? If so, how do you demonstrate the difference is due to reducing the concentration of at-risk kids, and how much is other factors like more engaged parents lotterying in and figuring out transport? Or is the difference due to something instructional the schools are doing that has nothing to do with the concentration of at-risk students? Even if reducing the concentration has some impact it’s likely to be FAR less than direct supports, like doubling up on math classes and high-dose tutoring. Pretending that reducing the numbers fixes everything is just a fairy tale as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

the problem with your analysis is that #1 and #2 are completely theoretical and yes “vibes” based, with the exception of a handful of shaky studies with a million confounders. There’s no good evidence that merely reducing the concentration of low-SES students improves their education, and that a single classroom with such big gaps can be taught to the needs of all students. Meanwhile DCPS discourages or forbids methods that would allow for tracking and fails to examine what the lower SES kids actually need in terms of instruction. The theory is literally ALL VIBES.

#1 and #2 are not theoretical.

Look at test scores in DCPS schools based on percent of at risk students. It's a direct correlation.

There is significant variation in test scores among schools with high at-risk numbers. https://www.empowerk12.org/research-source/2023-bold-performance-report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

the problem with your analysis is that #1 and #2 are completely theoretical and yes “vibes” based, with the exception of a handful of shaky studies with a million confounders. There’s no good evidence that merely reducing the concentration of low-SES students improves their education, and that a single classroom with such big gaps can be taught to the needs of all students. Meanwhile DCPS discourages or forbids methods that would allow for tracking and fails to examine what the lower SES kids actually need in terms of instruction. The theory is literally ALL VIBES.

#1 and #2 are not theoretical.

Look at test scores in DCPS schools based on percent of at risk students. It's a direct correlation.

Look at the test scores of the at-risk students in those schools - is there really a difference? If so, how do you demonstrate the difference is due to reducing the concentration of at-risk kids, and how much is other factors like more engaged parents lotterying in and figuring out transport? Or is the difference due to something instructional the schools are doing that has nothing to do with the concentration of at-risk students? Even if reducing the concentration has some impact it’s likely to be FAR less than direct supports, like doubling up on math classes and high-dose tutoring. Pretending that reducing the numbers fixes everything is just a fairy tale as far as I can tell.

So your argument is that lowering at risk percents doesn't help at risk kids, but also even if it turns out it does, that must be due to some other factor. You don't know what factor but you just know that reducing the percent of at risk kids at a school dies not improve test scores or educational experience for at risk students. You have no data to back this up, you just know.

Meanwhile, you are sure that a school with 65% at risk students, like Miner, would improve if they just doubled up on math classes and I creased tutoring. Can you provide an example of a school with greater than 50% at risk students that was able to boost test scores with this approach? The answer is no, but do go look.

We'll wait.

[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.

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.

Agree. A Miner-SWS cluster actually makes the most sense. Give Miner IB rights to SWS and fill the rest of the seats in the lottery.

This makes no sense at all. SWS is tiny, and there is no evidence that any significant numbers of families now at Miner are interested in the Region approach SWS uses-- their experience as an all city school indicates that the approach has a much bigger appeal to UMC white families.

The only people who this benefits are the UMC folks in the Miner boundary who already lottery out. It doesn't actually solve anything.

I think the point is it makes at least as much sense as a Maury-Miner cluster.

That's not how it was presented, but in any case I'd argue it makes significantly less sense than a Miner-Maury cluster, which actually does potentially resolve problems at Miner, albeit while creating problems at Maury.

A Miner-SWS cluster makes no sense whatsoever. SWS is too small and the schools have different curriculums and approaches, plus SWS is all-city already so it is already possible for any at risk family, including those IB for Miner, to lottery to them. But in practice, even though this option exists, few do.

It's just a silly proposal that distracts from actually addressing the problems at hand.

It’s not silly at all - those objections are no different in degree or scope compared to the objections about Maury-Miner. SWS is the same size as Miner, not “tiny.” With the 2-campus model the LS could be at Miner and US at SWS. They are almost equally as close together as Maury and Miner. There’s no apparent reason why the SWS “model” is any more unable to be combined with Miner than the Maury “model.” And a huge plus is that the SWS model could inspire huge Miner IB buy-in. There would still be 300 city-wide seats.

The fact that this is not even on the table, and DME’s absurd assertion that it cannot increase diversity through a normal boundary change, demonstrates that the Maury-Miner cluster is some kind of pet project within DME to specifically decrease Maury’s IB success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

the problem with your analysis is that #1 and #2 are completely theoretical and yes “vibes” based, with the exception of a handful of shaky studies with a million confounders. There’s no good evidence that merely reducing the concentration of low-SES students improves their education, and that a single classroom with such big gaps can be taught to the needs of all students. Meanwhile DCPS discourages or forbids methods that would allow for tracking and fails to examine what the lower SES kids actually need in terms of instruction. The theory is literally ALL VIBES.

#1 and #2 are not theoretical.

Look at test scores in DCPS schools based on percent of at risk students. It's a direct correlation.

Look at the test scores of the at-risk students in those schools - is there really a difference? If so, how do you demonstrate the difference is due to reducing the concentration of at-risk kids, and how much is other factors like more engaged parents lotterying in and figuring out transport? Or is the difference due to something instructional the schools are doing that has nothing to do with the concentration of at-risk students? Even if reducing the concentration has some impact it’s likely to be FAR less than direct supports, like doubling up on math classes and high-dose tutoring. Pretending that reducing the numbers fixes everything is just a fairy tale as far as I can tell.

So your argument is that lowering at risk percents doesn't help at risk kids, but also even if it turns out it does, that must be due to some other factor. You don't know what factor but you just know that reducing the percent of at risk kids at a school dies not improve test scores or educational experience for at risk students. You have no data to back this up, you just know.

Meanwhile, you are sure that a school with 65% at risk students, like Miner, would improve if they just doubled up on math classes and I creased tutoring. Can you provide an example of a school with greater than 50% at risk students that was able to boost test scores with this approach? The answer is no, but do go look.

We'll wait.

Langdon Elementary School has the same at-risk numbers as Miner. Their median student is scoring a 3 on ELA and math, relative to a 2 in math and 1 in ELA at Miner, and they have significant numbers of at-grade-level students. I don't know that it's extra math and tutoring, but they're doing something other schools could learn from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

How old? And will you send your kid to Eastern? There are a very small minority who tell themselves this, but understand there are more important priorities later. I mean if you are saving for college in a 529 that in and of itself is prioritizing educational factors other than diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

the problem with your analysis is that #1 and #2 are completely theoretical and yes “vibes” based, with the exception of a handful of shaky studies with a million confounders. There’s no good evidence that merely reducing the concentration of low-SES students improves their education, and that a single classroom with such big gaps can be taught to the needs of all students. Meanwhile DCPS discourages or forbids methods that would allow for tracking and fails to examine what the lower SES kids actually need in terms of instruction. The theory is literally ALL VIBES.

#1 and #2 are not theoretical.

Look at test scores in DCPS schools based on percent of at risk students. It's a direct correlation.

Look at the test scores of the at-risk students in those schools - is there really a difference? If so, how do you demonstrate the difference is due to reducing the concentration of at-risk kids, and how much is other factors like more engaged parents lotterying in and figuring out transport? Or is the difference due to something instructional the schools are doing that has nothing to do with the concentration of at-risk students? Even if reducing the concentration has some impact it’s likely to be FAR less than direct supports, like doubling up on math classes and high-dose tutoring. Pretending that reducing the numbers fixes everything is just a fairy tale as far as I can tell.

So your argument is that lowering at risk percents doesn't help at risk kids, but also even if it turns out it does, that must be due to some other factor. You don't know what factor but you just know that reducing the percent of at risk kids at a school dies not improve test scores or educational experience for at risk students. You have no data to back this up, you just know.

Meanwhile, you are sure that a school with 65% at risk students, like Miner, would improve if they just doubled up on math classes and I creased tutoring. Can you provide an example of a school with greater than 50% at risk students that was able to boost test scores with this approach? The answer is no, but do go look.

We'll wait.

Pretty much agree with everything you wrote, yes. DC hasn’t tried to intensify academics at any high-risk elementary. And given that the cluster approach would only help a tiny proportion of DCPs at-risk kids, DCPS kind of has to have other ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

the problem with your analysis is that #1 and #2 are completely theoretical and yes “vibes” based, with the exception of a handful of shaky studies with a million confounders. There’s no good evidence that merely reducing the concentration of low-SES students improves their education, and that a single classroom with such big gaps can be taught to the needs of all students. Meanwhile DCPS discourages or forbids methods that would allow for tracking and fails to examine what the lower SES kids actually need in terms of instruction. The theory is literally ALL VIBES.

#1 and #2 are not theoretical.

Look at test scores in DCPS schools based on percent of at risk students. It's a direct correlation.

Look at the test scores of the at-risk students in those schools - is there really a difference? If so, how do you demonstrate the difference is due to reducing the concentration of at-risk kids, and how much is other factors like more engaged parents lotterying in and figuring out transport? Or is the difference due to something instructional the schools are doing that has nothing to do with the concentration of at-risk students? Even if reducing the concentration has some impact it’s likely to be FAR less than direct supports, like doubling up on math classes and high-dose tutoring. Pretending that reducing the numbers fixes everything is just a fairy tale as far as I can tell.

So your argument is that lowering at risk percents doesn't help at risk kids, but also even if it turns out it does, that must be due to some other factor. You don't know what factor but you just know that reducing the percent of at risk kids at a school dies not improve test scores or educational experience for at risk students. You have no data to back this up, you just know.

Meanwhile, you are sure that a school with 65% at risk students, like Miner, would improve if they just doubled up on math classes and I creased tutoring. Can you provide an example of a school with greater than 50% at risk students that was able to boost test scores with this approach? The answer is no, but do go look.

We'll wait.

Langdon Elementary School has the same at-risk numbers as Miner. Their median student is scoring a 3 on ELA and math, relative to a 2 in math and 1 in ELA at Miner, and they have significant numbers of at-grade-level students. I don't know that it's extra math and tutoring, but they're doing something other schools could learn from.

PP who started this argument. Good find. But tbh we actually do not know if the kids at Langdon are the same as the kids at Miner, but certainly seems like a good example to look at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

Ok, weirdo.

-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How about DC actually figure out how to teach at-risk kids? Moving them from one school to another is NOT an instructional strategy!!! The status quo id terrible but moving kids around does ZERO to fix it.

Are you a Maury parent? Then you are a DCPS parent. If you don't think DC does a good job educating the 46% of DCPS students who are at risk, then why do you live here and send your kid to a DSPS school? Especially one that feeds to a MS and HS that are majority at risk.

Maury parents want it both ways. Please leave us alone to run our school with a 12% at risk percentage and don't you dare interfere in any way, but also the fact that DCPS, the school system we participate in and pay taxes into, is crap at educating at risk kids (heck we can't even handle the 12% at risk kids at our school and are demanding more resources to handle them in upper grades when the non-at-risk families bail for charters or private anyway because, again, our MS/HS feed is majority at risk) is someone else's problem, please deal with it but not in a way that impacts our school at all.

This is the reality of being in DCPS. You don't want to deal with at risk kids, high percentages of SpEd kids, administrative challenges, etc.? MOVE. And before you cry "But Ward 3!!!" at me, guess what -- Ward 3 has problems, too. Go talk to families with kids at Deal, Hardy, and JR about behavior, discipline, drug use, etc. We have friends with kids at Deal and JR who simply do not use the bathroom at school because it feels dangerous to them. These are inner-city schools. They have the problems of inner city schools.

As for Brent and LT, I would absolutely support at risk set asides for them and exploring cluster options. An LT-JOW cluster does have certain synergies, though I understand why Maury-Miner was selected first because of the more dramatic differences in demographics. I don't know that Brent lends itself as well to a cluster. Maybe with Van Ness, though being on either side of the freeway makes that less appealing, IMO. I actually think some kind of program that unites Brent with Amidon-Bowen could be beneficial -- the Jefferson Middle triangle is weirdly disjointed geographically, and finding ways to build community across the triangle could have real benefits for Jefferson as well as the participating elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

How old? And will you send your kid to Eastern? There are a very small minority who tell themselves this, but understand there are more important priorities later. I mean if you are saving for college in a 529 that in and of itself is prioritizing educational factors other than diversity.

Mid-elementary (as in has taken PARCC), we 100% will go to our feeder MS. Have not made a decision either way on Eastern. Regardless, whatever HS our kids attended will be both racially and socioeconomically diverse. I grew up going to schools like this and I think it made me a better person, and I am committed to giving my own kids that opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

Ok, weirdo.

-DP

I love that this is the response to someone stating that they chose to attend an IB school with a high at risk percentage over lotterying into a school with a low at risk percentage, even though this is precisely the choice Maury families are demanding Miner IB families make in order to fix Miner without requiring a cluster.

DCUM never disappoints. It's hypocrisy and nonsense all the way down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

So, you tried the lottery and succeeded with a spot into a high performing Hill elementary but turned it down.

I'd be very interested in your 180 degree change of heart.

I'm betting the school you are at from the list you provided is good enough (much better than Miner) and the commute to the other Hill elementary wasn't practical.

Walk the walk and lottery into Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How about DC actually figure out how to teach at-risk kids? Moving them from one school to another is NOT an instructional strategy!!! The status quo id terrible but moving kids around does ZERO to fix it.

Are you a Maury parent? Then you are a DCPS parent. If you don't think DC does a good job educating the 46% of DCPS students who are at risk, then why do you live here and send your kid to a DSPS school? Especially one that feeds to a MS and HS that are majority at risk.

Maury parents want it both ways. Please leave us alone to run our school with a 12% at risk percentage and don't you dare interfere in any way, but also the fact that DCPS, the school system we participate in and pay taxes into, is crap at educating at risk kids (heck we can't even handle the 12% at risk kids at our school and are demanding more resources to handle them in upper grades when the non-at-risk families bail for charters or private anyway because, again, our MS/HS feed is majority at risk) is someone else's problem, please deal with it but not in a way that impacts our school at all.

This is the reality of being in DCPS. You don't want to deal with at risk kids, high percentages of SpEd kids, administrative challenges, etc.? MOVE. And before you cry "But Ward 3!!!" at me, guess what -- Ward 3 has problems, too. Go talk to families with kids at Deal, Hardy, and JR about behavior, discipline, drug use, etc. We have friends with kids at Deal and JR who simply do not use the bathroom at school because it feels dangerous to them. These are inner-city schools. They have the problems of inner city schools.

As for Brent and LT, I would absolutely support at risk set asides for them and exploring cluster options. An LT-JOW cluster does have certain synergies, though I understand why Maury-Miner was selected first because of the more dramatic differences in demographics. I don't know that Brent lends itself as well to a cluster. Maybe with Van Ness, though being on either side of the freeway makes that less appealing, IMO. I actually think some kind of program that unites Brent with Amidon-Bowen could be beneficial -- the Jefferson Middle triangle is weirdly disjointed geographically, and finding ways to build community across the triangle could have real benefits for Jefferson as well as the participating elementary schools.

No. Watkins parent here. I am completely against half-baked experiments that will inevitably cause a functioning school - that mere years ago NOBODY WOULD ATTEND - to turn it into another Peabody/Watkins cluster, with its abysmal 30% IB buy-in (propped up almost entirely by Peabody). That is not good for the DCPS educational landscape, as a whole. It is not good for the Hill, as a whole, which people are already increasingly nervous to invest in due to spiking crime. Taking a successful school and blowing it up to make your own stats look good is incredibly short sighted.