Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are you a Watkins parent if you don't realize that 30% reflects the IB population Watkins, not Peabody?

No it doesn't. DCPS lumps Peabody and Watkins together when reporting IB percentages, so Watkins is actually lower than 30%.

No. Watkins is 30% and Peabody is 75%, they are reported separately. Honestly, Peabody only being 75% is pretty shocking and shows how fast the Cluster has deteriorated in terms of IB buy-in.

[Anonymous]

Everyone should dig into the data on Miner in the OSSE report card. The performance is absolutely abysmal for at-risk students compared to city averages. Something is deeply failing at Miner. I honestly think the school needs to be closed and students rezoned in balance to all the surrounding schools (Maury, LT, Payne). Or fire everyone there and replace it with a turnaround admin and staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are you a Watkins parent if you don't realize that 30% reflects the IB population Watkins, not Peabody?

No it doesn't. DCPS lumps Peabody and Watkins together when reporting IB percentages, so Watkins is actually lower than 30%.

No. Watkins is 30% and Peabody is 75%, they are reported separately. Honestly, Peabody only being 75% is pretty shocking and shows how fast the Cluster has deteriorated in terms of IB buy-in.

But also, the boundary is enormous, so this may mean the IB participation rate is miniscule, because I think that figure is lumped together when reported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should dig into the data on Miner in the OSSE report card. The performance is absolutely abysmal for at-risk students compared to city averages. Something is deeply failing at Miner. I honestly think the school needs to be closed and students rezoned in balance to all the surrounding schools (Maury, LT, Payne). Or fire everyone there and replace it with a turnaround admin and staff.

This is actually a much better idea, but it would need to be (at least) Browne as well, and likely one of Wheatley or JOW. If you utilized all 5/6 schools, you could absorb the kids and everyone could have reasonable commutes. The issue is that for contiguous boundaries to remain (which, despite other ideas on this thread, is clearly a baseline requirement), you'd rezone a small chunk to LT, a tiny chunk to JOW or Wheatley, a reasonable chunk to Maury, a small chunk to Payne and then a sizeable chunk to Browne, which I doubt anyone would perceive as an upgrade. You could reasonably split the 2 housing projects between Maury and Browne, which might help lighten the load on any one school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should dig into the data on Miner in the OSSE report card. The performance is absolutely abysmal for at-risk students compared to city averages. Something is deeply failing at Miner. I honestly think the school needs to be closed and students rezoned in balance to all the surrounding schools (Maury, LT, Payne). Or fire everyone there and replace it with a turnaround admin and staff.

This is actually a much better idea, but it would need to be (at least) Browne as well, and likely one of Wheatley or JOW. If you utilized all 5/6 schools, you could absorb the kids and everyone could have reasonable commutes. The issue is that for contiguous boundaries to remain (which, despite other ideas on this thread, is clearly a baseline requirement), you'd rezone a small chunk to LT, a tiny chunk to JOW or Wheatley, a reasonable chunk to Maury, a small chunk to Payne and then a sizeable chunk to Browne, which I doubt anyone would perceive as an upgrade. You could reasonably split the 2 housing projects between Maury and Browne, which might help lighten the load on any one school.

DME is already considering rezoning part of Peabody-Watkins to Payne, so doubt there is any room there. Maury does not have room to absorb more students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should dig into the data on Miner in the OSSE report card. The performance is absolutely abysmal for at-risk students compared to city averages. Something is deeply failing at Miner. I honestly think the school needs to be closed and students rezoned in balance to all the surrounding schools (Maury, LT, Payne). Or fire everyone there and replace it with a turnaround admin and staff.

This is actually a much better idea, but it would need to be (at least) Browne as well, and likely one of Wheatley or JOW. If you utilized all 5/6 schools, you could absorb the kids and everyone could have reasonable commutes. The issue is that for contiguous boundaries to remain (which, despite other ideas on this thread, is clearly a baseline requirement), you'd rezone a small chunk to LT, a tiny chunk to JOW or Wheatley, a reasonable chunk to Maury, a small chunk to Payne and then a sizeable chunk to Browne, which I doubt anyone would perceive as an upgrade. You could reasonably split the 2 housing projects between Maury and Browne, which might help lighten the load on any one school.

DME is already considering rezoning part of Peabody-Watkins to Payne, so doubt there is any room there. Maury does not have room to absorb more students.

But Maury will have room if Miner is closed: there is a whole school plus a newly renovated building ready to go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should dig into the data on Miner in the OSSE report card. The performance is absolutely abysmal for at-risk students compared to city averages. Something is deeply failing at Miner. I honestly think the school needs to be closed and students rezoned in balance to all the surrounding schools (Maury, LT, Payne). Or fire everyone there and replace it with a turnaround admin and staff.

This is actually a much better idea, but it would need to be (at least) Browne as well, and likely one of Wheatley or JOW. If you utilized all 5/6 schools, you could absorb the kids and everyone could have reasonable commutes. The issue is that for contiguous boundaries to remain (which, despite other ideas on this thread, is clearly a baseline requirement), you'd rezone a small chunk to LT, a tiny chunk to JOW or Wheatley, a reasonable chunk to Maury, a small chunk to Payne and then a sizeable chunk to Browne, which I doubt anyone would perceive as an upgrade. You could reasonably split the 2 housing projects between Maury and Browne, which might help lighten the load on any one school.

DME is already considering rezoning part of Peabody-Watkins to Payne, so doubt there is any room there. Maury does not have room to absorb more students.

But Maury will have room if Miner is closed: there is a whole school plus a newly renovated building ready to go!

So... a cluster model? No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should dig into the data on Miner in the OSSE report card. The performance is absolutely abysmal for at-risk students compared to city averages. Something is deeply failing at Miner. I honestly think the school needs to be closed and students rezoned in balance to all the surrounding schools (Maury, LT, Payne). Or fire everyone there and replace it with a turnaround admin and staff.

This is actually a much better idea, but it would need to be (at least) Browne as well, and likely one of Wheatley or JOW. If you utilized all 5/6 schools, you could absorb the kids and everyone could have reasonable commutes. The issue is that for contiguous boundaries to remain (which, despite other ideas on this thread, is clearly a baseline requirement), you'd rezone a small chunk to LT, a tiny chunk to JOW or Wheatley, a reasonable chunk to Maury, a small chunk to Payne and then a sizeable chunk to Browne, which I doubt anyone would perceive as an upgrade. You could reasonably split the 2 housing projects between Maury and Browne, which might help lighten the load on any one school.

DME is already considering rezoning part of Peabody-Watkins to Payne, so doubt there is any room there. Maury does not have room to absorb more students.

But Maury will have room if Miner is closed: there is a whole school plus a newly renovated building ready to go!

As in have a two-campus school? No one wants that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are you a Watkins parent if you don't realize that 30% reflects the IB population Watkins, not Peabody?

No it doesn't. DCPS lumps Peabody and Watkins together when reporting IB percentages, so Watkins is actually lower than 30%.

No. Watkins is 30% and Peabody is 75%, they are reported separately. Honestly, Peabody only being 75% is pretty shocking and shows how fast the Cluster has deteriorated in terms of IB buy-in.

Could you please link to where they are reported separately? The SY2122_Public School Enrollments per DCPS Boundary data set I found reports them together at about 49% boundary participation -- so your numbers make sense, I would just love to find that data! DC makes it so hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are you a Watkins parent if you don't realize that 30% reflects the IB population Watkins, not Peabody?

No it doesn't. DCPS lumps Peabody and Watkins together when reporting IB percentages, so Watkins is actually lower than 30%.

No. Watkins is 30% and Peabody is 75%, they are reported separately. Honestly, Peabody only being 75% is pretty shocking and shows how fast the Cluster has deteriorated in terms of IB buy-in.

Could you please link to where they are reported separately? The SY2122_Public School Enrollments per DCPS Boundary data set I found reports them together at about 49% boundary participation -- so your numbers make sense, I would just love to find that data! DC makes it so hard.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Watkins+Elementary+School+(Capitol+Hill+Cluster)

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/301

[Anonymous]

Miner has better IB buy-in that LT, according to that School Profiles page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are you a Watkins parent if you don't realize that 30% reflects the IB population Watkins, not Peabody?

No it doesn't. DCPS lumps Peabody and Watkins together when reporting IB percentages, so Watkins is actually lower than 30%.

No. Watkins is 30% and Peabody is 75%, they are reported separately. Honestly, Peabody only being 75% is pretty shocking and shows how fast the Cluster has deteriorated in terms of IB buy-in.

Could you please link to where they are reported separately? The SY2122_Public School Enrollments per DCPS Boundary data set I found reports them together at about 49% boundary participation -- so your numbers make sense, I would just love to find that data! DC makes it so hard.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Watkins+Elementary+School+(Capitol+Hill+Cluster)

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/301

The "in-boundary" number? I think that is the percentage of students at the school who are in boundary, not the boundary participation rate (the percentage of students in the boundary who go to the school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should dig into the data on Miner in the OSSE report card. The performance is absolutely abysmal for at-risk students compared to city averages. Something is deeply failing at Miner. I honestly think the school needs to be closed and students rezoned in balance to all the surrounding schools (Maury, LT, Payne). Or fire everyone there and replace it with a turnaround admin and staff.

This is actually a much better idea, but it would need to be (at least) Browne as well, and likely one of Wheatley or JOW. If you utilized all 5/6 schools, you could absorb the kids and everyone could have reasonable commutes. The issue is that for contiguous boundaries to remain (which, despite other ideas on this thread, is clearly a baseline requirement), you'd rezone a small chunk to LT, a tiny chunk to JOW or Wheatley, a reasonable chunk to Maury, a small chunk to Payne and then a sizeable chunk to Browne, which I doubt anyone would perceive as an upgrade. You could reasonably split the 2 housing projects between Maury and Browne, which might help lighten the load on any one school.

I see the argument for closing Miner and re-zoning, but there is no way to make part of the Miner zone belong to JOW or Wheatley and have their zones be contiguous, especially Wheatley. They are not only on the other side of H/Benning, they are also across Bladensberg/Starburst. I also assume there would be issues with Browne because while technically they could have a contiguous zone that incorporated Miner, it would be divided not only by Benning but by the large commercial center on Benning that lacks walkable through streets. I don't know how kids IB for Miner get to Browne on foot, which I think is pretty much required for neighborhood schools.

In any case, even if you assigned any part of Miner boundaries to LT/JOW/Wheatley/Browne, everyone in the Miner zone would get proximity preference for Maury or Payne. So if you object to a Miner-Maury cluster, consider that closing and re-zoning Miner would essentially get you that outcome anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Miner has better IB buy-in that LT, according to that School Profiles page

Right, 62% of the students at Miner come from the Miner boundary (in-boundary %), but only 28% of students in the Miner boundary attend Miner (boundary participation rate).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Miner has better IB buy-in that LT, according to that School Profiles page

No. It has a higher IB percentage. That's because (1) the school has a much bigger IB zone on purpose because it's in-boundary participation is so low and (2) it is underfilled (schools in SE have very high IB rates because no one lotteries in; Miner has room in almost every grade whereas LT is bursting with waiting lists).

LT has a 63%ish in-boundary participation rate compared to Miner's 28ish%, LT's zone is an appropriate size for the school. If 100% of LT families participated, it would be full. On the flip side, Maury's is way too big. Maury has a participation rate about on par with LT's, but that leads to a school that's 88% full with IB students. IB rates and IB participation numbers tell you different things.