Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let Basis take over Miner and run it as an IB elementary. I am dead serious.

You can be as serious as you want, a charter LEA cannot run a neighborhood DCPS. Next suggestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let Basis take over Miner and run it as an IB elementary. I am dead serious.

Kind of love this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

What? Miner is in Ward 7 as are most, but not all, of its IB students. If this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Miner is primarily in Ward 7, as is part of Maury.

Also note that DME has casually stated in meetings that it is considering having Browne become preK-5 and having 6-8 feed to Eliot-Hine. I don't see a Browne or E-H meeting scheduled, so maybe they've dropped this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Miner is primarily in Ward 7, as is part of Maury.

Also note that DME has casually stated in meetings that it is considering having Browne become preK-5 and having 6-8 feed to Eliot-Hine. I don't see a Browne or E-H meeting scheduled, so maybe they've dropped this.

No, this is in the official proposals that will be discussed at the Town Hall.

And, yes, the PP has no idea what they're talking about. Of course they might zone some of the NE edge of the Miner zone to 3 blocks away Browne rather than miles away Maury or Payne. But more importantly this whole idea that ESes and MSes are Ward specific is flatly wrong. Maury is in Ward 6 and has IB students from Wards 6 & 7. Miner is in Ward 7 and has IB students from Wards 6 and 7. Elliot Hine is in Ward 7, so Wards 6 schools & students are already feeding there. The idea that Ward 5 is some kind of no-go bright line in the context of a discussion about clustering schools in different wards is the height of absurdity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Miner is primarily in Ward 7, as is part of Maury.

Also note that DME has casually stated in meetings that it is considering having Browne become preK-5 and having 6-8 feed to Eliot-Hine. I don't see a Browne or E-H meeting scheduled, so maybe they've dropped this.

No, this is in the official proposals that will be discussed at the Town Hall.

And, yes, the PP has no idea what they're talking about. Of course they might zone some of the NE edge of the Miner zone to 3 blocks away Browne rather than miles away Maury or Payne. But more importantly this whole idea that ESes and MSes are Ward specific is flatly wrong. Maury is in Ward 6 and has IB students from Wards 6 & 7. Miner is in Ward 7 and has IB students from Wards 6 and 7. Elliot Hine is in Ward 7, so Wards 6 schools & students are already feeding there. The idea that Ward 5 is some kind of no-go bright line in the context of a discussion about clustering schools in different wards is the height of absurdity.

You are talking about all this like it's a longstanding tradition. All those schools JUST got zoned to Ward 7 in 2021 when the redrew the Ward lines. Prior to that, every one of those schools was in Ward 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Miner is primarily in Ward 7, as is part of Maury.

Also note that DME has casually stated in meetings that it is considering having Browne become preK-5 and having 6-8 feed to Eliot-Hine. I don't see a Browne or E-H meeting scheduled, so maybe they've dropped this.

No, this is in the official proposals that will be discussed at the Town Hall.

And, yes, the PP has no idea what they're talking about. Of course they might zone some of the NE edge of the Miner zone to 3 blocks away Browne rather than miles away Maury or Payne. But more importantly this whole idea that ESes and MSes are Ward specific is flatly wrong. Maury is in Ward 6 and has IB students from Wards 6 & 7. Miner is in Ward 7 and has IB students from Wards 6 and 7. Elliot Hine is in Ward 7, so Wards 6 schools & students are already feeding there. The idea that Ward 5 is some kind of no-go bright line in the context of a discussion about clustering schools in different wards is the height of absurdity.

You are talking about all this like it's a longstanding tradition. All those schools JUST got zoned to Ward 7 in 2021 when the redrew the Ward lines. Prior to that, every one of those schools was in Ward 6.

But it just goes to the idea that school boundaries and wards have nothing to do with each other.

[Anonymous]

I find the suggestion that the solution to what ails Miner is to close it and zone it's students for a school that is currently 73% at risk (Browne) kind of crazy and somehow, given the stated goals of the DME, I doubt that will happen.

Especially since they are discussing making Browne PK-5 and zoning it for EH. Which actually makes sense because (1) PK-8 campuses are bad, they very often fail because schools are not very good at meeting the needs of ECE, elementary, and middle schools a the same time, plus when the school is also largely at-risk, covering so many grades tends to compound the challenges raised by a large at risk population, year over year, and (2) Browne is so far from Dunbar and it makes more sense for those kids to feed to Eastern which is quite close and also, anecdotally, where most of them wind up anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Miner is primarily in Ward 7, as is part of Maury.

Also note that DME has casually stated in meetings that it is considering having Browne become preK-5 and having 6-8 feed to Eliot-Hine. I don't see a Browne or E-H meeting scheduled, so maybe they've dropped this.

No, this is in the official proposals that will be discussed at the Town Hall.

And, yes, the PP has no idea what they're talking about. Of course they might zone some of the NE edge of the Miner zone to 3 blocks away Browne rather than miles away Maury or Payne. But more importantly this whole idea that ESes and MSes are Ward specific is flatly wrong. Maury is in Ward 6 and has IB students from Wards 6 & 7. Miner is in Ward 7 and has IB students from Wards 6 and 7. Elliot Hine is in Ward 7, so Wards 6 schools & students are already feeding there. The idea that Ward 5 is some kind of no-go bright line in the context of a discussion about clustering schools in different wards is the height of absurdity.

You are talking about all this like it's a longstanding tradition. All those schools JUST got zoned to Ward 7 in 2021 when the redrew the Ward lines. Prior to that, every one of those schools was in Ward 6.

But it just goes to the idea that school boundaries and wards have nothing to do with each other.

They have a ton to do with each other until very recently. Wards were how they originally created all the by-right triangles in the city. DCPS and the mayor may be stepping away from that now, but that's how it was for a long time and for most of the city, it's still how it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Miner is primarily in Ward 7, as is part of Maury.

Also note that DME has casually stated in meetings that it is considering having Browne become preK-5 and having 6-8 feed to Eliot-Hine. I don't see a Browne or E-H meeting scheduled, so maybe they've dropped this.

No, this is in the official proposals that will be discussed at the Town Hall.

And, yes, the PP has no idea what they're talking about. Of course they might zone some of the NE edge of the Miner zone to 3 blocks away Browne rather than miles away Maury or Payne. But more importantly this whole idea that ESes and MSes are Ward specific is flatly wrong. Maury is in Ward 6 and has IB students from Wards 6 & 7. Miner is in Ward 7 and has IB students from Wards 6 and 7. Elliot Hine is in Ward 7, so Wards 6 schools & students are already feeding there. The idea that Ward 5 is some kind of no-go bright line in the context of a discussion about clustering schools in different wards is the height of absurdity.

You are talking about all this like it's a longstanding tradition. All those schools JUST got zoned to Ward 7 in 2021 when the redrew the Ward lines. Prior to that, every one of those schools was in Ward 6.

But it just goes to the idea that school boundaries and wards have nothing to do with each other.

They have a ton to do with each other until very recently. Wards were how they originally created all the by-right triangles in the city. DCPS and the mayor may be stepping away from that now, but that's how it was for a long time and for most of the city, it's still how it is.

And that what might be what DME is trying to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Miner is primarily in Ward 7, as is part of Maury.

Also note that DME has casually stated in meetings that it is considering having Browne become preK-5 and having 6-8 feed to Eliot-Hine. I don't see a Browne or E-H meeting scheduled, so maybe they've dropped this.

No, this is in the official proposals that will be discussed at the Town Hall.

And, yes, the PP has no idea what they're talking about. Of course they might zone some of the NE edge of the Miner zone to 3 blocks away Browne rather than miles away Maury or Payne. But more importantly this whole idea that ESes and MSes are Ward specific is flatly wrong. Maury is in Ward 6 and has IB students from Wards 6 & 7. Miner is in Ward 7 and has IB students from Wards 6 and 7. Elliot Hine is in Ward 7, so Wards 6 schools & students are already feeding there. The idea that Ward 5 is some kind of no-go bright line in the context of a discussion about clustering schools in different wards is the height of absurdity.

You are talking about all this like it's a longstanding tradition. All those schools JUST got zoned to Ward 7 in 2021 when the redrew the Ward lines. Prior to that, every one of those schools was in Ward 6.

But it just goes to the idea that school boundaries and wards have nothing to do with each other.

They have a ton to do with each other until very recently. Wards were how they originally created all the by-right triangles in the city. DCPS and the mayor may be stepping away from that now, but that's how it was for a long time and for most of the city, it's still how it is.

And that what might be what DME is trying to change.

I sense what's happening is that the DME/Mayor are looking for outside the box solutions to some of the problems ailing DCPS (thus the half-baked cluster proposal, for example) and have decided not to be overly constrained by Ward boundaries to do it, especially in this part of town where Ward boundaries just shifted.

However, I think it would be incorrect to say that suddenly Wards will have no bearing on school boundaries, because it raises some questions about representation. Right now, for instance, everyone who got moved to Ward 7 in Hill East has a council rep whose primary focus is on the rest of Ward 7 on the other side of the river, where the by right high school is Woodson. That puts those residents at a disadvantage because it means it's harder for them to turn to their council rep with concerns.

If you want to get really cynical, one reason the mayor and DME may be meddling in schools in this precise part of the city is that they have divided ward representation and may have a harder time forming coalitions to oppose the DME's proposals and the mayor's actions. Charles Allen is someone restricted in what he can do here because he doesn't actually represent most of the people involved and only one of the schools in question is in his Ward. Meanwhile, where is Vincent Gray in this conversation? Totally absent. At least Allen has held some listening sessions and seems engaged on the issue. Gray doesn't care, just as he doesn't care about any of the West of the river parts of the ward he represents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let Basis take over Miner and run it as an IB elementary. I am dead serious.

You can be as serious as you want, a charter LEA cannot run a neighborhood DCPS. Next suggestion.

sure it can. if they can close two schools and combine them into an US/LS cluster, they can appoint a turnaround operator to take over a failed school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Ward boundaries are not school boundaries. Maury zone includes Ward 6 and 7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let Basis take over Miner and run it as an IB elementary. I am dead serious.

You can be as serious as you want, a charter LEA cannot run a neighborhood DCPS. Next suggestion.

sure it can. if they can close two schools and combine them into an US/LS cluster, they can appoint a turnaround operator to take over a failed school.

I know you are just being trollish but no, those aren't the same thing. Miner and Maury are both DCPS schools and DCPS is in charge of them and can do what it likes with them (or the mayor can, through DCPS). Legally, a charter company could not be brought in to run a DCPS. It would violate agreements with both the teachers and principals unions, as well as rules about how schools are governed and what curriculum they use.

It would be great if we could stick to good faith, plausible solutions to this problem instead of just engaging in nihilistic sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would me more akin to the at-risk set aside or boundary re-drawing than to a cluster, no? Proximity preference only gets you anything to the extent there are OOB spots available, and it comes after sibling preferences. Plus it doesn't disrupt everyone else who currently attends Maury.

Regardless, no way are the rezoning Miner kids for JOW, Wheatley, or Browne (it simply isn't happening, they will not zone kids to a school that is that far away across major commuting arteries and intersections when they could instead zone them to neighborhood schools), so if you close Miner and rezone it, assume a significant percentage of Miner IB kids would not have Maury as their by-right school.

They have drawn boundaries to end at H and Benning over here, but all across the city there are tons and tons of school boundaries that cross very busy roads and dangerous intersections. I don't know why you think that's such an obstacle here.

They won't zone Ward 6 residents to Ward 5 schools.

You also have to look at feeds. Closing Miner, there would a focus on keeping students within their existing feeds, which would mean shifting most kids to Maury and Payne. I think they'd have no choice but to assign at least part of the west end of the zone to LT because it's simply not possible for Maury and Payne to absorb all those students (I expect Maury would need an expansion to do it, and it would likely mean trailers in the interim). But LT at least feeds to Eastern. Wheatley and Browne both contain middle schools and feed to Dunbar, which is in NW -- it's actually kind of insane that Wheatley and Browne feed there already but at least you have the Ward excuse. With Miner kids it would make no sense at all.

Ward boundaries are not school boundaries. Maury zone includes Ward 6 and 7.

Read the thread, this has been addressed -- Maury only got partially zoned to Ward 7 in 2021 and this is a very unusual development. This boundary study is the first one contending with the effects of the new ward boundaries that shifted parts of Ward 6 into Wards 7 and 8, so this is uncharted territory.