Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I want to be clear that I was not suggesting that all or most or even many Miner students should be rezoned to Browne. Rather, if DCPS/DME was actually going to attempt the close Miner and rezone kids approach, then I think it wouldn't be just Maury & Payne, it would be 5 schools involved in absorbing some of the students for both space (two of the schools, Maury and LT are already at capacity, so this idea would likely have to be phased in to begin with) and commute reasons.

I agree that some of Miner would be rezoned to Browne in this scenario, especially if Browne is make a PK-5 and moved to Eliot-Hine, making it an obvious third campus to replace Miner in the EH triangle.

LT would definitely get some of the west end of the boundary, especially with Browne joining EH and adding Miner students, as this would help rebalance populations between SH and EH. JOW would also get some of it as well.

I do not think Wheatley would get any because it's a PK-8th and it feeds to Dunbar, and if you look at the map, I think it would be very hard to zone to Miner kids to both JOW and Wheatley, because they contact the Miner zone at the same point and it's narrow. I think it's either/or and JOW makes more sense because of its feeder pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

The viable alternatives that have been presented are (1) at-risk set-asides, (2) re-drawing the boundaries, and (3) choice sets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

The viable alternatives that have been presented are (1) at-risk set-asides, (2) re-drawing the boundaries, and (3) choice sets.

Agreed. I think it would be worth it for Maury families opposed to the cluster to look at these options, think about how they would serve the goals the DME has outlined, consider how they would impact Maury and why they are preferable to a cluster, and finally: go to the town hall and make these arguments out loud to the DME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

The viable alternatives that have been presented are (1) at-risk set-asides, (2) re-drawing the boundaries, and (3) choice sets.

Agreed. I think it would be worth it for Maury families opposed to the cluster to look at these options, think about how they would serve the goals the DME has outlined, consider how they would impact Maury and why they are preferable to a cluster, and finally: go to the town hall and make these arguments out loud to the DME.

I don't think we should discount (4) figuring out how to fix the issues at Miner. Fundamentally, options that draw kids (who have the resources/interest to attend elsewhere) away from the school make it harder to improve the school, and all of the kids in that boundary deserve a Miner that works a lot better than it does now. As someone pointed out earlier, Miner significantly underperforms expectations even considering its at-risk percentage, and there are DCPS schools right here in DC who have similar at-risk populations (albeit perhaps with other unknown differences) and much better outcomes. Nationwide, there are plenty of high-performing high-poverty schools. If we just throw up our hands and say, well the kids can go elsewhere if they don't like it, we will never get to the root of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

The viable alternatives that have been presented are (1) at-risk set-asides, (2) re-drawing the boundaries, and (3) choice sets.

Agreed. I think it would be worth it for Maury families opposed to the cluster to look at these options, think about how they would serve the goals the DME has outlined, consider how they would impact Maury and why they are preferable to a cluster, and finally: go to the town hall and make these arguments out loud to the DME.

I don't think we should discount (4) figuring out how to fix the issues at Miner. Fundamentally, options that draw kids (who have the resources/interest to attend elsewhere) away from the school make it harder to improve the school, and all of the kids in that boundary deserve a Miner that works a lot better than it does now. As someone pointed out earlier, Miner significantly underperforms expectations even considering its at-risk percentage, and there are DCPS schools right here in DC who have similar at-risk populations (albeit perhaps with other unknown differences) and much better outcomes. Nationwide, there are plenty of high-performing high-poverty schools. If we just throw up our hands and say, well the kids can go elsewhere if they don't like it, we will never get to the root of the problem.

Agree this is a needed change, but not something that will achieve DME’s stated goal in this boundary study: reducing socioeconomic disparity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

The viable alternatives that have been presented are (1) at-risk set-asides, (2) re-drawing the boundaries, and (3) choice sets.

Agreed. I think it would be worth it for Maury families opposed to the cluster to look at these options, think about how they would serve the goals the DME has outlined, consider how they would impact Maury and why they are preferable to a cluster, and finally: go to the town hall and make these arguments out loud to the DME.

I don't think we should discount (4) figuring out how to fix the issues at Miner. Fundamentally, options that draw kids (who have the resources/interest to attend elsewhere) away from the school make it harder to improve the school, and all of the kids in that boundary deserve a Miner that works a lot better than it does now. As someone pointed out earlier, Miner significantly underperforms expectations even considering its at-risk percentage, and there are DCPS schools right here in DC who have similar at-risk populations (albeit perhaps with other unknown differences) and much better outcomes. Nationwide, there are plenty of high-performing high-poverty schools. If we just throw up our hands and say, well the kids can go elsewhere if they don't like it, we will never get to the root of the problem.

Agree this is a needed change, but not something that will achieve DME’s stated goal in this boundary study: reducing socioeconomic disparity.

+1 , I think something Maury families need to accept is that it's not just Miner's high at risk percentage and poor outcomes that caught the DME's attention -- it's Maury's low at risk percentage and significantly *better* outcomes.

I know it's easier to say "what about Brent, what about LT." Okay and yes -- Brent has a 6% at risk percentage, I agree that if anyone is looking at Maury, they should be looking at Brent, and it's okay to say that. But if that's all we say, it just looks petty. What's to stop the DME from saying "okay we will look at those schools and consider clusters there too, now back to Maury and Miner where the disparity is wider than it is with those other schools..."

So I think Maury parents need to be prepared to go into these meetings in the spirit of "we care about at risk kids and are interested in booking Maury's at risk percentage in a way that does not compromise what makes Maury great and ensure that all children at Maury are getting the best education possible." Offering true alternatives that will address the socioeconomic (and to a lesser extent racial) disparities in question.

I think this is the way forward if we actually want to stop the cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

I’m not clear why suggesting equally sensible options is being “sarcastic.” As this discussion has gone on I’ve looked for at the data and am convinced that Miner needs a big, direct change that actually results in improvements that don’t rest on fundamentally changing a different school. Closing the school, a takeover, a new model like replicating SWS, all should be on the table.

[Anonymous]

Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

The fact is that Miner is just a bad school.

Friendship Blow-Pierce has a higher percentage of at-risk than Miner but an ELA proficiency of 63.4%. Similarly, Kipp-Promise has at-risk percentage almost as high as Miner but a math proficiency of 58.3%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

Where did these numbers come from? The at restaurant so percentages do not match what I've seen for either school. Are they old?

[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: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.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

For what it's worth, I believe the DME and the mayor want to improve education outcomes to the extent that any politician ever wants this. In their ideal world, I think they would successfully improve education in DC, everyone would be happy, and they'd be showered with accolades [and high paid consulting positions upon their retirement from DC government].

However, actually doing this in DC is hard, and as you can see from this thread, it is extremely hard to balance the competing interests of different constituencies in the schools. So I think if a pathway that doesn't actually improve outcomes at Miner is not presented, the DME and mayor would be fine doing something that simply hides the problem (i.e. force a cluster against the wishes of families at Maury, thus magically equalizing demographics and test scores between the two schools by making them one school.

Which is why I think if you oppose the cluster, it's actually worth it to engage seriously in considering alternative proposals that might actually improve Miner and/or address demographic inequities that Maury families could support or even participate in. Being sarcastic and throwing out proposals that will never happen (like a Miner/SWS cluster, having BASIS take over Miner, closing Miner and having it rezoned to a group of schools that have the same demographic inequities, etc.) doesn't actually do anything and may ultimately work against building a coalition to oppose the cluster. It also tends to antagonize Miner families who genuinely want solutions to this problem, when creating an alliance would be a better approach.

The viable alternatives that have been presented are (1) at-risk set-asides, (2) re-drawing the boundaries, and (3) choice sets.

Agreed. I think it would be worth it for Maury families opposed to the cluster to look at these options, think about how they would serve the goals the DME has outlined, consider how they would impact Maury and why they are preferable to a cluster, and finally: go to the town hall and make these arguments out loud to the DME.

I don't think we should discount (4) figuring out how to fix the issues at Miner. Fundamentally, options that draw kids (who have the resources/interest to attend elsewhere) away from the school make it harder to improve the school, and all of the kids in that boundary deserve a Miner that works a lot better than it does now. As someone pointed out earlier, Miner significantly underperforms expectations even considering its at-risk percentage, and there are DCPS schools right here in DC who have similar at-risk populations (albeit perhaps with other unknown differences) and much better outcomes. Nationwide, there are plenty of high-performing high-poverty schools. If we just throw up our hands and say, well the kids can go elsewhere if they don't like it, we will never get to the root of the problem.

Agree this is a needed change, but not something that will achieve DME’s stated goal in this boundary study: reducing socioeconomic disparity.

+1 , I think something Maury families need to accept is that it's not just Miner's high at risk percentage and poor outcomes that caught the DME's attention -- it's Maury's low at risk percentage and significantly *better* outcomes.

I know it's easier to say "what about Brent, what about LT." Okay and yes -- Brent has a 6% at risk percentage, I agree that if anyone is looking at Maury, they should be looking at Brent, and it's okay to say that. But if that's all we say, it just looks petty. What's to stop the DME from saying "okay we will look at those schools and consider clusters there too, now back to Maury and Miner where the disparity is wider than it is with those other schools..."

So I think Maury parents need to be prepared to go into these meetings in the spirit of "we care about at risk kids and are interested in booking Maury's at risk percentage in a way that does not compromise what makes Maury great and ensure that all children at Maury are getting the best education possible." Offering true alternatives that will address the socioeconomic (and to a lesser extent racial) disparities in question.

I think this is the way forward if we actually want to stop the cluster.

But Maury does not really have better outcomes for its existing at-risk students compared to other possible clustering partners. Especially for math, where Maury is really abysmal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

Where did these numbers come from? The at restaurant so percentages do not match what I've seen for either school. Are they old?

Yes, these numbers have to be a few years old for Maury. Maury is 12% at risk, not 19%. But also, I think those proficiency scores are too high (perhaps including 3s). If you look at the just-released OSSE report cards, the % for ELA and Math proficiency for "Economically Disadvantaged" students (which is a slightly different, but actually slightly broader group typically when it comes to elementary schools) is:

For Maury: 23.7% and 8.3% proficient

For Miner: <5% and <5% proficient (https://schoolreportcard.dc.gov/lea/1/school/280/report)

Same overall picture. The merge would likely help some for ELA and not very much for Math. But overall, a much more grim picture of how much ED kids are being failed (though definitely not just by these two schools, the picture is similar at most other schools).

[Anonymous]

^^ And sorry, overall Maury's ED % is given as 13.1 and Miner's as 67.2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

I'm confused why this is being evaluated on what the scores would look like on day 1. It seems the concerns being expressed have to do with how the school will be ranked as opposed to how it will impact the kids who need help the most. It's obvious that average scores would decline at Maury right off the bat but kids on or above grade level will still be on or above grade level.