Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many valid reasons to oppose the cluster but commute times are not one of them - the two schools are literally like 5 blocks apart straight down Tennessee Ave. 10 min walk, 3 min drive.

The fact you are conceiving of it as a drive is part of the problem.

Lol people like you are not helping the cause with trying to make dumb semantic points. He said 10 min walk. It is also a 3min bike if you'd prefer to say that.

My point wasn’t semantic. Most Maury families drop off on foot. Yes, it’s not a long drive; no, most Maury families don’t want to drive to school nor could the infrastructure around Maury support that.

The point is that people saying they can't be inconvenienced to walk 10 extra minutes (yeah I know, 10 minutes each way) are coming off as extremely entitled and are not helping the Maury cause by distracting from the real issues

The logistics of a cluster being a mess is one of the chief reasons people will opt out. It's more than 10 minutes if you're dropping at both campuses and then trying to get to work. If they set up the timing so that the Miner drop off is later (likely if it's the PK campus), it will exacerbate this more because Maury families using public transport have likely set up their lives around the blue/orange/silver lines and that is a LONG walk/commute from Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many valid reasons to oppose the cluster but commute times are not one of them - the two schools are literally like 5 blocks apart straight down Tennessee Ave. 10 min walk, 3 min drive.

Unless you have siblings at both buildings. It'll be a hardship on both Miner and Maury families.

Tennessee is a state street meaning it's diagonal with longer blocks, shorter blocks, and more streets to cross.

Sprinting from one aftercare pickup to the other in the dark with aggressive commuters on Constitution, D, 14th, and 15th Street is not to be taken lightly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

+1. Love it when people chime in to suggest that people are using the wrong data when they in fact are using the wrong data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

+1. Love it when people chime in to suggest that people are using the wrong data when they in fact are using the wrong data.

I'm not the PP who posted the alternate numbers but I am the one who asked where the original numbers came from because the at risk percentage don't match current percentages at either school and thank you for clarifying that these were not percent of the student body designated at risk, but percent of PARCC test takers designated at risk -- this explains why both numbers are higher than their overall at risk number because PARCC only tests upper grades which tend to skew more at risk than lower grades at both schools.

But also this is a lesson in please providing sources when you post data because it prevents confusion in the thread! Thank you to whomever followed up with the link.

[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: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.

Can you identify which "possible clustering partners" you think are doing well with at-risk students? Are you referring to LT? Payne? Of course the problem with those as cluster buddies is that they are both almost twice as far away as Maury is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

I mean, I looked at the ones on the OSSE report card. My numbers aren’t wrong. They’re obviously measuring different things. My number is the ED percentage at the school, which is what we’ve been talking about. The previous one saying the percentage of at risk kids of PARCC takers, which is not a metric that has ever been previously been discussed on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

Actually, I’m 100% right. Empower uses 3+ for proficiency when no one else does. 3 means approaching proficient. Look how I said your numbers were perhaps including 3s. They were. You’re welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

+1. Love it when people chime in to suggest that people are using the wrong data when they in fact are using the wrong data.

Feel dumb now? His number included 3s, which is *not* proficient, exactly as I mused. Roll your eyes harder, please.

[Anonymous]

Any word about if/how this was presented at the town hall tonight and any feedback from participants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any word about if/how this was presented at the town hall tonight and any feedback from participants?

I was there. All I’ll say is that for all of the very strong opinions in this thread, attendance tonight for both Maury/Miner was very sparse. If you have a stake in this, writing in a DCUM thread isn’t how to get your opinion in front of the decisionmakers. There are feedback forms online - fill them out! Show up at the town halls!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word about if/how this was presented at the town hall tonight and any feedback from participants?

I was there. All I’ll say is that for all of the very strong opinions in this thread, attendance tonight for both Maury/Miner was very sparse. If you have a stake in this, writing in a DCUM thread isn’t how to get your opinion in front of the decisionmakers. There are feedback forms online - fill them out! Show up at the town halls!

Possibly the virtual ones will be easier for people to attend. Though I heard at one of the Maury meetings that there haven't been a lot of emails sent in to whatever list is going around, so maybe in real life people are apathetic about this and this thread is just four people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any word about if/how this was presented at the town hall tonight and any feedback from participants?

Secondhand account - Overall presentation followed by Q&A before breaking into small groups, in Miner/Maury's case, Dunbar/Eastern feeder small group. 7 or so individuals for Brent addressing their boundary/utilization concerns. 2 individuals for both Miner and Maury.

Miner/Maury cluster currently can not be decoupled from the equitable access metric in order to view the at-risk set aside impact to Maury, but was indicated it can be modified in the next iteration from the handout.

DME recognized feedback for the cluster has been mostly unsupportive. Miner ES meeting scheduled for 12/19, notably after the townhalls...

They also recognized pairing schools raises many implementation questions, staffing, number of classrooms, budget, etc. that will be addressed should the recommendation be considered for implementation.

Finally, they recognized that the timeline for such a pairing would be longer than school year 25-26.

Tool is found here: https://www.dcschoolboundaryexplorer.com/map?mode=view

[Anonymous]

From a Brent rep in the room:

Apparently, in making the paired school proposal, all they did was average together the metrics from both schools. They didn’t look at the Peabody/Watkins cluster trajectory at all when considering the potential impact to the Maury/Miner community.

How are these the people in charge!?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word about if/how this was presented at the town hall tonight and any feedback from participants?

Secondhand account - Overall presentation followed by Q&A before breaking into small groups, in Miner/Maury's case, Dunbar/Eastern feeder small group. 7 or so individuals for Brent addressing their boundary/utilization concerns. 2 individuals for both Miner and Maury.

Miner/Maury cluster currently can not be decoupled from the equitable access metric in order to view the at-risk set aside impact to Maury, but was indicated it can be modified in the next iteration from the handout.

DME recognized feedback for the cluster has been mostly unsupportive. Miner ES meeting scheduled for 12/19, notably after the townhalls...

They also recognized pairing schools raises many implementation questions, staffing, number of classrooms, budget, etc. that will be addressed should the recommendation be considered for implementation.

Finally, they recognized that the timeline for such a pairing would be longer than school year 25-26.

Tool is found here: https://www.dcschoolboundaryexplorer.com/map?mode=view

Thank you for sharing!