Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!?!?

I mean... I feel like we already knew this. There was absolutely no evidence that they viewed Peabody/Watkins as a model or guide for this proposal. It almost feels like there's a coincidence to them that there's another cluster on the Hill, and the perception that this cluster was not successful does not to be registering.

The only thing that makes it look like they took Peabody/Watkins into account at all is the fact that they chose a school pair that is much closer together, reducing the transportation issues that really amped up the problems there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!?!?

these are the same people who claimed they could only draw vertical lines as boundaries…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me it's clear something needs to be done to lower the at risk percentage at Miner. I understand the objections to the cluster, but you can make similar objections to any proposal.

It feels like a lot of people are basically arguing for the status quo, which means Miner remains a school with a lot of at risk kids who it ultimately fails.

It feels like no matter what is proposed, it will be rejected as infeasible, and nothing will change.

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

[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.

Isn't it DME's responsibility to come up with proposals that improve educational outcomes? Why aren't people pushing DME to do their job properly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

Spreading around the white kids. That is literally the only objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

There is an argument that it is unfair to Miner to have such a high at risk percentage, as it makes it harder to educate non-at-risk students and also creates a downward spiral.

One way to look at this is not that they are trying to spread out the high-SES kids, but that they are trying to spread out the at-risk students, who are harder to educate, so that a school can't just be exempt from dealing with the challenges associated with educating this group. This has long been an argument many people make against public charters, which tend to exclude more at risk kids due to barriers to entry (you have to apply, which requires a certain level of family competency, some charters require family meetings before enrollment which screens out a lot of at risk kids, etc.). This means that in DC, where about half of all students attend charters, the percentage of at-risk students in DCPS schools is artificially high, since charters take on fewer than half of all at risk kids.

Also, if you spread out at-risk students, then more schools get the opportunity to try to find ways to help them, and ignore schools work on it, then you are more likely to find solutions that actually work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

There is an argument that it is unfair to Miner to have such a high at risk percentage, as it makes it harder to educate non-at-risk students and also creates a downward spiral.

One way to look at this is not that they are trying to spread out the high-SES kids, but that they are trying to spread out the at-risk students, who are harder to educate, so that a school can't just be exempt from dealing with the challenges associated with educating this group. This has long been an argument many people make against public charters, which tend to exclude more at risk kids due to barriers to entry (you have to apply, which requires a certain level of family competency, some charters require family meetings before enrollment which screens out a lot of at risk kids, etc.). This means that in DC, where about half of all students attend charters, the percentage of at-risk students in DCPS schools is artificially high, since charters take on fewer than half of all at risk kids.

Also, if you spread out at-risk students, then more schools get the opportunity to try to find ways to help them, and ignore schools work on it, then you are more likely to find solutions that actually work.

I should also note that in DC, the EA set asides for charters have been a direct result of this criticism, and an effort to channel more at risk students into charters with low at risk populations. There is a lot of resentment towards charters that tout how effective they are at achieving good results as compared to nearby DCPS schools, when the charter is attracting a significant proportion of the high-SES kids in the neighborhood but very few of the at-risk kids, leaving the local DCPS to deal with an artificially high at risk percentage.

I know this has been raised regarding several charters in the city, but the one I'm familiar with is Two Rivers 4th, which became the "de facto inbound" for high-SES families assigned to JOW. TR4th now has an EA set aside, but if you look at the Tableau data for for the school you can see why people aren't enthusiastic about these set asides solving this problem. TR4th offered 12 EA spots for PK3 and filled 8 of them in the lottery, then offered 1 more to a student who was presumably a post-lottery application as they had no waitlist. The school also received EA bids for every other grade, but they made no EA spots available for these grades and made no waitlist offers, so I'm not even clear why anyone wasted a lottery spot on them for the other grades -- they would have been better off applying for a regular (non-EA) spot where TR4 actually went pretty deep into their waitlists, nearly clearing them for K-3 and clearing them for 4th and 5th. It actually looks like TR4 may have (intentionally or not) diverted at risk applicants to a separate pool where no non-PK3 spots were made available and keeping them out of the regular pool where many spots were offered.

And that, folks, is why people are highly suspicious of at risk lottery set asides as a solution to ensuring at risk kids have equal access to strong schools in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it's clear something needs to be done to lower the at risk percentage at Miner. I understand the objections to the cluster, but you can make similar objections to any proposal.

It feels like a lot of people are basically arguing for the status quo, which means Miner remains a school with a lot of at risk kids who it ultimately fails.

It feels like no matter what is proposed, it will be rejected as infeasible, and nothing will change.

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

There is an argument that it is unfair to Miner to have such a high at risk percentage, as it makes it harder to educate non-at-risk students and also creates a downward spiral.

One way to look at this is not that they are trying to spread out the high-SES kids, but that they are trying to spread out the at-risk students, who are harder to educate, so that a school can't just be exempt from dealing with the challenges associated with educating this group. This has long been an argument many people make against public charters, which tend to exclude more at risk kids due to barriers to entry (you have to apply, which requires a certain level of family competency, some charters require family meetings before enrollment which screens out a lot of at risk kids, etc.). This means that in DC, where about half of all students attend charters, the percentage of at-risk students in DCPS schools is artificially high, since charters take on fewer than half of all at risk kids.

Also, if you spread out at-risk students, then more schools get the opportunity to try to find ways to help them, and ignore schools work on it, then you are more likely to find solutions that actually work.

I should also note that in DC, the EA set asides for charters have been a direct result of this criticism, and an effort to channel more at risk students into charters with low at risk populations. There is a lot of resentment towards charters that tout how effective they are at achieving good results as compared to nearby DCPS schools, when the charter is attracting a significant proportion of the high-SES kids in the neighborhood but very few of the at-risk kids, leaving the local DCPS to deal with an artificially high at risk percentage.

I know this has been raised regarding several charters in the city, but the one I'm familiar with is Two Rivers 4th, which became the "de facto inbound" for high-SES families assigned to JOW. TR4th now has an EA set aside, but if you look at the Tableau data for for the school you can see why people aren't enthusiastic about these set asides solving this problem. TR4th offered 12 EA spots for PK3 and filled 8 of them in the lottery, then offered 1 more to a student who was presumably a post-lottery application as they had no waitlist. The school also received EA bids for every other grade, but they made no EA spots available for these grades and made no waitlist offers, so I'm not even clear why anyone wasted a lottery spot on them for the other grades -- they would have been better off applying for a regular (non-EA) spot where TR4 actually went pretty deep into their waitlists, nearly clearing them for K-3 and clearing them for 4th and 5th. It actually looks like TR4 may have (intentionally or not) diverted at risk applicants to a separate pool where no non-PK3 spots were made available and keeping them out of the regular pool where many spots were offered.

And that, folks, is why people are highly suspicious of at risk lottery set asides as a solution to ensuring at risk kids have equal access to strong schools in DC.

So is there data showing the outcomes for the MC kids at Miner would improve in a cluster with Maury?

Would help to assess these things if I knew more data about the SES make-up of the schools -- people have been talking about Maury like it's 88% Richie Rich kids, but I'd be curious to know the proportions of high SES versus middle SES versus low SES (if that's different from at-risk) at Maury and in the Miner boundary. It seems relevant to determining the general SES of the potential cluster. Does anyone know if this data exists anywhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it's clear something needs to be done to lower the at risk percentage at Miner. I understand the objections to the cluster, but you can make similar objections to any proposal.

It feels like a lot of people are basically arguing for the status quo, which means Miner remains a school with a lot of at risk kids who it ultimately fails.

It feels like no matter what is proposed, it will be rejected as infeasible, and nothing will change.

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

+1, we have kids in middle and lower grades at a school with similar at risk percentages as Miner, and both are at or above grade level in all subjects. My older child learned to read extremely well in Kindergarten thanks to an amazing teacher and now in 3rd writes short stories with proper punctuation and grammar (spelling needs work) and we struggle to find books for her because she goes through them so quickly and also reads so far above grade level that it can be a challenge to find age-appropriate books that still challenge her. My younger child was diagnosed with an LD in 1st thanks to school screening tests and has received excellent support for it in school and on grade level with reading now despite early difficulties. Both kids love math and are a mix of at and above grade level there.

They also have diverse groups of friends, are already learning to navigate differences in backgrounds and experiences with peers, and show a high level of emotional regulation thanks to the school's high emphasis on social-emotional learning which I think was aimed at at risk kids but benefits everyone.

I don't know what is going to happen with the cluster and these aren't my schools, but reading some of the comments on this thread, I think the fear that the mere presence of more at risk students in your kids classrooms is very unlikely to have the negative impact you all think it will. I think Maury would be fine with more at risk kids, and I agree with some of the PPs who noted that there are real benefits to a more socioeconomically diverse school environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it's clear something needs to be done to lower the at risk percentage at Miner. I understand the objections to the cluster, but you can make similar objections to any proposal.

It feels like a lot of people are basically arguing for the status quo, which means Miner remains a school with a lot of at risk kids who it ultimately fails.

It feels like no matter what is proposed, it will be rejected as infeasible, and nothing will change.

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

So there is no reason to cluster the schools then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it's clear something needs to be done to lower the at risk percentage at Miner. I understand the objections to the cluster, but you can make similar objections to any proposal.

It feels like a lot of people are basically arguing for the status quo, which means Miner remains a school with a lot of at risk kids who it ultimately fails.

It feels like no matter what is proposed, it will be rejected as infeasible, and nothing will change.

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

+1, we have kids in middle and lower grades at a school with similar at risk percentages as Miner, and both are at or above grade level in all subjects. My older child learned to read extremely well in Kindergarten thanks to an amazing teacher and now in 3rd writes short stories with proper punctuation and grammar (spelling needs work) and we struggle to find books for her because she goes through them so quickly and also reads so far above grade level that it can be a challenge to find age-appropriate books that still challenge her. My younger child was diagnosed with an LD in 1st thanks to school screening tests and has received excellent support for it in school and on grade level with reading now despite early difficulties. Both kids love math and are a mix of at and above grade level there.

They also have diverse groups of friends, are already learning to navigate differences in backgrounds and experiences with peers, and show a high level of emotional regulation thanks to the school's high emphasis on social-emotional learning which I think was aimed at at risk kids but benefits everyone.

I don't know what is going to happen with the cluster and these aren't my schools, but reading some of the comments on this thread, I think the fear that the mere presence of more at risk students in your kids classrooms is very unlikely to have the negative impact you all think it will. I think Maury would be fine with more at risk kids, and I agree with some of the PPs who noted that there are real benefits to a more socioeconomically diverse school environment.

Thank you for sharing your experience, but the entire premise of clustering the schools is that having too many at-risk students in classrooms has a negative impact. Otherwise why would we need to spread them out?