Maury Capitol Hill

[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: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?

To add, this would also be important to assessing the SES diversity of the schools now.

[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?

+1000. DCPS schools are still wasting time with Calkins.

[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.

Yes it will eventually. No teacher can successfully differentiate math in a class where 25 kids get PARCC 1 and 5 kids get PARCC 4/5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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?

(1) Because educating at-risk children is harder than education high-SES kids, and in a public school system, the burden of educating a large percentage of at-risk students should be shared across schools, not concentrated only in the specific high-poverty schools.

(2) Because high percentages of at risk kids tend to scare away higher-SES families, making it very hard for a school with a high at-risk percentage to attract in-bound buy in. Since walkable neighborhood schools are also a goal of the district, concentrating at risk kids at certain schools is undesirable as it reduces in-bound buy in.

(3) Because there are opportunities at schools with higher-SES students that kids at schools with very high at-risk percentages may be excluded from. This includes everything from more field trips to having some kid's parent who's a judge come and talk to the class, to just more parental involvement generally, etc. Segregating high-SES kids from at-risk kids creates disparate experiences in the same school system.

My kid has been in majority at-risk classrooms and it's had no negative impact on her education.

[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.

So many DC parents believe this and then are shocked when HS does role around and their kids aren’t actually fine.

[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.

Yes it will eventually. No teacher can successfully differentiate math in a class where 25 kids get PARCC 1 and 5 kids get PARCC 4/5.

Though can a teacher do much better with 3 kids at PARCC 1, 4 kids at PARCC 2, 7 kids at PARCC 3, 11 kids at PARCC 4, and 5 kids at PARCC 5? It seems like we ask the impossible of our teachers.

[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.

Yes it will eventually. No teacher can successfully differentiate math in a class where 25 kids get PARCC 1 and 5 kids get PARCC 4/5.

My kids' teachers successfully do this daily. That breakdown is actually pretty easy because kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC do great with some focused small-group attention and then being left to practice what they've learned on their own, leaving the teacher to focus on the kids scoring a 1. Plus a classroom with a lot of kids getting 1s also likely has a high number of IEPs, which will mean lots of push ins and pull outs for services to support that, meaning more help in the classroom and also opportunities to work with smaller groups.

A tougher break down would be 20 kids scoring 3, 5 scoring 4/5, and 5 scoring 1/2. What happens in that room is everything gets taught to the 3s, the 4/5s get some small group attention and do fine, and then the 1/2s flounder because they can't keep up with the instruction to the 3s but they aren't getting anywhere close to the amount of attention needed to bring them up to grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

So many DC parents believe this and then are shocked when HS does role around and their kids aren’t actually fine.

Where are the DC parents who experience this supposed shock? I know lots of kids who have gone through Title 1 elementaries and middles and gotten into Walls or Banneker, or who excel at Latin, or who move the suburbs and do well at suburban high schools. I don't personally know a single parent whose child was at or above grade level throughout elementary school, at ANY elementary, and then was shocked to discover that their kid was behind in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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?

(1) Because educating at-risk children is harder than education high-SES kids, and in a public school system, the burden of educating a large percentage of at-risk students should be shared across schools, not concentrated only in the specific high-poverty schools.

(2) Because high percentages of at risk kids tend to scare away higher-SES families, making it very hard for a school with a high at-risk percentage to attract in-bound buy in. Since walkable neighborhood schools are also a goal of the district, concentrating at risk kids at certain schools is undesirable as it reduces in-bound buy in.

(3) Because there are opportunities at schools with higher-SES students that kids at schools with very high at-risk percentages may be excluded from. This includes everything from more field trips to having some kid's parent who's a judge come and talk to the class, to just more parental involvement generally, etc. Segregating high-SES kids from at-risk kids creates disparate experiences in the same school system.

My kid has been in majority at-risk classrooms and it's had no negative impact on her education.

How old is your kid? There is a lot confusion between resting on privilege (“my child will be fine wherever!”) and actually understanding what kids are learning in the classroom compared to peers.

As for “spreading the burden around” - first that is an extremely insulting conceptualization of real kids, so not sure why this is ok but “dilute” is a federal offense. And it also assumes that at-risk families don’t prefer to stay in their schools with improved academics. Our child is at EH and I truly don’t get the picture that all of the families would rather send their kids to Deal. And finally, “spreading the burden around” is NOT a viable solution for DC due to our demographics.

At-risk kids are not “burdens” to be solved by “spreading them around.” They are students with specific academic needs that DCPS should focus on meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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?

(1) Because educating at-risk children is harder than education high-SES kids, and in a public school system, the burden of educating a large percentage of at-risk students should be shared across schools, not concentrated only in the specific high-poverty schools.

(2) Because high percentages of at risk kids tend to scare away higher-SES families, making it very hard for a school with a high at-risk percentage to attract in-bound buy in. Since walkable neighborhood schools are also a goal of the district, concentrating at risk kids at certain schools is undesirable as it reduces in-bound buy in.

(3) Because there are opportunities at schools with higher-SES students that kids at schools with very high at-risk percentages may be excluded from. This includes everything from more field trips to having some kid's parent who's a judge come and talk to the class, to just more parental involvement generally, etc. Segregating high-SES kids from at-risk kids creates disparate experiences in the same school system.

My kid has been in majority at-risk classrooms and it's had no negative impact on her education.

How old is your kid? There is a lot confusion between resting on privilege (“my child will be fine wherever!”) and actually understanding what kids are learning in the classroom compared to peers.

As for “spreading the burden around” - first that is an extremely insulting conceptualization of real kids, so not sure why this is ok but “dilute” is a federal offense. And it also assumes that at-risk families don’t prefer to stay in their schools with improved academics. Our child is at EH and I truly don’t get the picture that all of the families would rather send their kids to Deal. And finally, “spreading the burden around” is NOT a viable solution for DC due to our demographics.

At-risk kids are not “burdens” to be solved by “spreading them around.” They are students with specific academic needs that DCPS should focus on meeting.

They are both, and if you don't understand this, you don't understand DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Could we declare a moratorium in this conversation on "how old is your kid?" We get it, parents with different age kids have different experiences and priorities. But everyone gets a say.

Also, people will just lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

Yes it will eventually. No teacher can successfully differentiate math in a class where 25 kids get PARCC 1 and 5 kids get PARCC 4/5.

My kids' teachers successfully do this daily. That breakdown is actually pretty easy because kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC do great with some focused small-group attention and then being left to practice what they've learned on their own, leaving the teacher to focus on the kids scoring a 1. Plus a classroom with a lot of kids getting 1s also likely has a high number of IEPs, which will mean lots of push ins and pull outs for services to support that, meaning more help in the classroom and also opportunities to work with smaller groups.

A tougher break down would be 20 kids scoring 3, 5 scoring 4/5, and 5 scoring 1/2. What happens in that room is everything gets taught to the 3s, the 4/5s get some small group attention and do fine, and then the 1/2s flounder because they can't keep up with the instruction to the 3s but they aren't getting anywhere close to the amount of attention needed to bring them up to grade level.

My PARCC 4 kid actually needs a lot of attention. You’re just proving the point when you say “Hey the grade-level kids can just teach themselves! They don’t need attention.” At a certain point parents clue into the fact that their friends’ and relatives’ kids at higher performing schools are just learning more and being prepared better for HS and college. Then “oh Larla doesn’t actually need to be taught!” starts to feel a lot less true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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?

(1) Because educating at-risk children is harder than education high-SES kids, and in a public school system, the burden of educating a large percentage of at-risk students should be shared across schools, not concentrated only in the specific high-poverty schools.

(2) Because high percentages of at risk kids tend to scare away higher-SES families, making it very hard for a school with a high at-risk percentage to attract in-bound buy in. Since walkable neighborhood schools are also a goal of the district, concentrating at risk kids at certain schools is undesirable as it reduces in-bound buy in.

(3) Because there are opportunities at schools with higher-SES students that kids at schools with very high at-risk percentages may be excluded from. This includes everything from more field trips to having some kid's parent who's a judge come and talk to the class, to just more parental involvement generally, etc. Segregating high-SES kids from at-risk kids creates disparate experiences in the same school system.

My kid has been in majority at-risk classrooms and it's had no negative impact on her education.

What is the burden, though, if not negative academic impacts? Money? That can be allocated. Not attracting high SES families? We're still trying to figure out if their presence matters. Maybe teacher retention, if there are lots of behaviour issues? As relates to the cluster, I'm not sure how that comes out -- we don't know how the combined populations will affect teacher retention.

I think (3) is an interesting point. Field trips seem like money again -- maybe some issues with volunteers/chaperones, but with enough money that too could be resolved. Recognizing that there are many involved and committed parents at Miner, it is nevertheless true that higher SES schools generally have advantages in parental involvement. That said, as relates to this discussion, I think a cluster would negatively impact parental involvement — for example, getting my kids to both schools and not being able to help both their classes in one trip will necessarily reduce the time I am able to spend in the schools -- such that this factor isn't really at play for this proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

So many DC parents believe this and then are shocked when HS does role around and their kids aren’t actually fine.

Where are the DC parents who experience this supposed shock? I know lots of kids who have gone through Title 1 elementaries and middles and gotten into Walls or Banneker, or who excel at Latin, or who move the suburbs and do well at suburban high schools. I don't personally know a single parent whose child was at or above grade level throughout elementary school, at ANY elementary, and then was shocked to discover that their kid was behind in HS.

The point is that the families realize they need actual grade-level schools by HS. The “shock” in lack of preparation in MS was avoided for the families that moved or went to Latin. And I universally hear from families that went from Title 1 MS to Banneker or Walls or private: “yeah, he was behind and had to catch up.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

Yes it will eventually. No teacher can successfully differentiate math in a class where 25 kids get PARCC 1 and 5 kids get PARCC 4/5.

My kids' teachers successfully do this daily. That breakdown is actually pretty easy because kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC do great with some focused small-group attention and then being left to practice what they've learned on their own, leaving the teacher to focus on the kids scoring a 1. Plus a classroom with a lot of kids getting 1s also likely has a high number of IEPs, which will mean lots of push ins and pull outs for services to support that, meaning more help in the classroom and also opportunities to work with smaller groups.

A tougher break down would be 20 kids scoring 3, 5 scoring 4/5, and 5 scoring 1/2. What happens in that room is everything gets taught to the 3s, the 4/5s get some small group attention and do fine, and then the 1/2s flounder because they can't keep up with the instruction to the 3s but they aren't getting anywhere close to the amount of attention needed to bring them up to grade level.

My PARCC 4 kid actually needs a lot of attention. You’re just proving the point when you say “Hey the grade-level kids can just teach themselves! They don’t need attention.” At a certain point parents clue into the fact that their friends’ and relatives’ kids at higher performing schools are just learning more and being prepared better for HS and college. Then “oh Larla doesn’t actually need to be taught!” starts to feel a lot less true.

And the more time and resources I have to spend outside of school making sure my kid learns at the highest level he can reduces the amount of time and resources I am able to dedicate to the classroom/school.