Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

True but it’s an important perspective. We should know if your POV is as a parent of a preschooler at Miner who left before K to move to Bethesda…

[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.

Where did I say kids scoring 4/5 don't need to be taught? A group of 5 kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC is an ideal small-group size. Have you ever taught? With that size group, you can craft small group lessons that meet their needs, give them group projects to work on collaboratively, plus track their progress against one another in ways that can help motivate and push them further.

Sure, if you have a whole classroom of 4/5s, you can do more of this. But this is public school, they take all comers. Private schools restrict admissions and counsel out kids so they can keep the mean as high as possible and pat themselves on the back for it. Public schools have to teach everyone. Sorry? Save up for private.

Also, at Miner I would worry about the fact that you might have a classroom with 22 kids scoring a 1 or a 2, and maybe 1 or 2 kids scoring a 3 or a 4. That set up is likely going to screw over the higher performing kids, who still need attention and help, but the teacher will be overwhelmed trying o give remedial instruction. But if you can even out that classroom a bit so that there are just 7 or 8 kids scoring 1s and 2s, and then you find some peers for the kids doing better, it makes the teachers job easier because it's possible to great groups and offer more differentiated instruction for those kids.

[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.

This is a great point. DCPS is about 50% at-risk students. (I don't know what the percentage would be if every kid in DC went to DCPS rather than privates or charters). If every school did its "fair share," each would face these huge burdens associated with really high numbers of at-risk kids. As a school system, there needs to be an answer for that beyond "spread them out."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

True but it’s an important perspective. We should know if your POV is as a parent of a preschooler at Miner who left before K to move to Bethesda…

The person you are referring to actually outed themselves on here so you DO know. But asking "how old is your kid" of every poster who expresses an opinion you don't agree with isn't productive, and you have to go by what people volunteer. The more you challenge this constantly, the more people will just lie and claim to have older kids just to get you off their back. It doesn't actually help the conversation.

[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.

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.

Where did I say kids scoring 4/5 don't need to be taught? A group of 5 kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC is an ideal small-group size. Have you ever taught? With that size group, you can craft small group lessons that meet their needs, give them group projects to work on collaboratively, plus track their progress against one another in ways that can help motivate and push them further.

Sure, if you have a whole classroom of 4/5s, you can do more of this. But this is public school, they take all comers. Private schools restrict admissions and counsel out kids so they can keep the mean as high as possible and pat themselves on the back for it. Public schools have to teach everyone. Sorry? Save up for private.

Also, at Miner I would worry about the fact that you might have a classroom with 22 kids scoring a 1 or a 2, and maybe 1 or 2 kids scoring a 3 or a 4. That set up is likely going to screw over the higher performing kids, who still need attention and help, but the teacher will be overwhelmed trying o give remedial instruction. But if you can even out that classroom a bit so that there are just 7 or 8 kids scoring 1s and 2s, and then you find some peers for the kids doing better, it makes the teachers job easier because it's possible to great groups and offer more differentiated instruction for those kids.

Doesn't it also depend a bit on the actual level of the kids? I'll take it on faith that all the 4s are roughly at the same level, but in theory the range for 5s goes from the lowest 5 (which may be close enough to 4 not to matter) to Big Bang Theory. Are teachers even able to get to the point of assessing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a great point. DCPS is about 50% at-risk students. (I don't know what the percentage would be if every kid in DC went to DCPS rather than privates or charters). If every school did its "fair share," each would face these huge burdens associated with really high numbers of at-risk kids. As a school system, there needs to be an answer for that beyond "spread them out."

Or you have a multi-pronged approach. There are schools that have high at-risk numbers and are doing a good job -- Langdon, Seaton, Burroughs. Support them in what they are doing, see what you can learn, don't mess with them.

But then you have schools with Miner that are absolutely floundering with very high at risk numbers. You can't jus let them rot, you have to do something. Well you've got a school a few blocks away with very low at risk numbers and high test scores. Okay, from a system perspective, that is somewhere that you should be able to shift some of Miner's at-risk population in order to reduce the burden on Miner (which they are clearly NOT rising to the challenge of meeting). I get that feels unfair to Maury but this is public school. You don't own Maury. It makes sense to shift some of the at risk kids at Miner to Maury in order to see if you can create a better situation at Miner for ALL the kids attending.

For the record, I think I'm leaning towards either gerrymandered zones or choice sets, as opposed to a cluster, because I think it will be less disruptive to what is working at Maury and will be easier to implement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a great point. DCPS is about 50% at-risk students. (I don't know what the percentage would be if every kid in DC went to DCPS rather than privates or charters). If every school did its "fair share," each would face these huge burdens associated with really high numbers of at-risk kids. As a school system, there needs to be an answer for that beyond "spread them out."

Or you have a multi-pronged approach. There are schools that have high at-risk numbers and are doing a good job -- Langdon, Seaton, Burroughs. Support them in what they are doing, see what you can learn, don't mess with them.

But then you have schools with Miner that are absolutely floundering with very high at risk numbers. You can't jus let them rot, you have to do something. Well you've got a school a few blocks away with very low at risk numbers and high test scores. Okay, from a system perspective, that is somewhere that you should be able to shift some of Miner's at-risk population in order to reduce the burden on Miner (which they are clearly NOT rising to the challenge of meeting). I get that feels unfair to Maury but this is public school. You don't own Maury. It makes sense to shift some of the at risk kids at Miner to Maury in order to see if you can create a better situation at Miner for ALL the kids attending.

For the record, I think I'm leaning towards either gerrymandered zones or choice sets, as opposed to a cluster, because I think it will be less disruptive to what is working at Maury and will be easier to implement.

I'm PP and all for shifting some low SES kids over to Maury via boundary changes, so that's one on the scoreboard for DCUM consensus-building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Where did I say kids scoring 4/5 don't need to be taught? A group of 5 kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC is an ideal small-group size. Have you ever taught? With that size group, you can craft small group lessons that meet their needs, give them group projects to work on collaboratively, plus track their progress against one another in ways that can help motivate and push them further.

Sure, if you have a whole classroom of 4/5s, you can do more of this. But this is public school, they take all comers. Private schools restrict admissions and counsel out kids so they can keep the mean as high as possible and pat themselves on the back for it. Public schools have to teach everyone. Sorry? Save up for private.

Also, at Miner I would worry about the fact that you might have a classroom with 22 kids scoring a 1 or a 2, and maybe 1 or 2 kids scoring a 3 or a 4. That set up is likely going to screw over the higher performing kids, who still need attention and help, but the teacher will be overwhelmed trying o give remedial instruction. But if you can even out that classroom a bit so that there are just 7 or 8 kids scoring 1s and 2s, and then you find some peers for the kids doing better, it makes the teachers job easier because it's possible to great groups and offer more differentiated instruction for those kids.

Doesn't it also depend a bit on the actual level of the kids? I'll take it on faith that all the 4s are roughly at the same level, but in theory the range for 5s goes from the lowest 5 (which may be close enough to 4 not to matter) to Big Bang Theory. Are teachers even able to get to the point of assessing this?

As a parent of a kid who scores in the "off the chart" 5 range, I can assure you that their needs will not be met in any general education classroom, so you can go ahead and let that one go.

What happens to kids in that range is that you are essentially homeschooling. Best case scenario is that you get teachers who are enthusiastic about offering challenges to your kid and will carve out some time for them, but realistically you can't expect a public school teacher with 25 kids in the class to be dedicating 1:1 time to one child every day. More likely you get a teacher who will find creative ways to help your child do solo work, or can give them opportunities to become experts and "teach" other kids (but you have to be careful with this because it needs to be genuinely enriching for the student, not just turning them into a teacher's aide).

DCPS is crap with these kids because they also don't have G&T programs so they don't get pull-out programming. This is why we intend to leave the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

True but it’s an important perspective. We should know if your POV is as a parent of a preschooler at Miner who left before K to move to Bethesda…

The person you are referring to actually outed themselves on here so you DO know. But asking "how old is your kid" of every poster who expresses an opinion you don't agree with isn't productive, and you have to go by what people volunteer. The more you challenge this constantly, the more people will just lie and claim to have older kids just to get you off their back. It doesn't actually help the conversation.

this is DCUM not a tea party. It’s very relevant to ask about age. people can lie but they could also be a typing monkey so 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a great point. DCPS is about 50% at-risk students. (I don't know what the percentage would be if every kid in DC went to DCPS rather than privates or charters). If every school did its "fair share," each would face these huge burdens associated with really high numbers of at-risk kids. As a school system, there needs to be an answer for that beyond "spread them out."

Or you have a multi-pronged approach. There are schools that have high at-risk numbers and are doing a good job -- Langdon, Seaton, Burroughs. Support them in what they are doing, see what you can learn, don't mess with them.

But then you have schools with Miner that are absolutely floundering with very high at risk numbers. You can't jus let them rot, you have to do something. Well you've got a school a few blocks away with very low at risk numbers and high test scores. Okay, from a system perspective, that is somewhere that you should be able to shift some of Miner's at-risk population in order to reduce the burden on Miner (which they are clearly NOT rising to the challenge of meeting). I get that feels unfair to Maury but this is public school. You don't own Maury. It makes sense to shift some of the at risk kids at Miner to Maury in order to see if you can create a better situation at Miner for ALL the kids attending.

For the record, I think I'm leaning towards either gerrymandered zones or choice sets, as opposed to a cluster, because I think it will be less disruptive to what is working at Maury and will be easier to implement.

I’m in favor of closing Miner and rezoning the kids to the surrounding schools. Or completely taking over Miner with some kind of turnover plan. Not a cluster. Completely upending one school because the other school is failing is a horrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a great point. DCPS is about 50% at-risk students. (I don't know what the percentage would be if every kid in DC went to DCPS rather than privates or charters). If every school did its "fair share," each would face these huge burdens associated with really high numbers of at-risk kids. As a school system, there needs to be an answer for that beyond "spread them out."

Or you have a multi-pronged approach. There are schools that have high at-risk numbers and are doing a good job -- Langdon, Seaton, Burroughs. Support them in what they are doing, see what you can learn, don't mess with them.

But then you have schools with Miner that are absolutely floundering with very high at risk numbers. You can't jus let them rot, you have to do something. Well you've got a school a few blocks away with very low at risk numbers and high test scores. Okay, from a system perspective, that is somewhere that you should be able to shift some of Miner's at-risk population in order to reduce the burden on Miner (which they are clearly NOT rising to the challenge of meeting). I get that feels unfair to Maury but this is public school. You don't own Maury. It makes sense to shift some of the at risk kids at Miner to Maury in order to see if you can create a better situation at Miner for ALL the kids attending.

For the record, I think I'm leaning towards either gerrymandered zones or choice sets, as opposed to a cluster, because I think it will be less disruptive to what is working at Maury and will be easier to implement.

I’m in favor of closing Miner and rezoning the kids to the surrounding schools. Or completely taking over Miner with some kind of turnover plan. Not a cluster. Completely upending one school because the other school is failing is a horrible idea.

If there is one good thing to emerge from this I think it might be greater neighborhood focus on how badly Miner is doing and helping people understand that it's not just one good principal and a committed PTO away from being the next Ludlow-Taylor. Cause it's not.

[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.

That’s why 5th grade becomes such a crucial escape hatch.

[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.

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.

That’s why 5th grade becomes such a crucial escape hatch.

Explain? If you are saying that families bail at 5th because while being in an elementary with high at-risk percentages will not prevent a well supported kid without SNs to excel, the same cannot be said of MS and HS, I agree. We're in a Title 1 elementary and totally satisfied with our kid's academic performance. They are above grade level, the instruction they receive is above average (one advantage of Title 1 schools is often smaller classes and more classroom support, which can be a big boon to above-grade-level kids), and socially the school has been great.

But we will move for MS because DCPS middles and high schools (at least outside Ward 3) don't differentiate enough and deal with greater behavioral issues. When I see the test scores for schools like Eastern, it's just a total no for me. It's one thing for a kid to be one of a handful of 2nd or 3rd graders reading above grade level. Differentiating in a classroom where there's one primary teacher and the focus is really on two subjects with some exposure to other subjects is one thing. Being in a MS/HS where kids are shifting from classroom to classroom, 90% of their classmates in any class are below grade level, and there may be no one even paying attention to whether or not they are getting what they need? NOPE.

But this is also why I think it's silly for Maury parents to freak out about more at risk kids at Maury. It will be fine. Your kids will be fine. The thing you should worry about is EH. I actually think that's why any Maury parent who wants to preserve EH as an option for their kids should be taking a pretty personal interesting what is happening at Miner. Payne seems to be doing pretty well but Miner is a mess and that's who your kids will be going to school with.

[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.

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.

Where did I say kids scoring 4/5 don't need to be taught? A group of 5 kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC is an ideal small-group size. Have you ever taught? With that size group, you can craft small group lessons that meet their needs, give them group projects to work on collaboratively, plus track their progress against one another in ways that can help motivate and push them further.

Sure, if you have a whole classroom of 4/5s, you can do more of this. But this is public school, they take all comers. Private schools restrict admissions and counsel out kids so they can keep the mean as high as possible and pat themselves on the back for it. Public schools have to teach everyone. Sorry? Save up for private.

Also, at Miner I would worry about the fact that you might have a classroom with 22 kids scoring a 1 or a 2, and maybe 1 or 2 kids scoring a 3 or a 4. That set up is likely going to screw over the higher performing kids, who still need attention and help, but the teacher will be overwhelmed trying o give remedial instruction. But if you can even out that classroom a bit so that there are just 7 or 8 kids scoring 1s and 2s, and then you find some peers for the kids doing better, it makes the teachers job easier because it's possible to great groups and offer more differentiated instruction for those kids.

Public schools can track, DCPS is just choosing not to. And my kids have been in these differentiated small groups with other kids who are at grade level and it's better than nothing, but it's not good. When you have a class with kids reading at a second grade level all the way up to a sixth grade level, teachers are basically doing triage. There's no other way to handle it. You wouldn't put average 7-year-olds in a class with average 11-year-olds and think that doing small groups would somehow make up for the fact that these kids need have entirely separate academic needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That’s why 5th grade becomes such a crucial escape hatch.

Explain? If you are saying that families bail at 5th because while being in an elementary with high at-risk percentages will not prevent a well supported kid without SNs to excel, the same cannot be said of MS and HS, I agree. We're in a Title 1 elementary and totally satisfied with our kid's academic performance. They are above grade level, the instruction they receive is above average (one advantage of Title 1 schools is often smaller classes and more classroom support, which can be a big boon to above-grade-level kids), and socially the school has been great.

But we will move for MS because DCPS middles and high schools (at least outside Ward 3) don't differentiate enough and deal with greater behavioral issues. When I see the test scores for schools like Eastern, it's just a total no for me. It's one thing for a kid to be one of a handful of 2nd or 3rd graders reading above grade level. Differentiating in a classroom where there's one primary teacher and the focus is really on two subjects with some exposure to other subjects is one thing. Being in a MS/HS where kids are shifting from classroom to classroom, 90% of their classmates in any class are below grade level, and there may be no one even paying attention to whether or not they are getting what they need? NOPE.

But this is also why I think it's silly for Maury parents to freak out about more at risk kids at Maury. It will be fine. Your kids will be fine. The thing you should worry about is EH. I actually think that's why any Maury parent who wants to preserve EH as an option for their kids should be taking a pretty personal interesting what is happening at Miner. Payne seems to be doing pretty well but Miner is a mess and that's who your kids will be going to school with.

But the cluster could just exacerbate the attrition already happening in the upper grades for both Maury and Miner by creating a clean break for families to bail before the upper grades. Looks at Peabody-Watkins - that negatively impacts SH's ability to attract IB families. Miner doesn't actually send that many kids to EH, but this could change if it became a desirable feed and families increasingly stayed around at both schools.