Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

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.

DC can't track: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

[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.

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.

DC can't track: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

Eighth graders at Deal are taking everything from 8th grade math to Algebra II. DC obviously is allowed to track. If you think there's some legal reason why they can track in middle school but not elementary school, feel free to share that.

[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.

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.

DC can't track: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

Eighth graders at Deal are taking everything from 8th grade math to Algebra II. DC obviously is allowed to track. If you think there's some legal reason why they can track in middle school but not elementary school, feel free to share that.

It is very challenging for students who are put into tracks starting in elementary school to move up or down as appropriate. In addition academic achievement in lower elementary isn't necessarily a good indication of academic ability. Treating a child as gifted for the rest of their academic career based on their ability at 7, for example, will favor certain students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DC can't track: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

Eighth graders at Deal are taking everything from 8th grade math to Algebra II. DC obviously is allowed to track. If you think there's some legal reason why they can track in middle school but not elementary school, feel free to share that.

It is very challenging for students who are put into tracks starting in elementary school to move up or down as appropriate. In addition academic achievement in lower elementary isn't necessarily a good indication of academic ability. Treating a child as gifted for the rest of their academic career based on their ability at 7, for example, will favor certain students.

I'm not asking for your folk education policy. The comment was that DC is *not allowed* to track. That is obviously empirically false. Public schools track. DC is allowed to track. DCPS chooses not to track in elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a subset of current families at Maury who very specifically and intentionally moved into the boundary in order to attend one of the “best” public elementary schools in DC. It's maybe contributing to the NIMBYism.

Yes, that's what parents do all over the country. Move to a specific neighborhood for the schools.

Yes but there's a difference between moving somewhere for a specific school district, or even a specific school triangle, and moving somewhere for a specific elementary. Especially in DC where elementary schools are small and boundaries often cut through neighborhoods, as is the case with Maury and Miner.

The NIMBYism in this situation is extra strange to me because these two elementaries feed to the same MS, which families at Maury are currently actively trying to improve. Moving into the Maury boundary while KNOWING that there is an elementary school a half mile away with essentially the opposite demographics and outcomes, and then being surprised when the suggested solutions for this problem impact the school you bought in-boundary for, reflects some ignorance about how school districts work. Districts are always seeking to balance populations, whether it's moving kids around to address overcrowding, balancing demographics, or trying to create feeder patterns that make sense.

In any case, there is a version of this cluster idea that could actually be an opportunity for Maury and Miner IB families to join forces and create two great schools that then feed to the same middle school. But it sounds like the vision for greatness at Maury is as much about who they keep out (poor kids, SpEd kids, at risk kids) as what they actually do at the school, so they do not feel up to that taks with a much more racially and socioeconomically diverse population.

Can you in any way demonstrate or provide anything other than vibes a feels that the Maury and Miner could "join forces and create two great schools"?

Maury parents would be for it! Spoiler: There's nothing but vibes and feels.

Premise #1: If Miner could get it's at risk percentage under 40%, it could more easily gear programming and resources towards a socioeconomically diverse student body.

Premise #2: If Miner could get its at risk percentage under 40%, it could more easily attract IB families who currently avoid the school because of the belief that most resources and programming at the school will be geared towards its large at risk population.

Premise #3: If Miner and Maury combined and Maury retained its current family composition, even before increasing IB buy-in for Miner, the at risk percentage for the combined school would be 33%.

Premise #4: The willingness of Maury families to stay at the combined school would attract IB Miner families the school, further dropping the at risk percentage and increasing programming and resources that could be aimed at non-at-risk students at both schools.

Permise #5: As the largest feeder to EH, families from the Miner-Maury cluster would have more influence over the culture and programming at EH, and be able to more effectively advocate for tracking that would further better serve students by meeting them where they were at.

Conclusion: A Miner-Maury cluster with buy in from both school's boundaries could not only produce two elementary schools with a favorable demographic balance, but could also help produce a MS with the same. While the cluster would initially change demographics at Maury in a way that would present challenges, the majority of students would still be high SES, and if the schools could retain existing families and build IB buy-n a the Miner zone, the benefits to both school communities in the form of a larger community of committed, IB, high SES families supporting multiple strong elementary schools and a strong neighborhood, by-right middle school would ultimately benefit Maury families more than the present situation, in which they have a very strong elementary that feeds to a struggling MS and HS, forcing many Maury families to turn to charters and other non-neighborhood options for MS and HS.

But the whole thing would hinge on Maury families being on board and Miner IB families being willing to buy in. I think the latter is likely if you get the former, but the former is unlikely based on what we've heard from the Maury community thus far.

the problem with your analysis is that #1 and #2 are completely theoretical and yes “vibes” based, with the exception of a handful of shaky studies with a million confounders. There’s no good evidence that merely reducing the concentration of low-SES students improves their education, and that a single classroom with such big gaps can be taught to the needs of all students. Meanwhile DCPS discourages or forbids methods that would allow for tracking and fails to examine what the lower SES kids actually need in terms of instruction. The theory is literally ALL VIBES.

#1 and #2 are not theoretical.

Look at test scores in DCPS schools based on percent of at risk students. It's a direct correlation.

Look at the test scores of the at-risk students in those schools - is there really a difference? If so, how do you demonstrate the difference is due to reducing the concentration of at-risk kids, and how much is other factors like more engaged parents lotterying in and figuring out transport? Or is the difference due to something instructional the schools are doing that has nothing to do with the concentration of at-risk students? Even if reducing the concentration has some impact it’s likely to be FAR less than direct supports, like doubling up on math classes and high-dose tutoring. Pretending that reducing the numbers fixes everything is just a fairy tale as far as I can tell.

So your argument is that lowering at risk percents doesn't help at risk kids, but also even if it turns out it does, that must be due to some other factor. You don't know what factor but you just know that reducing the percent of at risk kids at a school dies not improve test scores or educational experience for at risk students. You have no data to back this up, you just know.

Meanwhile, you are sure that a school with 65% at risk students, like Miner, would improve if they just doubled up on math classes and I creased tutoring. Can you provide an example of a school with greater than 50% at risk students that was able to boost test scores with this approach? The answer is no, but do go look.

We'll wait.

Pretty much agree with everything you wrote, yes. DC hasn’t tried to intensify academics at any high-risk elementary. And given that the cluster approach would only help a tiny proportion of DCPs at-risk kids, DCPS kind of has to have other ideas.

Sorry, that's not how we do here in DC. Intensifying academics is a violation of "equity" because kids who are behind are disproportionately at-risk, and kids at-risk are disproportionately black. Therefore, any effort to intensify academics will make scores lower more for black kids and all others, which cannot be permitted.

As long as DC clings to the regressive policy of "social promotion" and minimum grades regardless of attendance and work product none of this matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

How old? And will you send your kid to Eastern? There are a very small minority who tell themselves this, but understand there are more important priorities later. I mean if you are saving for college in a 529 that in and of itself is prioritizing educational factors other than diversity.

Mid-elementary (as in has taken PARCC), we 100% will go to our feeder MS. Have not made a decision either way on Eastern. Regardless, whatever HS our kids attended will be both racially and socioeconomically diverse.[b] I grew up going to schools like this and I think it made me a better person, and I am committed to giving my own kids that opportunity.[/b[

OMG spare us. Talk to us again when your third grader is 12.

Totally, completely, this! Know it all white savior has a kid in 3rd grade and thinks they have a clue what is about to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

Ok, weirdo.

-DP

I love that this is the response to someone stating that they chose to attend an IB school with a high at risk percentage over lotterying into a school with a low at risk percentage, even though this is precisely the choice Maury families are demanding Miner IB families make in order to fix Miner without requiring a cluster.

DCUM never disappoints. It's hypocrisy and nonsense all the way down.

They allegedly chose to attend their IB school due to some white savior complex. At best, they're IB for Payne and patting themselves on the back for supporting "integration." But more likely, they're a troll.

Y'all are so convinced that everyone is as self-serving and value-free as you are. It's actually sad.

That's a pretty telling turn of phrase. Why are your values considered "values" and anyone who disagrees doesn't have different values, rather, a total lack of values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all these inspired Ward 6 parents have already filled out their lottery applications and have Miner ranked #1.

Using Maury kids as pawns in an experiment that has already failed on the Hill instead of your own is high level hypocrisy.

It's not hypocritical-- many of us send our kids to schools like Payne, Watkins, JO, Van Ness, and Tyler (my kids' school is on this list). I don't have to prove my bona fides to you. I am already doing my part to create truly integrated Ward 6 schools and support the education of at risk students in my school. I don't need to lottery for Miner because I'm already doing it somewhere else.

Your turn.

DP. My went from Maury to EH - are you going to send your kid to the IB MS? The fact is, zero parents (including black and lower SES) make school choices based on some abstract sense of “creating a truly integrated Ward 6.” That’s nonsense.

I 100% made school choices out of a belief in integrated schools. In fact, we were offered a lottery spot at one of the coveted Hill schools and turned it down to stay at our school with a higher at risk percentage. Again, I dare you to call me a hypocrite. I walk the walk.

How old? And will you send your kid to Eastern? There are a very small minority who tell themselves this, but understand there are more important priorities later. I mean if you are saving for college in a 529 that in and of itself is prioritizing educational factors other than diversity.

Mid-elementary (as in has taken PARCC), we 100% will go to our feeder MS. Have not made a decision either way on Eastern. Regardless, whatever HS our kids attended will be both racially and socioeconomically diverse. I grew up going to schools like this and I think it made me a better person, and I am committed to giving my own kids that opportunity.

Want to make sure I have this right. Your decision to stay at your ES makes you a better person committed to integration(?) and morally superior. But when your kid gets to HS you aren't committed to Eastern and might make a move.

Why is it OK for you to make a decision about whether or not HS is good enough but others don't have that right to make the decision in ES?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to address the suggestion that that the boundary between Maury and Miner be redrawn to balance populations between the schools, as opposed to a cluster. I am curious as to whether there is genuinely support for that plan from Maury families.

The DME has said that they can't find a way to redraw the boundary to do this, but that simply cannot be correct. I'm guessing what they really mean is the the only way to do it is to create two severely gerrymandered boundaries. I think what they looked at was drawing the boundary vertically instead of horizontally, as it is now, and the reason this probably didn't work is because Maury is to the west of Miner and the demographics of this neighborhood get whiter and wealthier as you go west and south, and blacker and poorer as you go north and east. Due to the position of the schools, this means that if you draw fairly straight, logical boundaries, you wind up with lopsided demographics whether you draw them N-S or E-W.

So what if instead, they created gerrymandered zones, where they specifically carved out some of the low-income housing now zoned for Miner and assigned it to Maury (this might even require creating a zone that is not contiguous, I'm not sure), and then carved out some of the high-income housing now zoned for Maury and assigned it to Miner.

My question is: how would Maury families feel about this proposal, and does their opinion changed depending on whether their home would be assigned to Miner (and if it wouldn't change, please state whether you have children who would be zoned to Miner as a result of this change, as I know some people on this thread had kids at Maury but no longer have elementary kids).

Follow up question: If they did this, wouldn't this essentially be busing? It was argued up thread that the cluster idea is "essential" busing, but wouldn't gerrymandered zones designed to assign low-SES kids to Maury and high-SES kids to Miner be actual busing?

I am asking this question because I don't think at risk set asides will meaningfully increase the number of at risk kids at Maury, so I am looking for a way to actually increase that percentage without a cluster.

What you are proposing is a fundamental change to the local, IB school based system that DC has long had and that parents bought into when they made decisions on where to live. If DC wants to upend the IB, neighborhood preference structure then DC should do that across the board and not apply it only to Maury. They should stop giving by right seats to JKLM and to people who live in the neighborhood and go to an all lottery system. Sure, San Fran tried it and it destroyed public education in the city. But the same morons who advocate for decriminalizing drugs and reducing police there seem to have an outsized voice in education as well.

You all seem to thing funding magically appears. When tax bases retract services get cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

You don't think it relevant to know that the person judging and lecturing everyone else got where he is with a "do as I say, not what I do" mentality? Also kudos on trying to take the high road with "loser". Well played!

[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.

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.

DC can't track: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

Eighth graders at Deal are taking everything from 8th grade math to Algebra II. DC obviously is allowed to track. If you think there's some legal reason why they can track in middle school but not elementary school, feel free to share that.

DCPS has an explicit anti-tracking policy in elementary school. I don't think it's legal per se, but it is rooted in the Hobson case. The cluster will not be allowed to track, so it's not helpful to note that many problems would be solved via tracking. True or not, I assure you that's not going to happen especially in a context where it would realistically create a school within a school and be readily apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

Also, my take away from that is that the person in question might recognize that his education was severely lacking specifically because of how not diverse his experience was, and might be looking to rectify that for his kids. I attended very diverse K-12 schools and a diverse state flagship university, but then attended an "elite" law school where for the first time in my life I encountered a large population of people who had never attended public schools and had very little experience with people from less privileged backgrounds than their own. My perception is that these folks were/are very myopic and lacked some basic understanding about how the world works. So if one such person might choose to give his kids a different experience, I am personally very supportive of that.

I also think punishing a PP who chose to drop anonymity specifically to have a more open discussion in this way is incredibly counterproductive. Notice that not a single person has taken him up on his offer to discuss his family's experience at Miner -- they don't care. Instead all questions have been personal questions about his kid and his background. And most haven't been questions at all, just attacks lobbed from behind the safety of anonymity.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You won't be, I know, you don't have to tell me. But you should be.

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that he's a total hypocrite. Why is it that people like you think only your way of looking at the world can be right? You are so convinced of your moral clarity and superiority that you don't for a minute consider that someone with divergent views is entitled to theirs. I didn't know Billy was a product of lily white private schools until it was explained to me. That's relevant for me. But I guess I don't get an opinion if doesn't conform to those of the Woke mob?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not my conclusion at all! Tyler at 40% at risk is doing much better. It would take work but Miner could improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DC can't track: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson_v._Hansen

Eighth graders at Deal are taking everything from 8th grade math to Algebra II. DC obviously is allowed to track. If you think there's some legal reason why they can track in middle school but not elementary school, feel free to share that.

It is very challenging for students who are put into tracks starting in elementary school to move up or down as appropriate. In addition academic achievement in lower elementary isn't necessarily a good indication of academic ability. Treating a child as gifted for the rest of their academic career based on their ability at 7, for example, will favor certain students.

I think all we are asking for is grade-level instruction, not gifted classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

Also, my take away from that is that the person in question might recognize that his education was severely lacking specifically because of how not diverse his experience was, and might be looking to rectify that for his kids. I attended very diverse K-12 schools and a diverse state flagship university, but then attended an "elite" law school where for the first time in my life I encountered a large population of people who had never attended public schools and had very little experience with people from less privileged backgrounds than their own. My perception is that these folks were/are very myopic and lacked some basic understanding about how the world works. So if one such person might choose to give his kids a different experience, I am personally very supportive of that.

I also think punishing a PP who chose to drop anonymity specifically to have a more open discussion in this way is incredibly counterproductive. Notice that not a single person has taken him up on his offer to discuss his family's experience at Miner -- they don't care. Instead all questions have been personal questions about his kid and his background. And most haven't been questions at all, just attacks lobbed from behind the safety of anonymity.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You won't be, I know, you don't have to tell me. But you should be.

Your confusing the two non-anonymous posters.

Billy supposedly lotteried his kids to LT.
Chris had kids at Miner but moved.

It matters because neither has any skin in the game.

To be fair, LT is far more diverse than Miner and one of the most diverse schools in DCPS by most metrics.

You are using the word "diverse" wrong. Here in DCUM-land it doesn't mean diverse. It means highest concentration of [insert demo we're being lectured about here] possible. The people on DCUM believe a school that is 99% black and 75% at risk is more diverse than a school that is 40% white and 33% black. And forget trying to figure out what the "right" percentage is. The target moves depending on the day and the issue.