Maury Capitol Hill

[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. 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?

Just to clarify. The poster said their experience in a socioeconomically diverse school growing up made them a better person. Then you put it in present tense and added 'and morally superior.' If you have facts and 'morality' on your side you should be able to operate without twisting people's words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Say more about what you mean by this -- I think this plan can be accomplished if you tighten the Maury boundary by expanding Miner's boundary to capture some of the Maury border houses (assuming that you don't capture Maury's current at-risk kids), but not sure if what you are suggesting is finding Maury's highest SES housing and adding that to Miner even if non-contiguous. When it comes down to it, MC kids you reallocate from Maury to Miner are unlikely to attend if they can lottery anywhere else (just the same as MC kids currently in the Miner boundary). But would need to change the border to make room for low-income housing kids at Maury.

It would certainly do something to change the numbers, but strikes me as having a similar effect as the high-risk set aside. Which I think is fine—I think the only responsible way to do something like this is to do it gradually, to avoid overwhelming Maury and making two schools that are considered undesirable instead of one. Your thesis seems to be that the only acceptable solution is one that creates even numbers of at-risk kids at Maury and Miner instantly -- which I think is neither realistic/possible nor at all desirable.

PP here and I want to clarify that this is not my thesis at all. Rather, people on this thread have stated that they are not opposed to increasing Maury's at risk percentage from 12%, but opposed using the cluster as the means. I very much understand the concerns about the proposed cluster and share many of them, but I'm interested in how else we might increase Maury's at risk percentage.

Some have suggested at risk set asides for Maury, but I have a lot of experience looking at how the EA preferences have worked at other schools and the truth is -- they haven't really. And most of those are charter schools where everyone is littering in, so you'd expect the EA preference to be more effective. What you see over and over is that EA spots go unfilled, and this actually causes problems for the schools because it becomes difficult to asses how many EA and regular lottery slots to offer in subsequent years, and also raises questions as to whether those unfilled EA slots maybe given over to people on the non-EA waitlist, and if so at what point. At risk set asides in the lottery sound like an easy fix, but like a lot of things that sound great and easy, they have not shown to be particularly effective.

Also, my goal is not to make the at risk numbers between Maury and Miner equal. I don't really care what the specific numbers are. I just think it's valid in a district with 46% at risk kids to say that Maury needs to take on more at risk students, and I'm wondering how we might achieve that given Maury's current boundary has few at risk families and the school has very high IB buy in. So I'm curious what people would think of a gerrymandered boundary between Maury and Miner, as that looks like the most likely way to increase Maury's at-risk percentage.

I agree that you likely would not see a lot of the Maury families re-zoned to Miner going to Miner. I view that as a separate question. It's obvious that Miner needs to fix some things if they ever hope to attract more non-at-risk families, whether IB or OOB. I'm focused on Maury at the moment.

I'm PP, and I really appreciate you clarifying (and apologize for putting words in your mouth!). I see what you are saying. I think essentially tacking on some of the public housing to Maury and tightening the Maury boundary along Miner's borders (assuming again that it wouldn't re-zone Maury's current at-risk kids) would make sense. The big challenge I see would be that it would be pretty clear, if not to the kids then at least to the parents, that the kids coming into Maury from non-contiguous areas are coming from low-income housing. I like to think that wouldn't affect how anyone treats them or their own perception of their experience at Maury (alienation etc.), but potentially there could be impacts there. The other big challenge is if the commute or some other logistical issue puts a larger burden on the families re-zoned into Maury that makes their lives more difficult, or potentially leads to increased truancy for the kids. I'd be fine with a shuttle or something, but I guess there we are edging into busing?

Comparing the merits of the at-risk set aside to the proposed cluster, my question would be that if an at-risk set aside at Maury would go unfilled with so many at-risk students in the next boundary over, doesn't that indicate that a cluster wouldn't work for those families either? They would have to go to Maury in that case, but they won't volunteer to go right now? If it's a matter of families of at-risk students not necessarily being aware of at-risk set asides, I would think that information could be targeted toward the Miner boundary pretty easily.

PP again and thanks for the good faith conversation. I definitely agree with your assessment and I do see this as some of the obstacles as well. Perhaps there would be a way to draw the boundary that mitigates some of the potential worst effects (specifically addressing the issue of transportation which I agree could be a major concern).

I do think there should be a way to ensure that any low-income kids re-zoned for Maury are welcomed by the community. I tend to think some of the voices on this thread that are most opposed to more at-risk kids at Maury are outliers at the school (and also the people most likely to leave before the terminal grade and obviously unlikely to send their kids to EH).

The question about why an at risk set aside wouldn't work for low-income families now zones for Miner I think can be answered if you really put yourself in that position. Which is more appealing to you if you are a black, low-income parent living IB for Miner and want the best for your children and your family:

1) You can apply for a lottery spot at a nearby elementary with great test scores and an involved community of families, but the schools has only 12% at risk students and just 20% black students. If you receive a lottery spot, you have no idea what other families like yours might also receive a spot there, where they might live, whether you will have anything in common with them, or even whether that spot will get filled. So you have to decide whether or not to send your child to a school where they will be an outlier with no guarantee of many kids like them at the school.

or

2) You and all the families who live in your housing complex is suddenly zoned out of Miner and into Maury. Yes, Maury currently has a very low at risk percentage and is only 20% black, BUT you get to enroll your kids in Maury alongside all the other families in your housing complex. You can talk to your neighbors and find out what they plan to do, you can make arrangements to share the burden of commuting to the new school, you will have friendly faces at drop off and pick up, and when your kids come home, they will be able to play with school classmates without having to commute to another part of the neighborhood.

I'm sorry, did you really just suggest that families in public housing trying to get their kids a good education would opt for a failing school instead of a proximately located one because there aren't enough uneducated kids for them to be around? JFC.

Tell you are a white person trying too hard to be an "ally" without telling me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I mean, I think gifted classes would be great (and, frankly, vital given the wide range of achievement and ability that we see in a single classroom now), but grade-level instruction would be a step in the right direction.

[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.

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.

That's fine, but I'm not sure how else you would get a lot of buy-in for the idea of introducing a huge cohort of below-grade level kids into a school. Who would support that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's fine, but I'm not sure how else you would get a lot of buy-in for the idea of introducing a huge cohort of below-grade level kids into a school. Who would support that?

Kids getting access to a much better school? People who have equity as their primary value? I mean, quite obviously, some people support the idea. Read the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Say more about what you mean by this -- I think this plan can be accomplished if you tighten the Maury boundary by expanding Miner's boundary to capture some of the Maury border houses (assuming that you don't capture Maury's current at-risk kids), but not sure if what you are suggesting is finding Maury's highest SES housing and adding that to Miner even if non-contiguous. When it comes down to it, MC kids you reallocate from Maury to Miner are unlikely to attend if they can lottery anywhere else (just the same as MC kids currently in the Miner boundary). But would need to change the border to make room for low-income housing kids at Maury.

It would certainly do something to change the numbers, but strikes me as having a similar effect as the high-risk set aside. Which I think is fine—I think the only responsible way to do something like this is to do it gradually, to avoid overwhelming Maury and making two schools that are considered undesirable instead of one. Your thesis seems to be that the only acceptable solution is one that creates even numbers of at-risk kids at Maury and Miner instantly -- which I think is neither realistic/possible nor at all desirable.

PP here and I want to clarify that this is not my thesis at all. Rather, people on this thread have stated that they are not opposed to increasing Maury's at risk percentage from 12%, but opposed using the cluster as the means. I very much understand the concerns about the proposed cluster and share many of them, but I'm interested in how else we might increase Maury's at risk percentage.

Some have suggested at risk set asides for Maury, but I have a lot of experience looking at how the EA preferences have worked at other schools and the truth is -- they haven't really. And most of those are charter schools where everyone is littering in, so you'd expect the EA preference to be more effective. What you see over and over is that EA spots go unfilled, and this actually causes problems for the schools because it becomes difficult to asses how many EA and regular lottery slots to offer in subsequent years, and also raises questions as to whether those unfilled EA slots maybe given over to people on the non-EA waitlist, and if so at what point. At risk set asides in the lottery sound like an easy fix, but like a lot of things that sound great and easy, they have not shown to be particularly effective.

Also, my goal is not to make the at risk numbers between Maury and Miner equal. I don't really care what the specific numbers are. I just think it's valid in a district with 46% at risk kids to say that Maury needs to take on more at risk students, and I'm wondering how we might achieve that given Maury's current boundary has few at risk families and the school has very high IB buy in. So I'm curious what people would think of a gerrymandered boundary between Maury and Miner, as that looks like the most likely way to increase Maury's at-risk percentage.

I agree that you likely would not see a lot of the Maury families re-zoned to Miner going to Miner. I view that as a separate question. It's obvious that Miner needs to fix some things if they ever hope to attract more non-at-risk families, whether IB or OOB. I'm focused on Maury at the moment.

I'm PP, and I really appreciate you clarifying (and apologize for putting words in your mouth!). I see what you are saying. I think essentially tacking on some of the public housing to Maury and tightening the Maury boundary along Miner's borders (assuming again that it wouldn't re-zone Maury's current at-risk kids) would make sense. The big challenge I see would be that it would be pretty clear, if not to the kids then at least to the parents, that the kids coming into Maury from non-contiguous areas are coming from low-income housing. I like to think that wouldn't affect how anyone treats them or their own perception of their experience at Maury (alienation etc.), but potentially there could be impacts there. The other big challenge is if the commute or some other logistical issue puts a larger burden on the families re-zoned into Maury that makes their lives more difficult, or potentially leads to increased truancy for the kids. I'd be fine with a shuttle or something, but I guess there we are edging into busing?

Comparing the merits of the at-risk set aside to the proposed cluster, my question would be that if an at-risk set aside at Maury would go unfilled with so many at-risk students in the next boundary over, doesn't that indicate that a cluster wouldn't work for those families either? They would have to go to Maury in that case, but they won't volunteer to go right now? If it's a matter of families of at-risk students not necessarily being aware of at-risk set asides, I would think that information could be targeted toward the Miner boundary pretty easily.

PP again and thanks for the good faith conversation. I definitely agree with your assessment and I do see this as some of the obstacles as well. Perhaps there would be a way to draw the boundary that mitigates some of the potential worst effects (specifically addressing the issue of transportation which I agree could be a major concern).

I do think there should be a way to ensure that any low-income kids re-zoned for Maury are welcomed by the community. I tend to think some of the voices on this thread that are most opposed to more at-risk kids at Maury are outliers at the school (and also the people most likely to leave before the terminal grade and obviously unlikely to send their kids to EH).

The question about why an at risk set aside wouldn't work for low-income families now zones for Miner I think can be answered if you really put yourself in that position. Which is more appealing to you if you are a black, low-income parent living IB for Miner and want the best for your children and your family:

1) You can apply for a lottery spot at a nearby elementary with great test scores and an involved community of families, but the schools has only 12% at risk students and just 20% black students. If you receive a lottery spot, you have no idea what other families like yours might also receive a spot there, where they might live, whether you will have anything in common with them, or even whether that spot will get filled. So you have to decide whether or not to send your child to a school where they will be an outlier with no guarantee of many kids like them at the school.

or

2) You and all the families who live in your housing complex is suddenly zoned out of Miner and into Maury. Yes, Maury currently has a very low at risk percentage and is only 20% black, BUT you get to enroll your kids in Maury alongside all the other families in your housing complex. You can talk to your neighbors and find out what they plan to do, you can make arrangements to share the burden of commuting to the new school, you will have friendly faces at drop off and pick up, and when your kids come home, they will be able to play with school classmates without having to commute to another part of the neighborhood.

I'm sorry, did you really just suggest that families in public housing trying to get their kids a good education would opt for a failing school instead of a proximately located one because there aren't enough uneducated kids for them to be around? JFC.

Tell you are a white person trying too hard to be an "ally" without telling me.

(1) That's not what I said.

(2) These scenarios are based on first hand experience.

[Anonymous]

Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Say more about what you mean by this -- I think this plan can be accomplished if you tighten the Maury boundary by expanding Miner's boundary to capture some of the Maury border houses (assuming that you don't capture Maury's current at-risk kids), but not sure if what you are suggesting is finding Maury's highest SES housing and adding that to Miner even if non-contiguous. When it comes down to it, MC kids you reallocate from Maury to Miner are unlikely to attend if they can lottery anywhere else (just the same as MC kids currently in the Miner boundary). But would need to change the border to make room for low-income housing kids at Maury.

It would certainly do something to change the numbers, but strikes me as having a similar effect as the high-risk set aside. Which I think is fine—I think the only responsible way to do something like this is to do it gradually, to avoid overwhelming Maury and making two schools that are considered undesirable instead of one. Your thesis seems to be that the only acceptable solution is one that creates even numbers of at-risk kids at Maury and Miner instantly -- which I think is neither realistic/possible nor at all desirable.

PP here and I want to clarify that this is not my thesis at all. Rather, people on this thread have stated that they are not opposed to increasing Maury's at risk percentage from 12%, but opposed using the cluster as the means. I very much understand the concerns about the proposed cluster and share many of them, but I'm interested in how else we might increase Maury's at risk percentage.

Some have suggested at risk set asides for Maury, but I have a lot of experience looking at how the EA preferences have worked at other schools and the truth is -- they haven't really. And most of those are charter schools where everyone is littering in, so you'd expect the EA preference to be more effective. What you see over and over is that EA spots go unfilled, and this actually causes problems for the schools because it becomes difficult to asses how many EA and regular lottery slots to offer in subsequent years, and also raises questions as to whether those unfilled EA slots maybe given over to people on the non-EA waitlist, and if so at what point. At risk set asides in the lottery sound like an easy fix, but like a lot of things that sound great and easy, they have not shown to be particularly effective.

Also, my goal is not to make the at risk numbers between Maury and Miner equal. I don't really care what the specific numbers are. I just think it's valid in a district with 46% at risk kids to say that Maury needs to take on more at risk students, and I'm wondering how we might achieve that given Maury's current boundary has few at risk families and the school has very high IB buy in. So I'm curious what people would think of a gerrymandered boundary between Maury and Miner, as that looks like the most likely way to increase Maury's at-risk percentage.

I agree that you likely would not see a lot of the Maury families re-zoned to Miner going to Miner. I view that as a separate question. It's obvious that Miner needs to fix some things if they ever hope to attract more non-at-risk families, whether IB or OOB. I'm focused on Maury at the moment.

I'm PP, and I really appreciate you clarifying (and apologize for putting words in your mouth!). I see what you are saying. I think essentially tacking on some of the public housing to Maury and tightening the Maury boundary along Miner's borders (assuming again that it wouldn't re-zone Maury's current at-risk kids) would make sense. The big challenge I see would be that it would be pretty clear, if not to the kids then at least to the parents, that the kids coming into Maury from non-contiguous areas are coming from low-income housing. I like to think that wouldn't affect how anyone treats them or their own perception of their experience at Maury (alienation etc.), but potentially there could be impacts there. The other big challenge is if the commute or some other logistical issue puts a larger burden on the families re-zoned into Maury that makes their lives more difficult, or potentially leads to increased truancy for the kids. I'd be fine with a shuttle or something, but I guess there we are edging into busing?

Comparing the merits of the at-risk set aside to the proposed cluster, my question would be that if an at-risk set aside at Maury would go unfilled with so many at-risk students in the next boundary over, doesn't that indicate that a cluster wouldn't work for those families either? They would have to go to Maury in that case, but they won't volunteer to go right now? If it's a matter of families of at-risk students not necessarily being aware of at-risk set asides, I would think that information could be targeted toward the Miner boundary pretty easily.

PP again and thanks for the good faith conversation. I definitely agree with your assessment and I do see this as some of the obstacles as well. Perhaps there would be a way to draw the boundary that mitigates some of the potential worst effects (specifically addressing the issue of transportation which I agree could be a major concern).

I do think there should be a way to ensure that any low-income kids re-zoned for Maury are welcomed by the community. I tend to think some of the voices on this thread that are most opposed to more at-risk kids at Maury are outliers at the school (and also the people most likely to leave before the terminal grade and obviously unlikely to send their kids to EH).

The question about why an at risk set aside wouldn't work for low-income families now zones for Miner I think can be answered if you really put yourself in that position. Which is more appealing to you if you are a black, low-income parent living IB for Miner and want the best for your children and your family:

1) You can apply for a lottery spot at a nearby elementary with great test scores and an involved community of families, but the schools has only 12% at risk students and just 20% black students. If you receive a lottery spot, you have no idea what other families like yours might also receive a spot there, where they might live, whether you will have anything in common with them, or even whether that spot will get filled. So you have to decide whether or not to send your child to a school where they will be an outlier with no guarantee of many kids like them at the school.

or

2) You and all the families who live in your housing complex is suddenly zoned out of Miner and into Maury. Yes, Maury currently has a very low at risk percentage and is only 20% black, BUT you get to enroll your kids in Maury alongside all the other families in your housing complex. You can talk to your neighbors and find out what they plan to do, you can make arrangements to share the burden of commuting to the new school, you will have friendly faces at drop off and pick up, and when your kids come home, they will be able to play with school classmates without having to commute to another part of the neighborhood.

I'm sorry, did you really just suggest that families in public housing trying to get their kids a good education would opt for a failing school instead of a proximately located one because there aren't enough uneducated kids for them to be around? JFC.

Tell you are a white person trying too hard to be an "ally" without telling me.

Right back at you. Given the charter options it seems clear that many at-risk families choose IB schools like Miner. This discussion hasn’t actually considered their preferences at all. I know one at-risk kid whose parents deliberately moved them to an almost 100% black high at-risk elementary from an affluent “diverse” elementary specifically because they believed the school had low expectations for the at-risk, black kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

I haven't heard any Maury families advocating for no changes at Maury to increase the number of at-risk students. I've heard skepticism of the cluster model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

I think what everyone is saying is that kids in DCPS are entitled to instruction that fits their educational needs, including acceleration and college prep; or intensive remediation. I reject the premise that because DCPS has a lot of at-risk kids it cannot provide for academically grade level/college bound kids. If that’s true then DCPS can say goodbye to more high SES families.

[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.

But didn't some parents just chime in saying that their high performing kids were in that set up and were learning fine?

[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.

But didn't some parents just chime in saying that their high performing kids were in that set up and were learning fine?

their high-performing 7 year olds! wait until 5th …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

I haven't heard any Maury families advocating for no changes at Maury to increase the number of at-risk students. I've heard skepticism of the cluster model.

PP here. I actively oppose the cluster model and have been posting on this thread about how Maury families should try to coalesce around an alternative plan that would still diversify Maury socioeconomically but ISN'T the cluster, so they can advocate for as a valid alternative and at least force the DME to consider both plans, but people keeping telling me to "prove" that increasing the percentage of at-risk kids at Maury is necessary/good/would benefit Maury, etc. My point is that the DME doesn't have to prove this. They can just say that the discrepancy in at-risk enrollment between the two schools is inequitable, and they can take steps to equalize enrollments on that premise. The problem is they've settled on the cluster as the solution, which is why I'd be asking lots of questions about why a boundary redraw isn't being considered.