New opposition petition to the Maury-Miner boundary proposal from DME

Anonymous
The proposal to merge Maury and Miner is the latest installment of years of failed efforts to gentrify Miner. For a variety of reasons, Miner has been resistant to the demographic change in student population that Maury experienced over the last 20 years. Factors at Miner include less single-family housing in the Miner boundary to flip, turnover in principals, teachers who have been resistant to change, and failed efforts to create programs that are more appealing to high-income parents like language immersion. This is why so much of the support for the combined school is coming from frustrated high-income parents who have not been catered to as they expect at Miner. This is also why there is an element of unexamined racism that a Thanos snap will "fix" Miner simply by association with Maury. High-income parents expect that they will be in control of public institutions like schools, and they leave or break things when they are not.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.


Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.


They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.


The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.


Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The proposal to merge Maury and Miner is the latest installment of years of failed efforts to gentrify Miner. For a variety of reasons, Miner has been resistant to the demographic change in student population that Maury experienced over the last 20 years. Factors at Miner include less single-family housing in the Miner boundary to flip, turnover in principals, teachers who have been resistant to change, and failed efforts to create programs that are more appealing to high-income parents like language immersion. This is why so much of the support for the combined school is coming from frustrated high-income parents who have not been catered to as they expect at Miner. This is also why there is an element of unexamined racism that a Thanos snap will "fix" Miner simply by association with Maury. High-income parents expect that they will be in control of public institutions like schools, and they leave or break things when they are not.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.


Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.


They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.


The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.


Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.


Gosh PP, you make Miner sound so wonderful! Only an entitled, high-income racist would want to avoid it.

Why don't you go ahead and explain why Miner's IB participation by low-income families is so low.
Anonymous
There are a couple of things going on. DCPS has failed to provide Miner with consistent, high-performing leadership. Principal turnover is both a cause and a symptom. At the same time, high-income parents are frustrated that they are not in charge. You see this whenever high-income parents start to dominate a PTO or LSAT.

High-income parents in the Miner boundary will oppose at-risk set-asides to increase the at-risk percentage at Maury because these do not benefit them directly. Rather than only being about egalitarianism, the merger proposal is also about high-income parents' access.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:There are a couple of things going on. DCPS has failed to provide Miner with consistent, high-performing leadership. Principal turnover is both a cause and a symptom. At the same time, high-income parents are frustrated that they are not in charge. You see this whenever high-income parents start to dominate a PTO or LSAT.

High-income parents in the Miner boundary will oppose at-risk set-asides to increase the at-risk percentage at Maury because these do not benefit them directly. Rather than only being about egalitarianism, the merger proposal is also about high-income parents' access.


Yes. It’s not actually rocket science. If DCPS ensured better leadership at Miner and supported attractive programs and academics, the IB families would enroll.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There are a couple of things going on. DCPS has failed to provide Miner with consistent, high-performing leadership. Principal turnover is both a cause and a symptom. At the same time, high-income parents are frustrated that they are not in charge. You see this whenever high-income parents start to dominate a PTO or LSAT.

High-income parents in the Miner boundary will oppose at-risk set-asides to increase the at-risk percentage at Maury because these do not benefit them directly. Rather than only being about egalitarianism, the merger proposal is also about high-income parents' access.


Yes. It’s not actually rocket science. If DCPS ensured better leadership at Miner and supported attractive programs and academics, the IB families would enroll.


This. Who's in charge at Miner? DCPS. And how are the results? Pretty terrible IMO. Can you blame people for trying to have some influence over the school when DCPS has so resoundingly failed to deliver an adequate level of quality?
Anonymous
So it sounds like DCPS is trying to do high income parents a favor here? By combining both schools, the high income parents can run both of the schools and make the changes they want.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why the White Miner families leading the charge here are in favor of the proposal. Do they think the Maury families won’t leave immediately? What Maury do they think they’ll get? So naive. They’d rather bring down all of us than face up to the fact that they should’ve bought in bounds for a better school. Grow up.


I think the assumption/belief that ALL the IB white families will leave is naive. There are white families who send their kids to Payne, Watkins, JO Wilson, Tyler, Van Ness. And those schools don't have Maury's history.

A lot of people just want a decent IB school. Yes, there are families that bought IB for Maury expressly to get the school. I personally think this is a little nuts give the MS/HS situation, but people can do what they want. But there are plenty of parents who don't need "the best" elementary school (especially when "best" is measured simply by percentage of white and high SES families). They just want a decent school. I think Maury will still be that for a lot of families now IB, even with the cluster, and then you will get a lot of interest from IB families from the Miner catchment who currently feel like Miner doesn't meet their threshold for "decent."

There are also likely white and high SES families in the surrounding area who would be willing to give the cluster a shot over their IB. Thinking of people IB for Wheatley, in particular -- that's not a bad commute and it's a big upgrade for them because Wheatley is a PK-8 school and very few people want to send their kids there for MS. EH might not be good enough for a lot of Hill East families, but it's a step up from Wheatley.


There’s no reason to believe that post-cluster Maury will still be “decent” - especially in the view of the people who moved to this area specifically for their kids to attend the current version of Maury, which is a top elementary school in DC. Plus, even if Maury does wind up being “decent” post-cluster, that’s far from certain at this point, and it’s doubtful that Maury families will stick around to find out. The people who moved here to send their kids to Maury aren’t the type of people who are willing to gamble on their children’s education.

This idea is doomed to fail.

Deputy Mayor for Education should be renamed Deputy Mayor for Diversity, because that seems to be the main focus.


The cluster will be better than Miner and likely better than Wheatley and a number of other nearby schools. Even if some families IB for Maury bail, there are plenty of families in the broader neighborhood, including those now IB for Miner, who will be happy to take their place.

People complain about the CH cluster but Peabody remains a relatively in demand ECE program and Watkins is considered better than a number of other options.

It's all about relative quality, especially within the lottery system. You don't need to be the best school, you just need to be better than nearby alternatives.


That’s all true, but it still sounds like wishful thinking that Miner will be marginally improved. The split campus is a net negative for both schools. I don’t know that a family from Wheatley who wouldn’t consider miner before the split would consider them after.


Miner is currently awful. Just access to Maury's upper grade teachers would improve it. I completely understand why Maury families are against the proposal, but pretending that it won't improve *Miner* is silly.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:There are a couple of things going on. DCPS has failed to provide Miner with consistent, high-performing leadership. Principal turnover is both a cause and a symptom. At the same time, high-income parents are frustrated that they are not in charge. You see this whenever high-income parents start to dominate a PTO or LSAT.

High-income parents in the Miner boundary will oppose at-risk set-asides to increase the at-risk percentage at Maury because these do not benefit them directly. Rather than only being about egalitarianism, the merger proposal is also about high-income parents' access.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Or why it would be unique to Miner vice other schools. I think most in the Miner community would agree that the "high income parents" that "dominate" their PTO and LSAT have brought positive things to the school. The Miner PTO is very solid. They just have a very steep uphill climb.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why the White Miner families leading the charge here are in favor of the proposal. Do they think the Maury families won’t leave immediately? What Maury do they think they’ll get? So naive. They’d rather bring down all of us than face up to the fact that they should’ve bought in bounds for a better school. Grow up.


I think the assumption/belief that ALL the IB white families will leave is naive. There are white families who send their kids to Payne, Watkins, JO Wilson, Tyler, Van Ness. And those schools don't have Maury's history.

A lot of people just want a decent IB school. Yes, there are families that bought IB for Maury expressly to get the school. I personally think this is a little nuts give the MS/HS situation, but people can do what they want. But there are plenty of parents who don't need "the best" elementary school (especially when "best" is measured simply by percentage of white and high SES families). They just want a decent school. I think Maury will still be that for a lot of families now IB, even with the cluster, and then you will get a lot of interest from IB families from the Miner catchment who currently feel like Miner doesn't meet their threshold for "decent."

There are also likely white and high SES families in the surrounding area who would be willing to give the cluster a shot over their IB. Thinking of people IB for Wheatley, in particular -- that's not a bad commute and it's a big upgrade for them because Wheatley is a PK-8 school and very few people want to send their kids there for MS. EH might not be good enough for a lot of Hill East families, but it's a step up from Wheatley.


There’s no reason to believe that post-cluster Maury will still be “decent” - especially in the view of the people who moved to this area specifically for their kids to attend the current version of Maury, which is a top elementary school in DC. Plus, even if Maury does wind up being “decent” post-cluster, that’s far from certain at this point, and it’s doubtful that Maury families will stick around to find out. The people who moved here to send their kids to Maury aren’t the type of people who are willing to gamble on their children’s education.

This idea is doomed to fail.

Deputy Mayor for Education should be renamed Deputy Mayor for Diversity, because that seems to be the main focus.


The cluster will be better than Miner and likely better than Wheatley and a number of other nearby schools. Even if some families IB for Maury bail, there are plenty of families in the broader neighborhood, including those now IB for Miner, who will be happy to take their place.

People complain about the CH cluster but Peabody remains a relatively in demand ECE program and Watkins is considered better than a number of other options.

It's all about relative quality, especially within the lottery system. You don't need to be the best school, you just need to be better than nearby alternatives.


That’s all true, but it still sounds like wishful thinking that Miner will be marginally improved. The split campus is a net negative for both schools. I don’t know that a family from Wheatley who wouldn’t consider miner before the split would consider them after.


Miner is currently awful. Just access to Maury's upper grade teachers would improve it. I completely understand why Maury families are against the proposal, but pretending that it won't improve *Miner* is silly.


How specifically will it improve Miner?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There are a couple of things going on. DCPS has failed to provide Miner with consistent, high-performing leadership. Principal turnover is both a cause and a symptom. At the same time, high-income parents are frustrated that they are not in charge. You see this whenever high-income parents start to dominate a PTO or LSAT.

High-income parents in the Miner boundary will oppose at-risk set-asides to increase the at-risk percentage at Maury because these do not benefit them directly. Rather than only being about egalitarianism, the merger proposal is also about high-income parents' access.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Or why it would be unique to Miner vice other schools. I think most in the Miner community would agree that the "high income parents" that "dominate" their PTO and LSAT have brought positive things to the school. The Miner PTO is very solid. They just have a very steep uphill climb.


If the plan is to make Miner majority non-at-risk, isn't it to be expected that non-at-risk parents would be the majority of the PTO and LSAT membership?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why the White Miner families leading the charge here are in favor of the proposal. Do they think the Maury families won’t leave immediately? What Maury do they think they’ll get? So naive. They’d rather bring down all of us than face up to the fact that they should’ve bought in bounds for a better school. Grow up.


I think the assumption/belief that ALL the IB white families will leave is naive. There are white families who send their kids to Payne, Watkins, JO Wilson, Tyler, Van Ness. And those schools don't have Maury's history.

A lot of people just want a decent IB school. Yes, there are families that bought IB for Maury expressly to get the school. I personally think this is a little nuts give the MS/HS situation, but people can do what they want. But there are plenty of parents who don't need "the best" elementary school (especially when "best" is measured simply by percentage of white and high SES families). They just want a decent school. I think Maury will still be that for a lot of families now IB, even with the cluster, and then you will get a lot of interest from IB families from the Miner catchment who currently feel like Miner doesn't meet their threshold for "decent."

There are also likely white and high SES families in the surrounding area who would be willing to give the cluster a shot over their IB. Thinking of people IB for Wheatley, in particular -- that's not a bad commute and it's a big upgrade for them because Wheatley is a PK-8 school and very few people want to send their kids there for MS. EH might not be good enough for a lot of Hill East families, but it's a step up from Wheatley.


There’s no reason to believe that post-cluster Maury will still be “decent” - especially in the view of the people who moved to this area specifically for their kids to attend the current version of Maury, which is a top elementary school in DC. Plus, even if Maury does wind up being “decent” post-cluster, that’s far from certain at this point, and it’s doubtful that Maury families will stick around to find out. The people who moved here to send their kids to Maury aren’t the type of people who are willing to gamble on their children’s education.

This idea is doomed to fail.

Deputy Mayor for Education should be renamed Deputy Mayor for Diversity, because that seems to be the main focus.


The cluster will be better than Miner and likely better than Wheatley and a number of other nearby schools. Even if some families IB for Maury bail, there are plenty of families in the broader neighborhood, including those now IB for Miner, who will be happy to take their place.

People complain about the CH cluster but Peabody remains a relatively in demand ECE program and Watkins is considered better than a number of other options.

It's all about relative quality, especially within the lottery system. You don't need to be the best school, you just need to be better than nearby alternatives.


That’s all true, but it still sounds like wishful thinking that Miner will be marginally improved. The split campus is a net negative for both schools. I don’t know that a family from Wheatley who wouldn’t consider miner before the split would consider them after.


Miner is currently awful. Just access to Maury's upper grade teachers would improve it. I completely understand why Maury families are against the proposal, but pretending that it won't improve *Miner* is silly.


I don’t get at all why you’re making this assumption. “Miner” and “Maury” as they exist today will be no longer. There’s about a million questions that bear on the success of this new model, almost none of which have been answered. And I have no faith that they will be anytime soon.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There are a couple of things going on. DCPS has failed to provide Miner with consistent, high-performing leadership. Principal turnover is both a cause and a symptom. At the same time, high-income parents are frustrated that they are not in charge. You see this whenever high-income parents start to dominate a PTO or LSAT.

High-income parents in the Miner boundary will oppose at-risk set-asides to increase the at-risk percentage at Maury because these do not benefit them directly. Rather than only being about egalitarianism, the merger proposal is also about high-income parents' access.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Or why it would be unique to Miner vice other schools. I think most in the Miner community would agree that the "high income parents" that "dominate" their PTO and LSAT have brought positive things to the school. The Miner PTO is very solid. They just have a very steep uphill climb.


It's not unique to Miner. In fact, one express reason that many Maury families are so angry about the cluster proposal is that they viewed Maury as a school that they "controlled" and have been upset to learn that DCPS actually runs the school and can make unilateral decisions to change it.

The high income families IB for Maury and Miner are incredibly similar -- they largely want the same things for their kids and in their schools. The difference is that Maury families are currently getting what they want (a strong IB elementary school with a good community, strong test scores, and an upward trajectory) and Miner families are not.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why the White Miner families leading the charge here are in favor of the proposal. Do they think the Maury families won’t leave immediately? What Maury do they think they’ll get? So naive. They’d rather bring down all of us than face up to the fact that they should’ve bought in bounds for a better school. Grow up.


I think the assumption/belief that ALL the IB white families will leave is naive. There are white families who send their kids to Payne, Watkins, JO Wilson, Tyler, Van Ness. And those schools don't have Maury's history.

A lot of people just want a decent IB school. Yes, there are families that bought IB for Maury expressly to get the school. I personally think this is a little nuts give the MS/HS situation, but people can do what they want. But there are plenty of parents who don't need "the best" elementary school (especially when "best" is measured simply by percentage of white and high SES families). They just want a decent school. I think Maury will still be that for a lot of families now IB, even with the cluster, and then you will get a lot of interest from IB families from the Miner catchment who currently feel like Miner doesn't meet their threshold for "decent."

There are also likely white and high SES families in the surrounding area who would be willing to give the cluster a shot over their IB. Thinking of people IB for Wheatley, in particular -- that's not a bad commute and it's a big upgrade for them because Wheatley is a PK-8 school and very few people want to send their kids there for MS. EH might not be good enough for a lot of Hill East families, but it's a step up from Wheatley.


There’s no reason to believe that post-cluster Maury will still be “decent” - especially in the view of the people who moved to this area specifically for their kids to attend the current version of Maury, which is a top elementary school in DC. Plus, even if Maury does wind up being “decent” post-cluster, that’s far from certain at this point, and it’s doubtful that Maury families will stick around to find out. The people who moved here to send their kids to Maury aren’t the type of people who are willing to gamble on their children’s education.

This idea is doomed to fail.

Deputy Mayor for Education should be renamed Deputy Mayor for Diversity, because that seems to be the main focus.


The cluster will be better than Miner and likely better than Wheatley and a number of other nearby schools. Even if some families IB for Maury bail, there are plenty of families in the broader neighborhood, including those now IB for Miner, who will be happy to take their place.

People complain about the CH cluster but Peabody remains a relatively in demand ECE program and Watkins is considered better than a number of other options.

It's all about relative quality, especially within the lottery system. You don't need to be the best school, you just need to be better than nearby alternatives.


That’s all true, but it still sounds like wishful thinking that Miner will be marginally improved. The split campus is a net negative for both schools. I don’t know that a family from Wheatley who wouldn’t consider miner before the split would consider them after.


Miner is currently awful. Just access to Maury's upper grade teachers would improve it. I completely understand why Maury families are against the proposal, but pretending that it won't improve *Miner* is silly.


I don’t get at all why you’re making this assumption. “Miner” and “Maury” as they exist today will be no longer. There’s about a million questions that bear on the success of this new model, almost none of which have been answered. And I have no faith that they will be anytime soon.


DP, but: because Miner is currently so bad. Like you know how many of the arguments against the cluster from Maury parents point to Peabody-Watkins and complain that it's a "failed" cluster that demonstrates the model doesn't work?

Well Peabody-Watkins would be a massive upgrade for Miner families. In fact, many families IB for Miner rank it quite high on their lottery lists because the commute wouldn't be that bad, especially for the Watkins years.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why the White Miner families leading the charge here are in favor of the proposal. Do they think the Maury families won’t leave immediately? What Maury do they think they’ll get? So naive. They’d rather bring down all of us than face up to the fact that they should’ve bought in bounds for a better school. Grow up.


I think the assumption/belief that ALL the IB white families will leave is naive. There are white families who send their kids to Payne, Watkins, JO Wilson, Tyler, Van Ness. And those schools don't have Maury's history.

A lot of people just want a decent IB school. Yes, there are families that bought IB for Maury expressly to get the school. I personally think this is a little nuts give the MS/HS situation, but people can do what they want. But there are plenty of parents who don't need "the best" elementary school (especially when "best" is measured simply by percentage of white and high SES families). They just want a decent school. I think Maury will still be that for a lot of families now IB, even with the cluster, and then you will get a lot of interest from IB families from the Miner catchment who currently feel like Miner doesn't meet their threshold for "decent."

There are also likely white and high SES families in the surrounding area who would be willing to give the cluster a shot over their IB. Thinking of people IB for Wheatley, in particular -- that's not a bad commute and it's a big upgrade for them because Wheatley is a PK-8 school and very few people want to send their kids there for MS. EH might not be good enough for a lot of Hill East families, but it's a step up from Wheatley.


There’s no reason to believe that post-cluster Maury will still be “decent” - especially in the view of the people who moved to this area specifically for their kids to attend the current version of Maury, which is a top elementary school in DC. Plus, even if Maury does wind up being “decent” post-cluster, that’s far from certain at this point, and it’s doubtful that Maury families will stick around to find out. The people who moved here to send their kids to Maury aren’t the type of people who are willing to gamble on their children’s education.

This idea is doomed to fail.

Deputy Mayor for Education should be renamed Deputy Mayor for Diversity, because that seems to be the main focus.


The cluster will be better than Miner and likely better than Wheatley and a number of other nearby schools. Even if some families IB for Maury bail, there are plenty of families in the broader neighborhood, including those now IB for Miner, who will be happy to take their place.

People complain about the CH cluster but Peabody remains a relatively in demand ECE program and Watkins is considered better than a number of other options.

It's all about relative quality, especially within the lottery system. You don't need to be the best school, you just need to be better than nearby alternatives.


That’s all true, but it still sounds like wishful thinking that Miner will be marginally improved. The split campus is a net negative for both schools. I don’t know that a family from Wheatley who wouldn’t consider miner before the split would consider them after.


Miner is currently awful. Just access to Maury's upper grade teachers would improve it. I completely understand why Maury families are against the proposal, but pretending that it won't improve *Miner* is silly.


I don’t get at all why you’re making this assumption. “Miner” and “Maury” as they exist today will be no longer. There’s about a million questions that bear on the success of this new model, almost none of which have been answered. And I have no faith that they will be anytime soon.


DP, but: because Miner is currently so bad. Like you know how many of the arguments against the cluster from Maury parents point to Peabody-Watkins and complain that it's a "failed" cluster that demonstrates the model doesn't work?

Well Peabody-Watkins would be a massive upgrade for Miner families. In fact, many families IB for Miner rank it quite high on their lottery lists because the commute wouldn't be that bad, especially for the Watkins years.


Miner will not get worse. Maury's good scores will be diluted due to a more mixed SES.

Genuine question, what makes Maury "good" beyond having higher SES? Does it outperform even among lower income students? A school isn't necessarily "good* if it has a high proportion of SES students who, as expected, test well.
Anonymous
When is the part where they propose any improvements to Miner whatsoever, other than trying to make high-SES people attend?
post reply Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools
Message Quick Reply
Go to: