Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

The article is like a point-by-point guide to this thread. AND their plan involved actual busing because they were shifting kids around between high school triangles, not just fussing with two elementaries that feed to the same MS and HS.

It also only involved changing the school from 5% to 20% at-risk.

Not quite accurate. It involved re-balancing schools where one had a <5% at risk rate and the other had a 40%+ at risk rate. Shifting kids between them with the goal to reach a middle ground. It actually has a lot in common with both the problem the cluster plan is proposed to address and the similar goals.

But HoCo was looking at busing over 7000 kids to schools further away than their IB high school to achieve it. You really want to tell me that this was less "drastic" and disruptive than combining two elementaries with the same MS/HS feed? No.

Maury is NOT special here. This is a very common story.

yes, I’m telling you its more drastic. it did not involve actually taking apart two schools, and the change in at-risk population was less drastic. it also included transportation and didn’t involve split drop-offs of two young kids.

Yes because a split drop of for two schools four blocks apart is so much more disruptive than busing kids all the way across town in order to integrate HSs.

This is the whiniest freaking conversation. First we've got people who I am totally confident have $1k+ worth of strollers in their homes and likely extoll the virtues of their walkable neighborhood to anyone who will listen complaining that they couldn't possibly transport a 3 yr old 4 blocks. Then we've got people arguing that if there are too many poor children at Maury, there UMC children will never succeed. Then this switches to "actually, Maury is horrible at educating at risk kids, that's the only reason we can't send them here!" We've got the guy in the corner yelling at people to stop calling him a racist when no one has called him a racist. We have the "prove it" person, the "how old are YOUR kids" lady, the "you need me and my taxes" guy. And on and on. Y'all are nothing but a giant cliché. Grow. Up.

Dear person obsessed with strollers:

You can’t stick a 7 year old in a stroller, and they walk slow.

Dear you -- I have a 6 year old who I walk 6.5 blocks to school every day and she has no trouble keeping up with me pushing her sister in a stroller. Also, I used to do the dreaded "split drop off" every day for 3 years to two schools that were more than .5 miles apart, on my own, and then hoof it the reverse direction 1.5 miles. It was fine.

Are you seriously now arguing that you couldn't possibly be expected to walk a 7 year old 4 blocks?

Glad you had the schedule to do that. Doesn’t work for most people.

I am confident you will find a way to get your children to school.

Problem is, they won’t. Lots of people would lottery or move to avoid this new logistical challenge. Peabody/Watkins is evidence of this. Are there people for whom this logistical issue is still better than their other options? Sure. Does that mean that current Maury and Miner families will stay, and DCPS will end up with more integrated school? No guarantee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let Basis take over Miner and run it as an IB elementary. I am dead serious.

You can be as serious as you want, a charter LEA cannot run a neighborhood DCPS. Next suggestion.

sure it can. if they can close two schools and combine them into an US/LS cluster, they can appoint a turnaround operator to take over a failed school.

I know you are just being trollish but no, those aren't the same thing. Miner and Maury are both DCPS schools and DCPS is in charge of them and can do what it likes with them (or the mayor can, through DCPS). Legally, a charter company could not be brought in to run a DCPS. It would violate agreements with both the teachers and principals unions, as well as rules about how schools are governed and what curriculum they use.

It would be great if we could stick to good faith, plausible solutions to this problem instead of just engaging in nihilistic sarcasm.

Sure but the point stands that DCPS could fix Miner but instead wants to bury its problems by merging it with Maury.

Does DME want to fix Miner at all? All I heard is that it wants SES balance. Whether that actually improves educational outcomes for anyone has never been explained or shown in any DME meeting I attended. That's the entire problem here. People are assuming DME wants to improve educational outcomes, when DME has never actually said that.

I agree but I would take it a step farther. I think they want to balance/redistribute/dilute at risk and low SES and reduce the delta between schools' performance. That doesn't mean they want to improve net scores, just that they want less of a delta. If that happens because Maury scores tank that still gets the job done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you cite that research? I’ve been trying to read up on peer effects in education but it seems like there’s tons of confounding in most studies. Also seems like a pretty active debate over whether peer effects should be theorized/modeled to be symmetrical (e.g., high and low achievers converge on the mean) or asymmetrical (low achievers helped while high achievers unaffected or less affected).

As a parent that has already had kids in upper ES I can share first person experience. When a large portion of the class requires remediation and is disruptive (those two things travel together) the teachers need to deploy finite resources the ones most in need. Kids at or slightly above grade level will be warehoused. Cohorts that might be pushed from a 4 to 5 with a majority at grade level class will be deemed to be doing well enough with a 4. So it has been, so it will be.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

The article is like a point-by-point guide to this thread. AND their plan involved actual busing because they were shifting kids around between high school triangles, not just fussing with two elementaries that feed to the same MS and HS.

It also only involved changing the school from 5% to 20% at-risk.

Not quite accurate. It involved re-balancing schools where one had a <5% at risk rate and the other had a 40%+ at risk rate. Shifting kids between them with the goal to reach a middle ground. It actually has a lot in common with both the problem the cluster plan is proposed to address and the similar goals.

But HoCo was looking at busing over 7000 kids to schools further away than their IB high school to achieve it. You really want to tell me that this was less "drastic" and disruptive than combining two elementaries with the same MS/HS feed? No.

Maury is NOT special here. This is a very common story.

yes, I’m telling you its more drastic. it did not involve actually taking apart two schools, and the change in at-risk population was less drastic. it also included transportation and didn’t involve split drop-offs of two young kids.

Yes because a split drop of for two schools four blocks apart is so much more disruptive than busing kids all the way across town in order to integrate HSs.

This is the whiniest freaking conversation. First we've got people who I am totally confident have $1k+ worth of strollers in their homes and likely extoll the virtues of their walkable neighborhood to anyone who will listen complaining that they couldn't possibly transport a 3 yr old 4 blocks. Then we've got people arguing that if there are too many poor children at Maury, there UMC children will never succeed. Then this switches to "actually, Maury is horrible at educating at risk kids, that's the only reason we can't send them here!" We've got the guy in the corner yelling at people to stop calling him a racist when no one has called him a racist. We have the "prove it" person, the "how old are YOUR kids" lady, the "you need me and my taxes" guy. And on and on. Y'all are nothing but a giant cliché. Grow. Up.

Dear person obsessed with strollers:

You can’t stick a 7 year old in a stroller, and they walk slow.

Dear you -- I have a 6 year old who I walk 6.5 blocks to school every day and she has no trouble keeping up with me pushing her sister in a stroller. Also, I used to do the dreaded "split drop off" every day for 3 years to two schools that were more than .5 miles apart, on my own, and then hoof it the reverse direction 1.5 miles. It was fine.

Are you seriously now arguing that you couldn't possibly be expected to walk a 7 year old 4 blocks?

Glad you had the schedule to do that. Doesn’t work for most people.

I am confident you will find a way to get your children to school.

Problem is, they won’t. Lots of people would lottery or move to avoid this new logistical challenge. Peabody/Watkins is evidence of this. Are there people for whom this logistical issue is still better than their other options? Sure. Does that mean that current Maury and Miner families will stay, and DCPS will end up with more integrated school? No guarantee.

I know you think that threatening to move or lottery out (which as people have explained multiple times on here, is not as easy as you seem to imagine it is -- many charters are garbage, spots at high performing schools can be very hard to come by) is a logical checkmate, but it actually proves the point of the people you are arguing against.

Some of you are determined to send your kid to majority white, high-SES schools while also being congratulated for being anti-racist and supporting integration because they are in a public school with *some* poor black kids. No wonder you are so deeply offended at that the proposition that you can't actually have that both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many valid reasons to oppose the cluster but commute times are not one of them - the two schools are literally like 5 blocks apart straight down Tennessee Ave. 10 min walk, 3 min drive.

The fact you are conceiving of it as a drive is part of the problem.

Lol people like you are not helping the cause with trying to make dumb semantic points. He said 10 min walk. It is also a 3min bike if you'd prefer to say that.

My point wasn’t semantic. Most Maury families drop off on foot. Yes, it’s not a long drive; no, most Maury families don’t want to drive to school nor could the infrastructure around Maury support that.

On behalf of the parents driving kids in from PG County, I am offended that you don't acknowledge drivers. Clearly you are a racist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

Where did these numbers come from? The at restaurant so percentages do not match what I've seen for either school. Are they old?

Yes, these numbers have to be a few years old for Maury. Maury is 12% at risk, not 19%. But also, I think those proficiency scores are too high (perhaps including 3s). If you look at the just-released OSSE report cards, the % for ELA and Math proficiency for "Economically Disadvantaged" students (which is a slightly different, but actually slightly broader group typically when it comes to elementary schools) is:

For Maury: 23.7% and 8.3% proficient

For Miner: <5% and <5% proficient (https://schoolreportcard.dc.gov/lea/1/school/280/report)

Same overall picture. The merge would likely help some for ELA and not very much for Math. But overall, a much more grim picture of how much ED kids are being failed (though definitely not just by these two schools, the picture is similar at most other schools).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

+1. Love it when people chime in to suggest that people are using the wrong data when they in fact are using the wrong data.

Feel dumb now? His number included 3s, which is *not* proficient, exactly as I mused. Roll your eyes harder, please.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

There is an argument that it is unfair to Miner to have such a high at risk percentage, as it makes it harder to educate non-at-risk students and also creates a downward spiral.

One way to look at this is not that they are trying to spread out the high-SES kids, but that they are trying to spread out the at-risk students, who are harder to educate, so that a school can't just be exempt from dealing with the challenges associated with educating this group. This has long been an argument many people make against public charters, which tend to exclude more at risk kids due to barriers to entry (you have to apply, which requires a certain level of family competency, some charters require family meetings before enrollment which screens out a lot of at risk kids, etc.). This means that in DC, where about half of all students attend charters, the percentage of at-risk students in DCPS schools is artificially high, since charters take on fewer than half of all at risk kids.

Also, if you spread out at-risk students, then more schools get the opportunity to try to find ways to help them, and ignore schools work on it, then you are more likely to find solutions that actually work.

Bolded is just not true. Ironically the only charters that require familial contracts and place significant demands on parents to agree to terms are the KIPP schools, which undoubtedly take way more than their fair share of at risk kids (and get much better outcomes).

Stop. Making. Things. Up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

Where did these numbers come from? The at restaurant so percentages do not match what I've seen for either school. Are they old?

Yes, these numbers have to be a few years old for Maury. Maury is 12% at risk, not 19%. But also, I think those proficiency scores are too high (perhaps including 3s). If you look at the just-released OSSE report cards, the % for ELA and Math proficiency for "Economically Disadvantaged" students (which is a slightly different, but actually slightly broader group typically when it comes to elementary schools) is:

For Maury: 23.7% and 8.3% proficient

For Miner: <5% and <5% proficient (https://schoolreportcard.dc.gov/lea/1/school/280/report)

Same overall picture. The merge would likely help some for ELA and not very much for Math. But overall, a much more grim picture of how much ED kids are being failed (though definitely not just by these two schools, the picture is similar at most other schools).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

+1. Love it when people chime in to suggest that people are using the wrong data when they in fact are using the wrong data.

Feel dumb now? His number included 3s, which is *not* proficient, exactly as I mused. Roll your eyes harder, please.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

There is an argument that it is unfair to Miner to have such a high at risk percentage, as it makes it harder to educate non-at-risk students and also creates a downward spiral.

One way to look at this is not that they are trying to spread out the high-SES kids, but that they are trying to spread out the at-risk students, who are harder to educate, so that a school can't just be exempt from dealing with the challenges associated with educating this group. This has long been an argument many people make against public charters, which tend to exclude more at risk kids due to barriers to entry (you have to apply, which requires a certain level of family competency, some charters require family meetings before enrollment which screens out a lot of at risk kids, etc.). This means that in DC, where about half of all students attend charters, the percentage of at-risk students in DCPS schools is artificially high, since charters take on fewer than half of all at risk kids.

Also, if you spread out at-risk students, then more schools get the opportunity to try to find ways to help them, and ignore schools work on it, then you are more likely to find solutions that actually work.

I should also note that in DC, the EA set asides for charters have been a direct result of this criticism, and an effort to channel more at risk students into charters with low at risk populations. There is a lot of resentment towards charters that tout how effective they are at achieving good results as compared to nearby DCPS schools, when the charter is attracting a significant proportion of the high-SES kids in the neighborhood but very few of the at-risk kids, leaving the local DCPS to deal with an artificially high at risk percentage.

I know this has been raised regarding several charters in the city, but the one I'm familiar with is Two Rivers 4th, which became the "de facto inbound" for high-SES families assigned to JOW. TR4th now has an EA set aside, but if you look at the Tableau data for for the school you can see why people aren't enthusiastic about these set asides solving this problem. TR4th offered 12 EA spots for PK3 and filled 8 of them in the lottery, then offered 1 more to a student who was presumably a post-lottery application as they had no waitlist. The school also received EA bids for every other grade, but they made no EA spots available for these grades and made no waitlist offers, so I'm not even clear why anyone wasted a lottery spot on them for the other grades -- they would have been better off applying for a regular (non-EA) spot where TR4 actually went pretty deep into their waitlists, nearly clearing them for K-3 and clearing them for 4th and 5th. It actually looks like TR4 may have (intentionally or not) diverted at risk applicants to a separate pool where no non-PK3 spots were made available and keeping them out of the regular pool where many spots were offered.

And that, folks, is why people are highly suspicious of at risk lottery set asides as a solution to ensuring at risk kids have equal access to strong schools in DC.

Got love how people never let ignorance get in the way of posting. That is simply not how it works. You don't get put on one list or the other. You'd be a more credible critic of charters if you had any idea WTF you were talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

+1, we have kids in middle and lower grades at a school with similar at risk percentages as Miner, and both are at or above grade level in all subjects. My older child learned to read extremely well in Kindergarten thanks to an amazing teacher and now in 3rd writes short stories with proper punctuation and grammar (spelling needs work) and we struggle to find books for her because she goes through them so quickly and also reads so far above grade level that it can be a challenge to find age-appropriate books that still challenge her. My younger child was diagnosed with an LD in 1st thanks to school screening tests and has received excellent support for it in school and on grade level with reading now despite early difficulties. Both kids love math and are a mix of at and above grade level there.

They also have diverse groups of friends, are already learning to navigate differences in backgrounds and experiences with peers, and show a high level of emotional regulation thanks to the school's high emphasis on social-emotional learning which I think was aimed at at risk kids but benefits everyone.

I don't know what is going to happen with the cluster and these aren't my schools, but reading some of the comments on this thread, I think the fear that the mere presence of more at risk students in your kids classrooms is very unlikely to have the negative impact you all think it will. I think Maury would be fine with more at risk kids, and I agree with some of the PPs who noted that there are real benefits to a more socioeconomically diverse school environment.

Get back to us when you have a kid in 4th grade and/or you find out how useless that 4 or 5 is against a peer group that hasn't been hamstrung by DCPS mediocrity.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

The article is like a point-by-point guide to this thread. AND their plan involved actual busing because they were shifting kids around between high school triangles, not just fussing with two elementaries that feed to the same MS and HS.

It also only involved changing the school from 5% to 20% at-risk.

Not quite accurate. It involved re-balancing schools where one had a <5% at risk rate and the other had a 40%+ at risk rate. Shifting kids between them with the goal to reach a middle ground. It actually has a lot in common with both the problem the cluster plan is proposed to address and the similar goals.

But HoCo was looking at busing over 7000 kids to schools further away than their IB high school to achieve it. You really want to tell me that this was less "drastic" and disruptive than combining two elementaries with the same MS/HS feed? No.

Maury is NOT special here. This is a very common story.

yes, I’m telling you its more drastic. it did not involve actually taking apart two schools, and the change in at-risk population was less drastic. it also included transportation and didn’t involve split drop-offs of two young kids.

Yes because a split drop of for two schools four blocks apart is so much more disruptive than busing kids all the way across town in order to integrate HSs.

This is the whiniest freaking conversation. First we've got people who I am totally confident have $1k+ worth of strollers in their homes and likely extoll the virtues of their walkable neighborhood to anyone who will listen complaining that they couldn't possibly transport a 3 yr old 4 blocks. Then we've got people arguing that if there are too many poor children at Maury, there UMC children will never succeed. Then this switches to "actually, Maury is horrible at educating at risk kids, that's the only reason we can't send them here!" We've got the guy in the corner yelling at people to stop calling him a racist when no one has called him a racist. We have the "prove it" person, the "how old are YOUR kids" lady, the "you need me and my taxes" guy. And on and on. Y'all are nothing but a giant cliché. Grow. Up.

Dear person obsessed with strollers:

You can’t stick a 7 year old in a stroller, and they walk slow.

Dear you -- I have a 6 year old who I walk 6.5 blocks to school every day and she has no trouble keeping up with me pushing her sister in a stroller. Also, I used to do the dreaded "split drop off" every day for 3 years to two schools that were more than .5 miles apart, on my own, and then hoof it the reverse direction 1.5 miles. It was fine.

Are you seriously now arguing that you couldn't possibly be expected to walk a 7 year old 4 blocks?

Glad you had the schedule to do that. Doesn’t work for most people.

I am confident you will find a way to get your children to school.

Problem is, they won’t. Lots of people would lottery or move to avoid this new logistical challenge. Peabody/Watkins is evidence of this. Are there people for whom this logistical issue is still better than their other options? Sure. Does that mean that current Maury and Miner families will stay, and DCPS will end up with more integrated school? No guarantee.

I know you think that threatening to move or lottery out (which as people have explained multiple times on here, is not as easy as you seem to imagine it is -- many charters are garbage, spots at high performing schools can be very hard to come by) is a logical checkmate, but it actually proves the point of the people you are arguing against.

Some of you are determined to send your kid to majority white, high-SES schools while also being congratulated for being anti-racist and supporting integration because they are in a public school with *some* poor black kids. No wonder you are so deeply offended at that the proposition that you can't actually have that both ways.

The second para is nothing but a pitiful attempt at mind reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

+1, we have kids in middle and lower grades at a school with similar at risk percentages as Miner, and both are at or above grade level in all subjects. My older child learned to read extremely well in Kindergarten thanks to an amazing teacher and now in 3rd writes short stories with proper punctuation and grammar (spelling needs work) and we struggle to find books for her because she goes through them so quickly and also reads so far above grade level that it can be a challenge to find age-appropriate books that still challenge her. My younger child was diagnosed with an LD in 1st thanks to school screening tests and has received excellent support for it in school and on grade level with reading now despite early difficulties. Both kids love math and are a mix of at and above grade level there.

They also have diverse groups of friends, are already learning to navigate differences in backgrounds and experiences with peers, and show a high level of emotional regulation thanks to the school's high emphasis on social-emotional learning which I think was aimed at at risk kids but benefits everyone.

I don't know what is going to happen with the cluster and these aren't my schools, but reading some of the comments on this thread, I think the fear that the mere presence of more at risk students in your kids classrooms is very unlikely to have the negative impact you all think it will. I think Maury would be fine with more at risk kids, and I agree with some of the PPs who noted that there are real benefits to a more socioeconomically diverse school environment.

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

It happens way before HS. Ask any parent who peeled off in MS or even 5th grade how their kids stacked up when the metric wasn't at risk, good insecure kids who have been failed by their parents, society and DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

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

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

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

Spoken like an ed researcher who doesn't teach or have kids in a school. Other than in your EdD classes what you have described is simply not reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the at-risk proficiency numbers for Miner and Maury.

Miner (71% at risk)

ELA 15.9
Math 21

Maury (19% at risk)

ELA 55.3
Math 27.8

So, merging the two schools would probably improve ELA scores somewhat for Miner and lower them for Maury. The math scores are bad at both schools for at-risk, so there would be less change there

Where did these numbers come from? The at restaurant so percentages do not match what I've seen for either school. Are they old?

Yes, these numbers have to be a few years old for Maury. Maury is 12% at risk, not 19%. But also, I think those proficiency scores are too high (perhaps including 3s). If you look at the just-released OSSE report cards, the % for ELA and Math proficiency for "Economically Disadvantaged" students (which is a slightly different, but actually slightly broader group typically when it comes to elementary schools) is:

For Maury: 23.7% and 8.3% proficient

For Miner: <5% and <5% proficient (https://schoolreportcard.dc.gov/lea/1/school/280/report)

Same overall picture. The merge would likely help some for ELA and not very much for Math. But overall, a much more grim picture of how much ED kids are being failed (though definitely not just by these two schools, the picture is similar at most other schools).

No.

1) You are using the wrong data.

Here are the PARCC results that DCPS released just a few months ago:

https://www.empowerk12.org/data-dashboard-source/dc-parcc-dash

2) Also, obviously the at-risk numbers that PP provided were for PARCC test takers since they were in connection with actual PARCC results. So, again, you are looking at the wrong data set.

+1. Love it when people chime in to suggest that people are using the wrong data when they in fact are using the wrong data.

Feel dumb now? His number included 3s, which is *not* proficient, exactly as I mused. Roll your eyes harder, please.

This and why OSSE includes 3 so the abysmal numbers look better. Take out the 3 and you get the real picture.

You can also sort by 4+ at the Empower Ed link. Here are the numbers for 4+:

Miner

ELA <5%
Math <5%

Maury

ELA 23.7
Math 8.3

Pretty abysmal!

With Miner, I think they show that for math they had 7% of at risk 3rd graders score a 4 or 5 on PARCC, and zero 4th or 5th graders. For ELA, they did not have a single student in any grade score a 4 or 5. But I might be misreading the chart -- the tool is really clunky and a bit hard to navigate.

So what is the point of mixing SES if both schools have poor outcomes with at-risk students? What is DME's objective here? Shouldn't it be figuring out how to teach at-risk students, which neither Maury nor Miner seems to know how to do?

There is an argument that it is unfair to Miner to have such a high at risk percentage, as it makes it harder to educate non-at-risk students and also creates a downward spiral.

One way to look at this is not that they are trying to spread out the high-SES kids, but that they are trying to spread out the at-risk students, who are harder to educate, so that a school can't just be exempt from dealing with the challenges associated with educating this group. This has long been an argument many people make against public charters, which tend to exclude more at risk kids due to barriers to entry (you have to apply, which requires a certain level of family competency, some charters require family meetings before enrollment which screens out a lot of at risk kids, etc.). This means that in DC, where about half of all students attend charters, the percentage of at-risk students in DCPS schools is artificially high, since charters take on fewer than half of all at risk kids.

Also, if you spread out at-risk students, then more schools get the opportunity to try to find ways to help them, and ignore schools work on it, then you are more likely to find solutions that actually work.

Bolded is just not true. Ironically the only charters that require familial contracts and place significant demands on parents to agree to terms are the KIPP schools, which undoubtedly take way more than their fair share of at risk kids (and get much better outcomes).

Stop. Making. Things. Up.

Not a charter, but CHMS requires families to meet with the school to discuss the Montessori approach before school starts, and if you refuse or don't show up, they can give your kids spot to someone else. Though CHMS has twice the at-risk population of Maury and is majority black.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

The article is like a point-by-point guide to this thread. AND their plan involved actual busing because they were shifting kids around between high school triangles, not just fussing with two elementaries that feed to the same MS and HS.

It also only involved changing the school from 5% to 20% at-risk.

Not quite accurate. It involved re-balancing schools where one had a <5% at risk rate and the other had a 40%+ at risk rate. Shifting kids between them with the goal to reach a middle ground. It actually has a lot in common with both the problem the cluster plan is proposed to address and the similar goals.

But HoCo was looking at busing over 7000 kids to schools further away than their IB high school to achieve it. You really want to tell me that this was less "drastic" and disruptive than combining two elementaries with the same MS/HS feed? No.

Maury is NOT special here. This is a very common story.

yes, I’m telling you its more drastic. it did not involve actually taking apart two schools, and the change in at-risk population was less drastic. it also included transportation and didn’t involve split drop-offs of two young kids.

Yes because a split drop of for two schools four blocks apart is so much more disruptive than busing kids all the way across town in order to integrate HSs.

This is the whiniest freaking conversation. First we've got people who I am totally confident have $1k+ worth of strollers in their homes and likely extoll the virtues of their walkable neighborhood to anyone who will listen complaining that they couldn't possibly transport a 3 yr old 4 blocks. Then we've got people arguing that if there are too many poor children at Maury, there UMC children will never succeed. Then this switches to "actually, Maury is horrible at educating at risk kids, that's the only reason we can't send them here!" We've got the guy in the corner yelling at people to stop calling him a racist when no one has called him a racist. We have the "prove it" person, the "how old are YOUR kids" lady, the "you need me and my taxes" guy. And on and on. Y'all are nothing but a giant cliché. Grow. Up.

Dear person obsessed with strollers:

You can’t stick a 7 year old in a stroller, and they walk slow.

Dear you -- I have a 6 year old who I walk 6.5 blocks to school every day and she has no trouble keeping up with me pushing her sister in a stroller. Also, I used to do the dreaded "split drop off" every day for 3 years to two schools that were more than .5 miles apart, on my own, and then hoof it the reverse direction 1.5 miles. It was fine.

Are you seriously now arguing that you couldn't possibly be expected to walk a 7 year old 4 blocks?

Glad you had the schedule to do that. Doesn’t work for most people.

I am confident you will find a way to get your children to school.

Problem is, they won’t. Lots of people would lottery or move to avoid this new logistical challenge. Peabody/Watkins is evidence of this. Are there people for whom this logistical issue is still better than their other options? Sure. Does that mean that current Maury and Miner families will stay, and DCPS will end up with more integrated school? No guarantee.

I know you think that threatening to move or lottery out (which as people have explained multiple times on here, is not as easy as you seem to imagine it is -- many charters are garbage, spots at high performing schools can be very hard to come by) is a logical checkmate, but it actually proves the point of the people you are arguing against.

Some of you are determined to send your kid to majority white, high-SES schools while also being congratulated for being anti-racist and supporting integration because they are in a public school with *some* poor black kids. No wonder you are so deeply offended at that the proposition that you can't actually have that both ways.

I’m the PP you are responding to, my kids went to Peabody/Watkins, so I’m not sure what you are arguing about. Im not asking for congratulations I’m just saying in a school choice city, not everyone will opt into a split school. See: the Peabody/watkins boundary participation rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

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

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

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

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

100%. PPP to whom you are responding made the exact opposite point they thought they did. Kids at grade level (a low bar) will be left to their own devices. Anyone with kids who have passed through upper ES knows this first hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Also, people will just lie.

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

Or a product of private, white schools, colleges and grad schools lecturing DCPS parents about what we should be doing because he's so morally advanced.