Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

I will never be snotty about people who choose private in DC again. I do not feel that they are at all listening or engaging with very valid points that are brought to their attention over and over, and the very structure of their "town hall" is aimed at limiting feedback -- you have to go from one breakout room to another to discuss your school's issues vs. "citywide" solutions, the online question tool they use has a very limited word count. It's a farce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in this meeting. The folks running this are white SJWs and most of them look like they don’t have kids. They are drinking the koolaid and they are SO clueless about how MC/UMC parents choose schools. You Maury people are screwed.

Your best bet is to get the Black Maury parents to lead the charge against this. They’ll be the first to peace out of a Maury/Miner cluster because they care about their kids education and they’re not going to put up with this.

How do they think parents choose schools? Are they consultants or DME?

They are just shrugging off all data-driven comments, comments about logistics, alternate suggestions. They literally said “it might be a mess in the beginning but our starting point is that integration and diversity benefits all students.”

What I particularly like about this is that all they could offer was that "studies" have shown that "diversity" in schools is good, without any discussion of what the studies actually said. Racial diversity (Maury is very racially diverse) or economic diversity (all I know is the at-risk number, which isn't the whole picture)? At what levels of "diversity" are the benefits seen? What are the benefits (I confess to thinking schools should primarily be concerned with academic benefits)? Do the benefits accrue to everyone, or more to one group or another? Do any groups experience any adverse effects?

They are not willing to genuinely engage at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DME is now trying to brandish Oyster Adams as a successful cluster, while cautioning that Peabody/Watkins isn't an "apples to apples" comparison because Maury and Miner are physically closer together than Peabody and Watkins. I can't tell if it's dishonest or incompetent.

Hope someone asks them if they have any plans to fix the Peabody/Watkins mess. Sounds like they agree that it sucks.

It sounds like they attribute the issues entirely to the distance. I think those logistical issues are serious and and a significant factor, but I had thought there were other issues too.

So why haven't they proposed anything to fix that?? Shrinking the boundary doesn't count, because the problem of getting to one school and then the other still exists.

[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:

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.

Actually, it’s surprisingly easy.

+1. There are open seats everywhere, all the time. If you don’t like to lottery (which many people don’t) move. You’ll be 100% better off in the suburbs.

If the lottery in DC is so easy who cares about any of this? Maury families who are unhappy about any outcomes here can just lottery into a school they like more. Problem solved, the beauty of school choice at work. What are we even arguing about?

People want a neighborhood school, instead of a situation where every kid on your street is at a different school (like my street in the Watkins boundary).

[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:

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.

Actually, it’s surprisingly easy.

+1. There are open seats everywhere, all the time. If you don’t like to lottery (which many people don’t) move. You’ll be 100% better off in the suburbs.

If the lottery in DC is so easy who cares about any of this? Maury families who are unhappy about any outcomes here can just lottery into a school they like more. Problem solved, the beauty of school choice at work. What are we even arguing about?

People want a neighborhood school, instead of a situation where every kid on your street is at a different school (like my street in the Watkins boundary).

Mine too (Stanton Park neighborhood). All the kids go to different (not Watkins) schools.

[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:

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.

Actually, it’s surprisingly easy.

+1. There are open seats everywhere, all the time. If you don’t like to lottery (which many people don’t) move. You’ll be 100% better off in the suburbs.

If the lottery in DC is so easy who cares about any of this? Maury families who are unhappy about any outcomes here can just lottery into a school they like more. Problem solved, the beauty of school choice at work. What are we even arguing about?

People want a neighborhood school, instead of a situation where every kid on your street is at a different school (like my street in the Watkins boundary).

You're not kidding! On my street alone there's one kid at Maury, one kid at Tyler, one kid at LT, one kid at Payne, one kid at St. Peters, one kid at Capitol Hill Day, one kid at Latin, and two kids at BASIS. Not a single kid at Watkins which is our IB. It's nuts.

[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:

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.

Actually, it’s surprisingly easy.

+1. There are open seats everywhere, all the time. If you don’t like to lottery (which many people don’t) move. You’ll be 100% better off in the suburbs.

If the lottery in DC is so easy who cares about any of this? Maury families who are unhappy about any outcomes here can just lottery into a school they like more. Problem solved, the beauty of school choice at work. What are we even arguing about?

People want a neighborhood school, instead of a situation where every kid on your street is at a different school (like my street in the Watkins boundary).

Sounds like this is probably also true in the Miner boundary, if 72% of IB public school kids go to schools other than Miner. Which is likely why the response to the cluster from people in the Miner boundary is so muted -- they don't have many shared educational interests because most of them attend different schools.

[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:

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.

Actually, it’s surprisingly easy.

+1. There are open seats everywhere, all the time. If you don’t like to lottery (which many people don’t) move. You’ll be 100% better off in the suburbs.

If the lottery in DC is so easy who cares about any of this? Maury families who are unhappy about any outcomes here can just lottery into a school they like more. Problem solved, the beauty of school choice at work. What are we even arguing about?

People want a neighborhood school, instead of a situation where every kid on your street is at a different school (like my street in the Watkins boundary).

You're not kidding! On my street alone there's one kid at Maury, one kid at Tyler, one kid at LT, one kid at Payne, one kid at St. Peters, one kid at Capitol Hill Day, one kid at Latin, and two kids at BASIS. Not a single kid at Watkins which is our IB. It's nuts.

I live IB for JOW and this is true here, as well. Some JOW kids but also LT, TR4, CHMS, SWS, Peabody, plus privates.

Also I only know two families with kids at SH (our IB MS) out of about a dozen with MS age kids, and I don't know anyone with kids at Eastern.

[Anonymous]

Miner likely has some dedicated teachers and other good features. But it is not a good all-around school best-serving the needs of all of its students. But here is what some of the Maury families who have maybe only known Maury maybe do not fully understand: most of the Hill area elementary schools are now overall pretty good and have happy families including many schools that have a much higher number of at-risk students than Maury. I see some long-term future possibilities where the DME proposal does not have to be the death knell which you now think it is. (A larger school might even be better equipped to support some more advanced 4th/5th grade pullouts etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just pointed out that 72% of IB Miner families don’t attend Miner.

Is that true? And if so, is it 72% of kids enrolled in public school who are IB for Miner, or 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner? I've always struggled to find data like this because it's extremely relevant to reported "IB participating" rates which can mean different things depending on the pool you're referring to. But I feel like it's often hard to find.

It's 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner. Someone linked the data set earlier.

Sorry, as a correction, it's 72% of kids PK3-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner

Yes but when you say "kids PK3-12" is this just kids enrolled in DC public schools or does it include kids who are homeschooled or attend privates? Just to clarify.

DCPS and charters. Here: https://dme.dc.gov/page/sy2021-22-public-school-enrollments-dcps-boundary

These are the schools that grade-level kids in the Miner boundary attend. This only has schools with counts larger than 10, there are around 250 kids at other public schools where the count is less than 10.

Miner Elementary School 230
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Elementary 67
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 38
J.O. Wilson Elementary School 27
School-Within-School @ Goding 23
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 22
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle 21
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 20
Two Rivers PCS - 4th Street 19
Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan 18
Browne Education Campus 17
Center City PCS - Capitol Hill 15
KIPP DC - Connect Academy PCS 15
Wheatley Education Campus 15
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Oklahoma Avenue 13
Peabody Elementary School/Watkins Elementary School Capitol Hill Cluster 13
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS - East End 11

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just pointed out that 72% of IB Miner families don’t attend Miner.

Is that true? And if so, is it 72% of kids enrolled in public school who are IB for Miner, or 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner? I've always struggled to find data like this because it's extremely relevant to reported "IB participating" rates which can mean different things depending on the pool you're referring to. But I feel like it's often hard to find.

It's 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner. Someone linked the data set earlier.

Sorry, as a correction, it's 72% of kids PK3-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner

Yes but when you say "kids PK3-12" is this just kids enrolled in DC public schools or does it include kids who are homeschooled or attend privates? Just to clarify.

DCPS and charters. Here: https://dme.dc.gov/page/sy2021-22-public-school-enrollments-dcps-boundary

These are the schools that grade-level kids in the Miner boundary attend. This only has schools with counts larger than 10, there are around 250 kids at other public schools where the count is less than 10.

Miner Elementary School 230
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Elementary 67
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 38
J.O. Wilson Elementary School 27
School-Within-School @ Goding 23
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 22
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle 21
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 20
Two Rivers PCS - 4th Street 19
Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan 18
Browne Education Campus 17
Center City PCS - Capitol Hill 15
KIPP DC - Connect Academy PCS 15
Wheatley Education Campus 15
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Oklahoma Avenue 13
Peabody Elementary School/Watkins Elementary School Capitol Hill Cluster 13
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS - East End 11

And Maury. There are about 100 kids at schools with a count lower than 10.

Maury Elementary School 443
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 21
Miner Elementary School 13
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 13
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 12
BASIS DC PCS 11
School-Within-School @ Goding 11

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just pointed out that 72% of IB Miner families don’t attend Miner.

Is that true? And if so, is it 72% of kids enrolled in public school who are IB for Miner, or 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner? I've always struggled to find data like this because it's extremely relevant to reported "IB participating" rates which can mean different things depending on the pool you're referring to. But I feel like it's often hard to find.

It's 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner. Someone linked the data set earlier.

Sorry, as a correction, it's 72% of kids PK3-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner

Yes but when you say "kids PK3-12" is this just kids enrolled in DC public schools or does it include kids who are homeschooled or attend privates? Just to clarify.

DCPS and charters. Here: https://dme.dc.gov/page/sy2021-22-public-school-enrollments-dcps-boundary

These are the schools that grade-level kids in the Miner boundary attend. This only has schools with counts larger than 10, there are around 250 kids at other public schools where the count is less than 10.

Miner Elementary School 230
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Elementary 67
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 38
J.O. Wilson Elementary School 27
School-Within-School @ Goding 23
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 22
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle 21
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 20
Two Rivers PCS - 4th Street 19
Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan 18
Browne Education Campus 17
Center City PCS - Capitol Hill 15
KIPP DC - Connect Academy PCS 15
Wheatley Education Campus 15
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Oklahoma Avenue 13
Peabody Elementary School/Watkins Elementary School Capitol Hill Cluster 13
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS - East End 11

And Maury. There are about 100 kids at schools with a count lower than 10.

Maury Elementary School 443
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 21
Miner Elementary School 13
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 13
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 12
BASIS DC PCS 11
School-Within-School @ Goding 11

AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 21 -- couldn't get into Maury pre-k b/c no siblings preference
Miner Elementary School 13 -- couldn't get into Maury pre-k b/c no sibling preference
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 13 -- want language preference not offered at Maury
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 12 -- goes through middle school
BASIS DC PCS 11 -- middle school at 5th grade
School-Within-School @ Goding 11 -- good school

But I am just guessing....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just pointed out that 72% of IB Miner families don’t attend Miner.

Is that true? And if so, is it 72% of kids enrolled in public school who are IB for Miner, or 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner? I've always struggled to find data like this because it's extremely relevant to reported "IB participating" rates which can mean different things depending on the pool you're referring to. But I feel like it's often hard to find.

It's 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner. Someone linked the data set earlier.

Sorry, as a correction, it's 72% of kids PK3-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner

Yes but when you say "kids PK3-12" is this just kids enrolled in DC public schools or does it include kids who are homeschooled or attend privates? Just to clarify.

DCPS and charters. Here: https://dme.dc.gov/page/sy2021-22-public-school-enrollments-dcps-boundary

These are the schools that grade-level kids in the Miner boundary attend. This only has schools with counts larger than 10, there are around 250 kids at other public schools where the count is less than 10.

Miner Elementary School 230
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Elementary 67
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 38
J.O. Wilson Elementary School 27
School-Within-School @ Goding 23
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 22
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle 21
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 20
Two Rivers PCS - 4th Street 19
Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan 18
Browne Education Campus 17
Center City PCS - Capitol Hill 15
KIPP DC - Connect Academy PCS 15
Wheatley Education Campus 15
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Oklahoma Avenue 13
Peabody Elementary School/Watkins Elementary School Capitol Hill Cluster 13
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS - East End 11

And Maury. There are about 100 kids at schools with a count lower than 10.

Maury Elementary School 443
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 21
Miner Elementary School 13
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 13
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 12
BASIS DC PCS 11
School-Within-School @ Goding 11

AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 21 -- couldn't get into Maury pre-k b/c no siblings preference
Miner Elementary School 13 -- couldn't get into Maury pre-k b/c no sibling preference
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 13 -- want language preference not offered at Maury
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 12 -- goes through middle school
BASIS DC PCS 11 -- middle school at 5th grade
School-Within-School @ Goding 11 -- good school

But I am just guessing....

Yeah what this shows is that Maury's boundary participation rate is likely misleadingly low -- some or all of those AT and Miner people would be at Maury if they could get a seat.

[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:

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.

Actually, it’s surprisingly easy.

+1. There are open seats everywhere, all the time. If you don’t like to lottery (which many people don’t) move. You’ll be 100% better off in the suburbs.

If the lottery in DC is so easy who cares about any of this? Maury families who are unhappy about any outcomes here can just lottery into a school they like more. Problem solved, the beauty of school choice at work. What are we even arguing about?

People want a neighborhood school, instead of a situation where every kid on your street is at a different school (like my street in the Watkins boundary).

Me too! Says Miner inbound parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone just pointed out that 72% of IB Miner families don’t attend Miner.

Is that true? And if so, is it 72% of kids enrolled in public school who are IB for Miner, or 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner? I've always struggled to find data like this because it's extremely relevant to reported "IB participating" rates which can mean different things depending on the pool you're referring to. But I feel like it's often hard to find.

It's 72% of kids K-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner. Someone linked the data set earlier.

Sorry, as a correction, it's 72% of kids PK3-12 who live IB for Miner do not attend Miner

Yes but when you say "kids PK3-12" is this just kids enrolled in DC public schools or does it include kids who are homeschooled or attend privates? Just to clarify.

DCPS and charters. Here: https://dme.dc.gov/page/sy2021-22-public-school-enrollments-dcps-boundary

These are the schools that grade-level kids in the Miner boundary attend. This only has schools with counts larger than 10, there are around 250 kids at other public schools where the count is less than 10.

Miner Elementary School 230
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Elementary 67
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 38
J.O. Wilson Elementary School 27
School-Within-School @ Goding 23
KIPP DC - Spring Academy PCS 22
Friendship PCS - Blow Pierce Middle 21
Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School 20
Two Rivers PCS - 4th Street 19
Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan 18
Browne Education Campus 17
Center City PCS - Capitol Hill 15
KIPP DC - Connect Academy PCS 15
Wheatley Education Campus 15
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Oklahoma Avenue 13
Peabody Elementary School/Watkins Elementary School Capitol Hill Cluster 13
Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom PCS - East End 11

And Maury. There are about 100 kids at schools with a count lower than 10.

Maury Elementary School 443
AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 21
Miner Elementary School 13
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 13
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 12
BASIS DC PCS 11
School-Within-School @ Goding 11

AppleTree Early Learning Center PCS - Lincoln Park 21 -- couldn't get into Maury pre-k b/c no siblings preference
Miner Elementary School 13 -- couldn't get into Maury pre-k b/c no sibling preference
Mundo Verde Bilingual PCS - J.F. Cook 13 -- want language preference not offered at Maury
Two Rivers PCS - Young Elementary School 12 -- goes through middle school
BASIS DC PCS 11 -- middle school at 5th grade
School-Within-School @ Goding 11 -- good school

But I am just guessing....

Yeah what this shows is that Maury's boundary participation rate is likely misleadingly low -- some or all of those AT and Miner people would be at Maury if they could get a seat.

You have a point. Which makes the Percent In Boundary 92% and the Boundary Participation Rate 73%