Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

This doesn’t really sound like a compromise, LOL. And they’ll make the decision about where to divide the cluster based on capacity issues, since this would be creating a huge school of around 900 students. I don’t think parents will get input into which grades go where.

[Anonymous]

The compromise is the increased at risk set asides at Maury. Which is what they are proposing literally everywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cluster would be so disruptive in the implementation phase. My child will hopefully start at Maury next school year. They'd start at Maury, then go to a swing space, then a Miner in transition, then a Maury in transition over just a few years.

what would the swing space be for? I must have missed that. but the fact is the true believers don’t care about disruption.

Mostly for ECE, which has particular requirements for sinks and bathrooms. I think older kids could be placed in a preschool classroom, but not vice versa.

In that case, Maury would not need much retrofit at all -- existing ECE classrooms could just be converted to upper grade classrooms with very little change other than furniture and equipment.

Miner might need less of a retrofit than you think because of the new ECE building. With a brand new building designed for ECE grades, that means they now have twice the number of ECE classrooms as they used to have. Presumably PK would go into the new building, K classes would go into the existing PK and K classrooms in the main building, and then 1st (and 2nd if that's where the cut off would be) would go in existing upper grade classrooms.

Nothing that would require spending a year or even half a year in a swing space.

They could only do this if they scrapped the 0-3 plan, which I doubt they will. They can't out the 0-3ers on the second floor -- the whole reason for the new ECE building -- so they need to retrofit *those* classrooms for additional ECE.

How many classrooms do they need for the 0-3s? Not sure how many classrooms they currently have for ECE in their main building, but I'm guessing it's got to be around 10-12 because those are the grades where they tend to be more fully subscribed. No way they are using them all for a daycare that does not yet exist. I would guess maybe two classrooms? Perhaps as it expanded, they'd have to move some of the K kids to upstairs classrooms and retrofit those, but I would guess that to start, they'd assign maybe the two outermost classrooms to the 0-3, construct some kind of divider between that and the rest of the school (those classrooms already have exterior doors), and still be able to avoid a swing space.

The point is that with the construction of a new building of ECE classrooms, Miner just doubled its ECE capacity. Since I doubt they are planning to do 12 classrooms of 0-3, there is capacity. A total renovation is not necessary.

Can anyone explain what is actually going on and currently planned for Miner's spaces? I believe they are renovating the separate building for daycare only. Is that correct? Are they also renovating the ECE wing?

No, this is wrong. Prior to the cluster proposal, the plan was for the new building to house ECE (PK3-K) and for the existing ECE spaces, which currently occupy their own 1st floor wing in the main building, to be converted to a 0-3 daycare. That wing currently only houses PK classrooms, I believe -- there are K classrooms in the building that have their own sinks and bathrooms but are not in the PK wing.

So unless they are planning to start a 0-3 daycare that occupies literally every existing ECE classroom in the main building, they will soon have ECE overcapacity. And they could also reduce the 0-3 plans to a smaller capacity than originally planned -- Bowser's revised budget for 2023 already reduced set asides for this program across the city. There was originally a 0-3 center planned for JO Wilson, I think to be installed when they renovated, but that was removed from the budget altogether and now they aren't getting one at all. So I don't think it's a done deal that Miner is getting X number of 0-3 spots in their new center. If the cluster is deemed a priority, I'm sure it could be reduced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

So why would a parent of a third grader not thing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

So why would a parent of a third grader not thing that?

I mean they may, given some of the arguments people have made. But it looks like Miner’s scores in the mid and upper grades are markedly low, even accounting for the high at risk population, so it makes sense people might feel nervous about the school’s staff for those grades. Meanwhile, people seem universally positive about ECE and kindergarten. So the idea that it’s a worse education for those years doesn’t really make sense, whereas that concern has more heft for the upper grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

Did you forget that kids still do age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

Did you forget that kids still do age?

So your argument is that a school is “worse” just because more at risk kids are there? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s clear that there are problems that come with very high concentrations of socioeconomic disadvantage, which is why some solution here makes sense. But short of that, I see the diversity as a major positive for everyone involved. I’d rather my kid go to a Maury-Miner cluster with 30% at risk than Miner as it currently stands, with such a high at risk percentage that it’s hard to serve all of the kids—but I’d also prefer it to a school like Janney, where there is almost no socioeconomic diversity. The diversity on Capitol Hill makes it possible to achieve balance in a way that’s just geographically harder in Ward 3 or Ward 7 and 8, and that’s a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

Did you forget that kids still do age?

So your argument is that a school is “worse” just because more at risk kids are there? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s clear that there are problems that come with very high concentrations of socioeconomic disadvantage, which is why some solution here makes sense. But short of that, I see the diversity as a major positive for everyone involved. I’d rather my kid go to a Maury-Miner cluster with 30% at risk than Miner as it currently stands, with such a high at risk percentage that it’s hard to serve all of the kids—but I’d also prefer it to a school like Janney, where there is almost no socioeconomic diversity. The diversity on Capitol Hill makes it possible to achieve balance in a way that’s just geographically harder in Ward 3 or Ward 7 and 8, and that’s a good thing.

Maury will be a worse school post-cluster guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

Did you forget that kids still do age?

So your argument is that a school is “worse” just because more at risk kids are there? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s clear that there are problems that come with very high concentrations of socioeconomic disadvantage, which is why some solution here makes sense. But short of that, I see the diversity as a major positive for everyone involved. I’d rather my kid go to a Maury-Miner cluster with 30% at risk than Miner as it currently stands, with such a high at risk percentage that it’s hard to serve all of the kids—but I’d also prefer it to a school like Janney, where there is almost no socioeconomic diversity. The diversity on Capitol Hill makes it possible to achieve balance in a way that’s just geographically harder in Ward 3 or Ward 7 and 8, and that’s a good thing.

That’s the argument of the DME or there would be no need for the cluster. It’s not being done to benefit the Maury students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

Did you forget that kids still do age?

So your argument is that a school is “worse” just because more at risk kids are there? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s clear that there are problems that come with very high concentrations of socioeconomic disadvantage, which is why some solution here makes sense. But short of that, I see the diversity as a major positive for everyone involved. I’d rather my kid go to a Maury-Miner cluster with 30% at risk than Miner as it currently stands, with such a high at risk percentage that it’s hard to serve all of the kids—but I’d also prefer it to a school like Janney, where there is almost no socioeconomic diversity. The diversity on Capitol Hill makes it possible to achieve balance in a way that’s just geographically harder in Ward 3 or Ward 7 and 8, and that’s a good thing.

No. The cluster is worse because there will be so much money spent retrofitting, making 2 admins work together properly, all the logistical challenges -- with no measurable improvement in actually teaching at-risk kids. Have you seen anything in DME's plans that show how they will improve the test scores of at-risk kids? No? That's because there is no plan for that. Are at-risk kids left better off in this situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

Miner's IB is super low. This isn't combining neighborhood schools to get more "participation". This is combining a neighborhood schools with a IB participation rate that is super high and cannot accommodate all the families that want to go there and a school that has a bunch of kids from all over the city.

The cluster is a DME paper wash to make things seem better (temporarily) by mixing the two groups. But eroding a high performing school will just drop Maury's IB participation rate too and exasperate the problem.

None of this has any plan to improve education for at-risk students, grade level students, or high performing students. The whole plan is vibes and feels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been thinking about this cluster plan a lot, and I have an idea. What if they did the cluster, but the shift to Maury is earlier, at first or second grade?

I’m sympathetic to the double drop off problem and the feeling that a lot of people leave Maury at 5th anyway, so 3-5 feels really short. BUT I think the socioeconomic and racial segregation between Maury and Miner is a big problem. And I don’t buy the argument that fixing Maury/Miner isn’t legitimate or worthwhile because it doesn’t solve problems for the rest of DCPS. Here we have two schools so close together with such disparate populations and outcomes, and they can solve it while still allowing people to walk to school in their own neighborhoods. Plus, Miner’s strength is its excellent ECE program and its weakness is the upper grades. I agree a cluster isn’t ideal as a general matter, but if it can be done well, the payoff for integration seems worth it, honestly. And I do think integration matters for its own sake. I also agree that IB buy in is necessary for the plan to work.

Miner already has a great pre-k and K staff. Maury is already so crowded for pre-k that you can’t get in without a sibling preference. It might be more palatable for people to spend an extra year or two at Miner and switch to Maury at First or Second. Plus, the pre-K and K kids do a lot together at Miner already, so it could make sense for that group. And they will have the new facility!

For those who oppose the cluster, it might be worthwhile pitching this to the DME as an alternative. That way, if they don’t jettison the plan altogether, maybe you’ll get this as a compromise. For those who support the cluster, maybe this will help ensure the buy in that’s necessary if we want integration to happen.

The Cluster is supposed to start around 2nd as it is. It's based entirely on space considerations. Not at all clear why you think this is a compromise.

I thought it was supposed to start at 3rd. But anyway, shifting to Maury at 1st or 2nd seems workable.

Pick any grade you want. It doesn’t make it more palatable to people watching the local school get worse.

See this kind of argument is why it feels like it’s not just about quality of the school. Miner’s pre-K and early grades are strong. The problems come later. It wouldn’t be worse, especially if people were willing to participate.

Did you forget that kids still do age?

So your argument is that a school is “worse” just because more at risk kids are there? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. I think it’s clear that there are problems that come with very high concentrations of socioeconomic disadvantage, which is why some solution here makes sense. But short of that, I see the diversity as a major positive for everyone involved. I’d rather my kid go to a Maury-Miner cluster with 30% at risk than Miner as it currently stands, with such a high at risk percentage that it’s hard to serve all of the kids—but I’d also prefer it to a school like Janney, where there is almost no socioeconomic diversity. The diversity on Capitol Hill makes it possible to achieve balance in a way that’s just geographically harder in Ward 3 or Ward 7 and 8, and that’s a good thing.

Narrator in three years: She did not send her child to the Maury-Miner cluster.