Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

I can't believe this is under serious consideration. The paired school model seems like such a dumb way to do this versus, e.g., gerrymandering the boundary.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, the above link doesn’t have the Maury meeting materials yet, but it will. It has the public slide deck about the Peabody/Watkins/Brent/Payne changes.

DME said other pairs of schools were considered, but all others were rejected for logistical reasons. She specifically mentioned Amidon-Bowen and Van Ness as one looked at (which seems odd to me as they’re both T1 already) and rejected because the schools are very far apart/there are other logistical roadblocks. They were looking at school boundaries with majority populations that were more than 25% off neighboring boundary populations. I am not 100% sure if that meant in terms of a particular racial group or the overall at risk percentage; the criteria was very unclear to me from the presentation.

[Anonymous]

You said boundary populations -- did they say if they are comparing the total boundary populations (versus current school populations)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You said boundary populations -- did they say if they are comparing the total boundary populations (versus current school populations)?

No, sorry, she was very clear that they were comparing actual school populations. Someone asked that exact question.

[Anonymous]

Nobody asked for this, not at Miner or Maury. What business does DCPS have in pushing such a radical restructuring of two schools? The original Hill cluster was the result of parent organizing. Parents should ask a lot of questions about who exactly came up with this idea. It’s one thing to rebalance boundaries between and underenrolled and overenrolled school. Quite another to just take two schools apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, the above link doesn’t have the Maury meeting materials yet, but it will. It has the public slide deck about the Peabody/Watkins/Brent/Payne changes.

DME said other pairs of schools were considered, but all others were rejected for logistical reasons. She specifically mentioned Amidon-Bowen and Van Ness as one looked at (which seems odd to me as they’re both T1 already) and rejected because the schools are very far apart/there are other logistical roadblocks. They were looking at school boundaries with majority populations that were more than 25% off neighboring boundary populations. I am not 100% sure if that meant in terms of a particular racial group or the overall at risk percentage; the criteria was very unclear to me from the presentation.

maybe they should look at why the boundary characteristics of Maury and Miner diverge: because DC housing & law enforcement policies concentrate poverty and crime in Rosedale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody asked for this, not at Miner or Maury. What business does DCPS have in pushing such a radical restructuring of two schools? The original Hill cluster was the result of parent organizing. Parents should ask a lot of questions about who exactly came up with this idea. It’s one thing to rebalance boundaries between and underenrolled and overenrolled school. Quite another to just take two schools apart.

I might be mistaken, but it sounds like this is coming from DME, not DCPS. I thought I read that DCPS weighs in later in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody asked for this, not at Miner or Maury. What business does DCPS have in pushing such a radical restructuring of two schools? The original Hill cluster was the result of parent organizing. Parents should ask a lot of questions about who exactly came up with this idea. It’s one thing to rebalance boundaries between and underenrolled and overenrolled school. Quite another to just take two schools apart.

I might be mistaken, but it sounds like this is coming from DME, not DCPS. I thought I read that DCPS weighs in later in the process.

Oh, even better. Why is the DME proposing to take apart two schools? What are they trying to achieve and does it have anything to do with actually helping kids at Maury or Miner. If DME is so captivated by giving Miner kids a way out of Rosedale, give them OOB enrollment priority in the other nearby schools and allocate Miner’s budget to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody asked for this, not at Miner or Maury. What business does DCPS have in pushing such a radical restructuring of two schools? The original Hill cluster was the result of parent organizing. Parents should ask a lot of questions about who exactly came up with this idea. It’s one thing to rebalance boundaries between and underenrolled and overenrolled school. Quite another to just take two schools apart.

I might be mistaken, but it sounds like this is coming from DME, not DCPS. I thought I read that DCPS weighs in later in the process.

Oh, even better. Why is the DME proposing to take apart two schools? What are they trying to achieve and does it have anything to do with actually helping kids at Maury or Miner. If DME is so captivated by giving Miner kids a way out of Rosedale, give them OOB enrollment priority in the other nearby schools and allocate Miner’s budget to them.

(Also is now the time to remind people that the DME, Paul Kihm, lives in Ward 2 and sends his own kids to private school? Is he just trying to score points for himself here to get a Biden Admin position or what?)

[Anonymous]

This is the stupidest idea.

[Anonymous]

The DME rep tonight said they don't have all the logistics worked out and are still at the stage of, is this viable/does it solve anything?

What wasn't clear to me was what metrics they use to determine whether this is viable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DME rep tonight said they don't have all the logistics worked out and are still at the stage of, is this viable/does it solve anything?

What wasn't clear to me was what metrics they use to determine whether this is viable.

As a hater of DCPS decision-making, I fear that there will not actually be "metrics."

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if the school populations were combined whether the potential combo school would be Title I or not?

[Anonymous]

Do Peabody/Watkins families find that there are any benefits at all to the cluster model? As someone with two children, this seems like a huge pain logistically.

[Anonymous]

I was surprised by how few people were on the Ward 6 schools meeting. There were some new faces, but not a ton. I worry people aren't going to wake up to this until it's too late. But maybe people just aren't as opposed as I am.