Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

How utterly useless. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We live near Peabody and noped out of the cluster altogether because I was not about to deal with two different buildings on opposite sides of the hill for my elementary school kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't the Peabody/Watkins cluster actually prove that pairing the schools is not a viable solution to the identified problem? I can't find socioeconomic data, but looking at the racial demographic data on My School DC, Peabody's demographics are very similar to Maury's, and very different from Watkins'. And I believe Peabody and Watkins started closer together than Maury and Miner would.

Maybe they're hoping that people will be okay with Miner for pre-K and the Maury name will keep people in for the upper grades. But again, my understanding of when the cluster began is that Watkins was considered a pretty desirable school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the Peabody/Watkins cluster actually prove that pairing the schools is not a viable solution to the identified problem? I can't find socioeconomic data, but looking at the racial demographic data on My School DC, Peabody's demographics are very similar to Maury's, and very different from Watkins'. And I believe Peabody and Watkins started closer together than Maury and Miner would.

Maybe they're hoping that people will be okay with Miner for pre-K and the Maury name will keep people in for the upper grades. But again, my understanding of when the cluster began is that Watkins was considered a pretty desirable school.

Yes to all of this. Also, the plan they mentioned was specifically Miner PK-1st or 2nd & Maury 2nd or 3rd-5th. By keeping kids at Miner even longer than at Peabody (which they would have to do because of Maury's building capacity), they make it even more likely that kids peel off before making the jump.

One thing that's interesting that I don't think has been discussed so far is that the NW corner of the Maury boundary will presumably have proximity preference to L-T and Peabody, since they measure from actual school building of attendance (so they need to be farther than .5 miles from Miner & closer to LT or Peabody than Miner). I think there's a reasonable chance some of these folks (among the richest in the Maury boundary) just opt into L-T as soon as they can (which is often PK4 at L-T, though sometimes not until the WL starts moving) to save themselves all the moving around/headache.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

they’re adding another high needs school to EH? way to destroy progress DCPS. seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the Peabody/Watkins cluster actually prove that pairing the schools is not a viable solution to the identified problem? I can't find socioeconomic data, but looking at the racial demographic data on My School DC, Peabody's demographics are very similar to Maury's, and very different from Watkins'. And I believe Peabody and Watkins started closer together than Maury and Miner would.

Maybe they're hoping that people will be okay with Miner for pre-K and the Maury name will keep people in for the upper grades. But again, my understanding of when the cluster began is that Watkins was considered a pretty desirable school.

The Peabody/Watkins cluster historically had many, many issues that caused all kinds of problems (many based on historical racism), and so it's hard to extrapolate a lot from that particular cluster because of that. I'd say the most relevant problem today is the lack of bus transportation between the 2 buildings. When there were buses, many families did actually go through Peabody and then through Watkins; I know because I was one of those families. Many did peel off, but again, that was largely due to all the other problems that already existed within the Cluster for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

they’re adding another high needs school to EH? way to destroy progress DCPS. seriously.

Yes. I am not a Maury parent, but it is very hard to look at the proposals and not think that DME is trying to undo a decade of Maury parent efforts with a wave of their magic wand. Work to get substantial buy-in from your community to start attending your IB en masse? Make every effort to build a great school that very few people have a bad word to say about (except for some minor overcrowding)? Start to actually get substantial buy-in from your community to stay and build a MS? Ha! Start again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

they’re adding another high needs school to EH? way to destroy progress DCPS. seriously.

Yes. I am not a Maury parent, but it is very hard to look at the proposals and not think that DME is trying to undo a decade of Maury parent efforts with a wave of their magic wand. Work to get substantial buy-in from your community to start attending your IB en masse? Make every effort to build a great school that very few people have a bad word to say about (except for some minor overcrowding)? Start to actually get substantial buy-in from your community to stay and build a MS? Ha! Start again.

It looks more like DCPS is trying to spread the wealth of what the Maury parents have created without trying to do any of that real work itself. How about changing boundaries, DCPS takes a hard look at improving the boundaries that already exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

they’re adding another high needs school to EH? way to destroy progress DCPS. seriously.

Yes. I am not a Maury parent, but it is very hard to look at the proposals and not think that DME is trying to undo a decade of Maury parent efforts with a wave of their magic wand. Work to get substantial buy-in from your community to start attending your IB en masse? Make every effort to build a great school that very few people have a bad word to say about (except for some minor overcrowding)? Start to actually get substantial buy-in from your community to stay and build a MS? Ha! Start again.

It looks more like DCPS is trying to spread the wealth of what the Maury parents have created without trying to do any of that real work itself. How about changing boundaries, DCPS takes a hard look at improving the boundaries that already exist?

How about instead of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

they’re adding another high needs school to EH? way to destroy progress DCPS. seriously.

Yes. I am not a Maury parent, but it is very hard to look at the proposals and not think that DME is trying to undo a decade of Maury parent efforts with a wave of their magic wand. Work to get substantial buy-in from your community to start attending your IB en masse? Make every effort to build a great school that very few people have a bad word to say about (except for some minor overcrowding)? Start to actually get substantial buy-in from your community to stay and build a MS? Ha! Start again.

Also not a Maury parent, and completely agree with this. It's like they're actively trying to make schools worse.

I don't understand why DCPS doesn't just accept the fact that there are going to be richer schools and poorer schools, and instead of trying to jack up the richer schools, put more resources into the poorer schools. I would be fully supportive of paying higher taxes to give Miner more resources (also NOT a Miner parent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

they’re adding another high needs school to EH? way to destroy progress DCPS. seriously.

Yes. I am not a Maury parent, but it is very hard to look at the proposals and not think that DME is trying to undo a decade of Maury parent efforts with a wave of their magic wand. Work to get substantial buy-in from your community to start attending your IB en masse? Make every effort to build a great school that very few people have a bad word to say about (except for some minor overcrowding)? Start to actually get substantial buy-in from your community to stay and build a MS? Ha! Start again.

It looks more like DCPS is trying to spread the wealth of what the Maury parents have created without trying to do any of that real work itself. How about changing boundaries, DCPS takes a hard look at improving the boundaries that already exist?

As an earlier PP mentioned, they actually did examine changing the boundaries and found that it wouldn't do anything, which really isn't surprising given where Maury & Miner sit and how their IBs are laid out. That said, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that if your IB is next to a higher performing IB that is somehow more inequitable for you than for the people who are a little bit farther away. And, if they actually accept the premise I reject, just give Miner kids proximity preference to Maury and kill Miner as an IB school once and for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think most people affected are attending their school-specific meetings. The W6 meeting was a good way to hear the overview of all of the changes, but Maury families would have to compete for air time there with the nothingburger that is the Brent changes. I get that those two blocks of Brent families are upset, but realistically they're going to retain proximity rights to Brent, so will be able to get in in K anyway. Without siblings -- since those with siblings are grandfathered/not affected -- there was a reasonable chance they didn't get into Brent until then anyway, so from my perspective, they may actually be better off with the Peabody nearly guarantee for PK3 + Brent nearly guarantee for K+ + SH feed. I also think, for that reason, that the changes will make virtually no difference. In fact, they may just mean more OOB Brent families are UMC white folks, so combined with cleaving off a bit on the other end to route to Payne, this could actually make Brent less diverse. I did think the graphic showing where Watkins families come from was interesting; the anecdotes were right on this: they lose virtually all families who live around Peabody, presumably to their Maury/LT/Brent proximity preference largely.

Another thing presented that I hadn't known before that Browne 6-8 was being rerouted to EH. Those kids are very far behind if PARCC scores are to be trusted and that could undo some of the EH progress; I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned previously. Also, introducing a dual language feed to Jefferson, which makes sense; I wonder how the Jefferson PTB feel about it.

Ultimately, my predictions is that Maury families are going to unite forces and come out swinging and the cluster idea will go nowhere. She did say on the call that the consultants modelled various boundary changes (including cleaving north to south instead of east to west) and none had any effect at all; the differences between the IB school-attending populations have everything to do with (1) raw demographics and (2) the schools and nothing to do with the nonsense about the boundary lines being arbitrary or responsible in some way.

they’re adding another high needs school to EH? way to destroy progress DCPS. seriously.

Yes. I am not a Maury parent, but it is very hard to look at the proposals and not think that DME is trying to undo a decade of Maury parent efforts with a wave of their magic wand. Work to get substantial buy-in from your community to start attending your IB en masse? Make every effort to build a great school that very few people have a bad word to say about (except for some minor overcrowding)? Start to actually get substantial buy-in from your community to stay and build a MS? Ha! Start again.

It looks more like DCPS is trying to spread the wealth of what the Maury parents have created without trying to do any of that real work itself. How about changing boundaries, DCPS takes a hard look at improving the boundaries that already exist?

As an earlier PP mentioned, they actually did examine changing the boundaries and found that it wouldn't do anything, which really isn't surprising given where Maury & Miner sit and how their IBs are laid out. That said, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that if your IB is next to a higher performing IB that is somehow more inequitable for you than for the people who are a little bit farther away. And, if they actually accept the premise I reject, just give Miner kids proximity preference to Maury and kill Miner as an IB school once and for all.

right. because without reorienting DCPS to what matters (actual academic instruction at the right level) the Miner students “further from opportunity” are not going to do any better just because they go to school with more white kids. Look at Maury’s numbers now - I don’t think you’ll find they do a particularly good job with at-risk kids in terms of PARCC. So one really has to ask -what is this plan REALLY about? Who identified a problem?

[Anonymous]

There is an alternative: shrink the Maury boundary substantially to a point where one creates OOB spots (for after PreK but still). Rezone those families to Miner. No one will much like that option either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is an alternative: shrink the Maury boundary substantially to a point where one creates OOB spots (for after PreK but still). Rezone those families to Miner. No one will much like that option either.

There are no proximity preference spots at Maury available to anyone in the Miner boundary under the current system, because the closest corner of the Miner IB to Maury (13th & D) is still within .5 of a mile of Miner. As a result, opening up OOB spots would have no specific impact on Miner at all. So, if they're trying to solve Miner as an issue specifically, they'd need to take a further step. Otherwise, it just looks like DCPS is randomly trying to redistribute specifically Maury spots around the city?