New DME slide deck about Maury/Miner, with maps!

[Anonymous]

ANC 7D and 6A held a community meeting last night to discuss implementation considerations for the proposed pairing. The idea was not to discuss whether it should be implemented, but rather if it is implemented, what needs to be figured out. I continue to think the strategy of focusing so much on DME's total lack of any logistics planning will backfire on cluster opponents; once DME/DCPS has details like how shuttles will work in hand, I think it will be a lot harder to stop momentum for the cluster.

Apparently some concerns discussed were "how to keep conversation going in the interim" before the working group forms (and the idea of having a "pre-working group working group"). This is going to be a nightmare two years, isn't it.

One topic discussed was "community building" between the schools. I wonder if cluster supporters will try to set up some of those activities before the working group forms. It is a decent gambit -- Maury parents will look exactly the way cluster supporters want them to if they turn up their nose at attending events with Miner families. But if the idea is to use these events to support the idea of pairing the schools, my family will not be participating. (But maybe no one will try to set these up unless/until a cluster is actually approved.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ANC 7D and 6A held a community meeting last night to discuss implementation considerations for the proposed pairing. The idea was not to discuss whether it should be implemented, but rather if it is implemented, what needs to be figured out. I continue to think the strategy of focusing so much on DME's total lack of any logistics planning will backfire on cluster opponents; once DME/DCPS has details like how shuttles will work in hand, I think it will be a lot harder to stop momentum for the cluster.

Apparently some concerns discussed were "how to keep conversation going in the interim" before the working group forms (and the idea of having a "pre-working group working group"). This is going to be a nightmare two years, isn't it.

One topic discussed was "community building" between the schools. I wonder if cluster supporters will try to set up some of those activities before the working group forms. It is a decent gambit -- Maury parents will look exactly the way cluster supporters want them to if they turn up their nose at attending events with Miner families. But if the idea is to use these events to support the idea of pairing the schools, my family will not be participating. (But maybe no one will try to set these up unless/until a cluster is actually approved.)

what a waste of effort. how about spending that time taking a hard look at the instructional methods that are failing high risk kids? or behavioral approaches to actually be able to teach without disruption? no, these narcissists only get exciting by grandstanding about “equity” in ways that allow them to feel superior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years.

So if the working group starts in 2026 - 2027 at the earliest, what is the earliest the paired model can be started? Assuming SY 2027 - 2028, but they would have to make that official before the lottery in March 2027, right? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on this issue? The mayor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ANC 7D and 6A held a community meeting last night to discuss implementation considerations for the proposed pairing. The idea was not to discuss whether it should be implemented, but rather if it is implemented, what needs to be figured out. I continue to think the strategy of focusing so much on DME's total lack of any logistics planning will backfire on cluster opponents; once DME/DCPS has details like how shuttles will work in hand, I think it will be a lot harder to stop momentum for the cluster.

Apparently some concerns discussed were "how to keep conversation going in the interim" before the working group forms (and the idea of having a "pre-working group working group"). This is going to be a nightmare two years, isn't it.

One topic discussed was "community building" between the schools. I wonder if cluster supporters will try to set up some of those activities before the working group forms. It is a decent gambit -- Maury parents will look exactly the way cluster supporters want them to if they turn up their nose at attending events with Miner families. But if the idea is to use these events to support the idea of pairing the schools, my family will not be participating. (But maybe no one will try to set these up unless/until a cluster is actually approved.)

what a waste of effort. how about spending that time taking a hard look at the instructional methods that are failing high risk kids? or behavioral approaches to actually be able to teach without disruption? no, these narcissists only get exciting by grandstanding about “equity” in ways that allow them to feel superior.

Exactly. What a tremendous amount of time and resources to have wasted (and, it sounds like, continue to waste) on something that I can't imagine will ever actually be forced through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So if the working group starts in 2026 - 2027 at the earliest, what is the earliest the paired model can be started? Assuming SY 2027 - 2028, but they would have to make that official before the lottery in March 2027, right? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on this issue? The mayor?

I’m not sure who has the ultimate decision-making authority; but DME has said that, even if the pairing goes forward, it would take several years to implement so maybe more like school year 2029-2030?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years.

So if the working group starts in 2026 - 2027 at the earliest, what is the earliest the paired model can be started? Assuming SY 2027 - 2028, but they would have to make that official before the lottery in March 2027, right? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on this issue? The mayor?

2027 is surely way too early, right? I thought everyone agreed this thing is DOA if it doesn't have community support, and it will take years to build up community buy-in if they ever do decide to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another. Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits. Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings. DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so. This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years.

So if the working group starts in 2026 - 2027 at the earliest, what is the earliest the paired model can be started? Assuming SY 2027 - 2028, but they would have to make that official before the lottery in March 2027, right? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on this issue? The mayor?

2027 is surely way too early, right? I thought everyone agreed this thing is DOA if it doesn't have community support, and it will take years to build up community buy-in if they ever do decide to do this.

It would also require some retrofitting of the buildings, which is another reason this plan would likely be delayed even further. Changes to support the split grades aren't included in the current Master Facilities Plan. Maury just underwent a major modernization with all grade levels in mind, and Old Miner is being modernized right now. Is DC really going spend more money renovating these schools right away?

There is also the real possibility that between at-risk set-asides at Maury and getting stable leadership and the fancy modernization at Miner the socio-economic disparities between them will be reduced in a few years, reducing the justification for the pairing.

[Anonymous]

I always get annoyed by this "3 blocks apart" language. These are long diagonal blocks. It's significantly downhill and there's 5 intersections for kids to get through, one of which is unsafe because there's no stop sign (15th). If you're walking on East Capitol, .5 miles is like 9-10 blocks (which are easier to travel because it's level). It's more accurate to say that the schools are .5 miles apart. That's the same distance as it is from Maury to Payne and Peabody. I'm not saying that they are super far apart, but I think that the "3 blocks" language creates the perception that they are exceptionally close together. That's just not true.

[Anonymous]

so it's like .4 miles-actually instead of .3?

FRAUDSTERS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so it's like .4 miles-actually instead of .3?

FRAUDSTERS

It's 0.5 miles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always get annoyed by this "3 blocks apart" language. These are long diagonal blocks. It's significantly downhill and there's 5 intersections for kids to get through, one of which is unsafe because there's no stop sign (15th). If you're walking on East Capitol, .5 miles is like 9-10 blocks (which are easier to travel because it's level). It's more accurate to say that the schools are .5 miles apart. That's the same distance as it is from Maury to Payne and Peabody. I'm not saying that they are super far apart, but I think that the "3 blocks" language creates the perception that they are exceptionally close together. That's just not true.

It's not the same distance as Maury to Payne or Peabody (both of which are .6 or .7 miles away, depending on route). Maury and Miner are closer.

I do agree "three blocks" is not accurate. It's more like four. And it does involve a couple tricky intersections that I think would have to be addressed, but I also think some of the changes recently made on Maryland Ave are instructive on how to make a diagonal street like this more pedestrian friendly while eliminating certain crossings. Basically if you close 14th between D Street and Duncan, it becomes much safer.

The crossing at 15th should get a stop sign and a crossing guard, but also 15th is a one-way street -- one-way streets are much safer generally and it's much easier to address minor safety issues without cross traffic.

But to argue that these schools are not proximate to each other... I don't know. I live in the neighborhood. They are very close. I just think that sounds like BS. There are issues that would have to be addressed, but they are all pretty minor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always get annoyed by this "3 blocks apart" language. These are long diagonal blocks. It's significantly downhill and there's 5 intersections for kids to get through, one of which is unsafe because there's no stop sign (15th). If you're walking on East Capitol, .5 miles is like 9-10 blocks (which are easier to travel because it's level). It's more accurate to say that the schools are .5 miles apart. That's the same distance as it is from Maury to Payne and Peabody. I'm not saying that they are super far apart, but I think that the "3 blocks" language creates the perception that they are exceptionally close together. That's just not true.

Agree with this. Pushing this "3 blocks apart" language makes the plan look better to people who buy into the thesis that disparities in at-risk enrollment are more important the closer the schools are, and it makes the logistical concerns sound less important. DME isn't interested in fairly assessing this, just in pushing it forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always get annoyed by this "3 blocks apart" language. These are long diagonal blocks. It's significantly downhill and there's 5 intersections for kids to get through, one of which is unsafe because there's no stop sign (15th). If you're walking on East Capitol, .5 miles is like 9-10 blocks (which are easier to travel because it's level). It's more accurate to say that the schools are .5 miles apart. That's the same distance as it is from Maury to Payne and Peabody. I'm not saying that they are super far apart, but I think that the "3 blocks" language creates the perception that they are exceptionally close together. That's just not true.

It's not the same distance as Maury to Payne or Peabody (both of which are .6 or .7 miles away, depending on route). Maury and Miner are closer.

I do agree "three blocks" is not accurate. It's more like four. And it does involve a couple tricky intersections that I think would have to be addressed, but I also think some of the changes recently made on Maryland Ave are instructive on how to make a diagonal street like this more pedestrian friendly while eliminating certain crossings. Basically if you close 14th between D Street and Duncan, it becomes much safer.

The crossing at 15th should get a stop sign and a crossing guard, but also 15th is a one-way street -- one-way streets are much safer generally and it's much easier to address minor safety issues without cross traffic.

But to argue that these schools are not proximate to each other... I don't know. I live in the neighborhood. They are very close. I just think that sounds like BS. There are issues that would have to be addressed, but they are all pretty minor.

The kind of "close together" that would make a cluster not a logistical nightmare is a lot, lot closer than even three blocks. I do not get the people who don't understand this. Maybe families with SAH parents? It would not be a simple thing for me to leave work in enough time to make two school pick-ups. Plus, when I am able to go in to school for a class event or to volunteer, it would mean choosing one school (and one child) or the other (whereas now I am sometimes able to do double duty on one trip). Forget stacking the kids' doctor appointments to minimize time off -- going to take more time to get and return them both anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always get annoyed by this "3 blocks apart" language. These are long diagonal blocks. It's significantly downhill and there's 5 intersections for kids to get through, one of which is unsafe because there's no stop sign (15th). If you're walking on East Capitol, .5 miles is like 9-10 blocks (which are easier to travel because it's level). It's more accurate to say that the schools are .5 miles apart. That's the same distance as it is from Maury to Payne and Peabody. I'm not saying that they are super far apart, but I think that the "3 blocks" language creates the perception that they are exceptionally close together. That's just not true.

Agree with this. Pushing this "3 blocks apart" language makes the plan look better to people who buy into the thesis that disparities in at-risk enrollment are more important the closer the schools are, and it makes the logistical concerns sound less important. DME isn't interested in fairly assessing this, just in pushing it forward.

Strong agree with this. Maury and Miner are located .5 miles from one another, which is a typical distance for elementary schools on Capitol Hill. The "3 blocks" language is a pro-Cluster framing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always get annoyed by this "3 blocks apart" language. These are long diagonal blocks. It's significantly downhill and there's 5 intersections for kids to get through, one of which is unsafe because there's no stop sign (15th). If you're walking on East Capitol, .5 miles is like 9-10 blocks (which are easier to travel because it's level). It's more accurate to say that the schools are .5 miles apart. That's the same distance as it is from Maury to Payne and Peabody. I'm not saying that they are super far apart, but I think that the "3 blocks" language creates the perception that they are exceptionally close together. That's just not true.

Agree with this. Pushing this "3 blocks apart" language makes the plan look better to people who buy into the thesis that disparities in at-risk enrollment are more important the closer the schools are, and it makes the logistical concerns sound less important. DME isn't interested in fairly assessing this, just in pushing it forward.

Strong agree with this. Maury and Miner are located .5 miles from one another, which is a typical distance for elementary schools on Capitol Hill. The "3 blocks" language is a pro-Cluster framing.

Agreed. To put it in perspective, L-T is closer to CHML, SWS and JOW than that, and equally close to Peabody. Schools on the Hill are just tightly packed because the area is densely residential and a large proportion of residents have ES-aged kids.