Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what happens if BASIS does open an elementary school somewhere Capitol Hill adjacent?

Honestly I don't think it would impact this situation that much. I don't think most Hill parents are that interested in a BASIS approach to elementary education. Some might send their kids to BASIS for MS/HS, but on balance Hill families run crunchy. That's why SWS and CHMS do well, and there are a decent number of Hill families who commute to Lee or ITDS. Even TR has a pretty lefty, social-justice lean.

I do not see a big clamor for more testing and STEM-focused elementary education. People get on board for BASIS in the upper levels because of of poor math scores, especially at charters, and because options for MS/HS on the East side are not great.

And Maury parents in particular don't seem likely to go for BASIS. They want Maury. Not Miner, not Maury-Miner, not BASIS. Maury.

You don't seem to know much about Basis.

-There are lots of Hill kids at Basis. In particular, there are lots of Maury students at Basis.

-With an elementary option, Hill parents would lock in Basis for MS/HS. Given the terrible MS/HS options on the Hill, that will be an attractive option for many.

-I have no idea what you mean by "crunchy." Basis is certainly consistent with the politics of most on the Hill.

-Basis is not just about STEM. They don't purport to be a STEM school and have plenty of non-STEM classes/options.

[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.

What exactly are the proposed Brent changes?

[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.

Few things - if you are on Brandon Best's email list, he will be holding a DME meeting on Dec 4th. W6PSP0 meetings don't get a huge numbers, and the date was changed late last week so that may have impacted attendance too

Separately, I think having the Browne Education Campus middle schoolers go to Eliot is a smart move. The K-8 campus model prevents principals from being able to focus on one area, and the middle schoolers do not get the same middle school experience at an education campus. Also, for those of you who have known families at Eliot in the past 5 years , as the population has grown, so has the number of teachers, clubs, teams, drama productions etc. More students is a good thing, there is definitely the space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

Not to mention a terrible idea! You're making BOTH schools worse by splitting elementary pickup/dropoff, and you risk losing the neighborhood buy-in for one school. For... WHAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

Interesting, can kids not play on the playground if they are not eating breakfast? I do imagine that if this actually happened they would make drop off schedules that would accommodate both schools/parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

Interesting, can kids not play on the playground if they are not eating breakfast? I do imagine that if this actually happened they would make drop off schedules that would accommodate both schools/parents.

LOL nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

Interesting, can kids not play on the playground if they are not eating breakfast? I do imagine that if this actually happened they would make drop off schedules that would accommodate both schools/parents.

LOL nope.

NP. Why nope? It seems like there would be lots of ways to do drop off and pick up to accommodate parents at both schools, given their proximity. Especially because of the age split between campuses. A staggered drop off schedule with greater flexibility for the upper school campus, where you can have higher child to teacher ratios (and thus have a larger group of kids on the playground or in the cafeteria with fewer minders until school starts). Also for families that live nearby, by 4th grade your kids can be walking on their own.

As for the time, I personally wouldn't mind that extra walk, but lots of families get cargo bikes for this reason. I know a bunch of families with kids in daycare and and elementary schools that are a lot further apart than Maury and Miner, do it by cargo bike, and can throw in a couple errands and still make their commute to work or make it back home in a reasonable length of time.

I don't know if the cluster makes sense or not -- I would have to think more critically about whether combining those two school populations would really result in a "rising tide lifts all boats" situation, or just result in shedding UMC families altogether in a way that undermines Maury's success. I am not sure, though I understand why they are looking for ways to help the school population at Miner, because it has a very decent ECE program but dismal test scores in 3-5, and clearly loses most of its high-resource kids by 2nd or 3rd, which makes it a lot harder because when every kid is high-risk, no one gets what they need.

But the idea that the main objection is drop-off logistics seems silly on its face. Maury students spent two years in a swing space while the school was renovated, and that posed drop-off issues too. But the renovations was of course worth it and was well worth those adjustments. If a cluster could be beneficial in the long run, adjusting start times or having a slightly less convenient school commute for a few years just seems like such a minor complaint to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

Interesting, can kids not play on the playground if they are not eating breakfast? I do imagine that if this actually happened they would make drop off schedules that would accommodate both schools/parents.

LOL nope.

NP. Why nope? It seems like there would be lots of ways to do drop off and pick up to accommodate parents at both schools, given their proximity. Especially because of the age split between campuses. A staggered drop off schedule with greater flexibility for the upper school campus, where you can have higher child to teacher ratios (and thus have a larger group of kids on the playground or in the cafeteria with fewer minders until school starts). Also for families that live nearby, by 4th grade your kids can be walking on their own.

As for the time, I personally wouldn't mind that extra walk, but lots of families get cargo bikes for this reason. I know a bunch of families with kids in daycare and and elementary schools that are a lot further apart than Maury and Miner, do it by cargo bike, and can throw in a couple errands and still make their commute to work or make it back home in a reasonable length of time.

I don't know if the cluster makes sense or not -- I would have to think more critically about whether combining those two school populations would really result in a "rising tide lifts all boats" situation, or just result in shedding UMC families altogether in a way that undermines Maury's success. I am not sure, though I understand why they are looking for ways to help the school population at Miner, because it has a very decent ECE program but dismal test scores in 3-5, and clearly loses most of its high-resource kids by 2nd or 3rd, which makes it a lot harder because when every kid is high-risk, no one gets what they need.

But the idea that the main objection is drop-off logistics seems silly on its face. Maury students spent two years in a swing space while the school was renovated, and that posed drop-off issues too. But the renovations was of course worth it and was well worth those adjustments. If a cluster could be beneficial in the long run, adjusting start times or having a slightly less convenient school commute for a few years just seems like such a minor complaint to me.

You are not understanding how much more difficult it is to drop kids off at two different locations. This difficulty is the reason sibling preference exists at all schools. It’s also one of the main reasons that people living in the neighborhood peace out of the Peabody/Watkins cluster.

[Anonymous]

So does this mean the populations at Miner and Maury will be intermixed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

Interesting, can kids not play on the playground if they are not eating breakfast? I do imagine that if this actually happened they would make drop off schedules that would accommodate both schools/parents.

LOL nope.

NP. Why nope? It seems like there would be lots of ways to do drop off and pick up to accommodate parents at both schools, given their proximity. Especially because of the age split between campuses. A staggered drop off schedule with greater flexibility for the upper school campus, where you can have higher child to teacher ratios (and thus have a larger group of kids on the playground or in the cafeteria with fewer minders until school starts). Also for families that live nearby, by 4th grade your kids can be walking on their own.

As for the time, I personally wouldn't mind that extra walk, but lots of families get cargo bikes for this reason. I know a bunch of families with kids in daycare and and elementary schools that are a lot further apart than Maury and Miner, do it by cargo bike, and can throw in a couple errands and still make their commute to work or make it back home in a reasonable length of time.

I don't know if the cluster makes sense or not -- I would have to think more critically about whether combining those two school populations would really result in a "rising tide lifts all boats" situation, or just result in shedding UMC families altogether in a way that undermines Maury's success. I am not sure, though I understand why they are looking for ways to help the school population at Miner, because it has a very decent ECE program but dismal test scores in 3-5, and clearly loses most of its high-resource kids by 2nd or 3rd, which makes it a lot harder because when every kid is high-risk, no one gets what they need.

But the idea that the main objection is drop-off logistics seems silly on its face. Maury students spent two years in a swing space while the school was renovated, and that posed drop-off issues too. But the renovations was of course worth it and was well worth those adjustments. If a cluster could be beneficial in the long run, adjusting start times or having a slightly less convenient school commute for a few years just seems like such a minor complaint to me.

You think all the Miner families want to get cargo bikes? Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The need for busses is caused by the cluster!!! It is moronic to argue that the cluster is not a failed experiment and instead pin the blame on an externality caused by the cluster. You must work for DCPS.

Part of the reason people felt like they need those buses was because the schools in the cluster school are significantly further apart and the boundary is very long and skinny. If this Maury Miner cluster happened, those schools are only three blocks apart so parents could easily drop kids off at both locations during the 8: 15 to 845 drop off window. Also parking by Peabody to do drop off his horrible which also was an incentive for the bus,

I don't know what the Miner schedule is, but drop off at Maury is between 8:30 and 8:40 for kids not eating breakfast. And the three blocks translates to an extra 20 minutes (conservatively) for me, which would be another 40 minutes a day. I get that it's closer than Peabody/Watkins (and it is absolutely outrageous that DCPS doesn't offer transportation there), but it would be a pretty huge inconvenience nevertheless.

Interesting, can kids not play on the playground if they are not eating breakfast? I do imagine that if this actually happened they would make drop off schedules that would accommodate both schools/parents.

LOL nope.

NP. Why nope? It seems like there would be lots of ways to do drop off and pick up to accommodate parents at both schools, given their proximity. Especially because of the age split between campuses. A staggered drop off schedule with greater flexibility for the upper school campus, where you can have higher child to teacher ratios (and thus have a larger group of kids on the playground or in the cafeteria with fewer minders until school starts). Also for families that live nearby, by 4th grade your kids can be walking on their own.

As for the time, I personally wouldn't mind that extra walk, but lots of families get cargo bikes for this reason. I know a bunch of families with kids in daycare and and elementary schools that are a lot further apart than Maury and Miner, do it by cargo bike, and can throw in a couple errands and still make their commute to work or make it back home in a reasonable length of time.

I don't know if the cluster makes sense or not -- I would have to think more critically about whether combining those two school populations would really result in a "rising tide lifts all boats" situation, or just result in shedding UMC families altogether in a way that undermines Maury's success. I am not sure, though I understand why they are looking for ways to help the school population at Miner, because it has a very decent ECE program but dismal test scores in 3-5, and clearly loses most of its high-resource kids by 2nd or 3rd, which makes it a lot harder because when every kid is high-risk, no one gets what they need.

But the idea that the main objection is drop-off logistics seems silly on its face. Maury students spent two years in a swing space while the school was renovated, and that posed drop-off issues too. But the renovations was of course worth it and was well worth those adjustments. If a cluster could be beneficial in the long run, adjusting start times or having a slightly less convenient school commute for a few years just seems like such a minor complaint to me.

You are not understanding how much more difficult it is to drop kids off at two different locations. This difficulty is the reason sibling preference exists at all schools. It’s also one of the main reasons that people living in the neighborhood peace out of the Peabody/Watkins cluster.

“Let them ride cargo bikes.” Lol.

[Anonymous]

can I just say I think it is deranged that there are no Maury OR Miner parents on the boundary committee? Just nuts. This idea comes from nowhere, it’s just some bureaucratic who thinks it makes him/her look good.