Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:During the last boundary review, there was some discussion about combining Maury and Miner, like the Cluster schools.[/quote

No. There was a discussion of combining schools into choice sets. The other school in that set was Payne. It wouldn't work like a Cluster though. It would be essentially a mini-school lottery for those 3 schools between families IB for all 3 with no initial preferences.

[Anonymous]

Why are they always bringing up these godforsaken "choice sets"? Seriously who wants that? It adds complexity but no improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the Maury boundary would move further East if TPTB thinks the present boundary is over-gentrified. Maybe the people who need to worry are those on the western side of the Maury boundary.

There is nowhere for Maury's eastern boundary to go -- it runs to RFK. More likely they'd look at shifting the northern and southern boundaries. Though I think if there are shifts, you would see the western border move. It would be contentious though because Maury already sits towards the western end -- if you eliminate some of this blocks to the west of Lincoln Park from it's boundary, you will be shifting people who paid a major premium to be not only near Maury but near the park and Eastern Market. And they would likely be shifted to a school significantly further away, since Ludlow-Taylor already has a very large boundary and is pretty full. Unless you moved part of the L-T boundary up to JOW.

It gets very, very messy very quickly. Which is why if there's a redraw, it is likely to be quite minor. But you still might wind up with some unhappy folks.

The most natural change to the Maury boundary would be to flatten the top of the boundary and steal Miner's "tail." Pushing up the northern boundary of Maury a block or two at the Western end would have very little effect on demographics (unless you also bumped up the tail), since you'd carveout some of the gentrified L-T zone and a sliver of the most gentrified part of the Miner zone. You could shift the bottom part of the Maury boundary north in compensation & send those kids to Payne, but I'm not sure that has a huge effect on anything except moving a few very wealthy families to a school they may or may not use.

One thing to keep in mind is that both of the L-T & Maury districts are pretty narrow North-to-South. Look at the map and where Maury and L-T are stacked on top of each other is just East Capitol to H St... all of which is heavily gentrified central Hill. There's nowhere to go for non-gentrified real estate in that swath.

You can't give much of the L-T boundary to JOW by the way, because L-T is only a block from the Northern edge of the boundary... and the whole boundary is only from north of D to H; it's actually really narrow already. (Also, it goes unsaid that affected families would freak out entirely. There are many, many heavily involved L-T families on those blocks.) Unlike what the PP said, L-T is actually a small boundary... among the smallest in the area. But the school is full, so making it bigger would just mean weeding out OOB kids and with an IB rate approaching 2/3rds, I can't see why DCPS would back that either.

What you could do is move the Western edge of the Maury boundary to Watkins. Parents would freak out. As with the shift to Payne, it's taking the wealthiest families out of the zone and zoning them to somewhere they won't like as much. I think parents might balk even more, because there's a sense Payne is on the upswing with solid leadership and Watkins is very much the reverse.

The L-T boundary could move down and take Peabody. Then it could have both buildings. Watkins could be resized and made into a smaller K-5 school.

L-T has an ECE wing, including 7 purpose-built ECE classrooms. It’s also getting an extension. Zero chance it wants the hassle of an extra building that is only good for the very lowest grades without a major reno. No reason DCPS would think that was a good idea either. If they rethink the Cluster, Peabody will become a standalone ECE like Stevens… which would be fine. Between Brent, Maury, LT & smaller Watkins, there’s plenty of ECE IB overflow needed on the Hill… plus people looking at privates, etc who would love to nab an only ECE spot for their kid for 2 years.

Not sure if they would make more than one standalone ECE center on the Hill, they already have plans to make the older building on Miner's property an ECE center
https://dgs.dc.gov/event/dcam-22-cs-rfp-0008-design-build-services-old-miner-early-learning-center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the Maury boundary would move further East if TPTB thinks the present boundary is over-gentrified. Maybe the people who need to worry are those on the western side of the Maury boundary.

There is nowhere for Maury's eastern boundary to go -- it runs to RFK. More likely they'd look at shifting the northern and southern boundaries. Though I think if there are shifts, you would see the western border move. It would be contentious though because Maury already sits towards the western end -- if you eliminate some of this blocks to the west of Lincoln Park from it's boundary, you will be shifting people who paid a major premium to be not only near Maury but near the park and Eastern Market. And they would likely be shifted to a school significantly further away, since Ludlow-Taylor already has a very large boundary and is pretty full. Unless you moved part of the L-T boundary up to JOW.

It gets very, very messy very quickly. Which is why if there's a redraw, it is likely to be quite minor. But you still might wind up with some unhappy folks.

The most natural change to the Maury boundary would be to flatten the top of the boundary and steal Miner's "tail." Pushing up the northern boundary of Maury a block or two at the Western end would have very little effect on demographics (unless you also bumped up the tail), since you'd carveout some of the gentrified L-T zone and a sliver of the most gentrified part of the Miner zone. You could shift the bottom part of the Maury boundary north in compensation & send those kids to Payne, but I'm not sure that has a huge effect on anything except moving a few very wealthy families to a school they may or may not use.

One thing to keep in mind is that both of the L-T & Maury districts are pretty narrow North-to-South. Look at the map and where Maury and L-T are stacked on top of each other is just East Capitol to H St... all of which is heavily gentrified central Hill. There's nowhere to go for non-gentrified real estate in that swath.

You can't give much of the L-T boundary to JOW by the way, because L-T is only a block from the Northern edge of the boundary... and the whole boundary is only from north of D to H; it's actually really narrow already. (Also, it goes unsaid that affected families would freak out entirely. There are many, many heavily involved L-T families on those blocks.) Unlike what the PP said, L-T is actually a small boundary... among the smallest in the area. But the school is full, so making it bigger would just mean weeding out OOB kids and with an IB rate approaching 2/3rds, I can't see why DCPS would back that either.

What you could do is move the Western edge of the Maury boundary to Watkins. Parents would freak out. As with the shift to Payne, it's taking the wealthiest families out of the zone and zoning them to somewhere they won't like as much. I think parents might balk even more, because there's a sense Payne is on the upswing with solid leadership and Watkins is very much the reverse.

The L-T boundary could move down and take Peabody. Then it could have both buildings. Watkins could be resized and made into a smaller K-5 school.

L-T has an ECE wing, including 7 purpose-built ECE classrooms. It’s also getting an extension. Zero chance it wants the hassle of an extra building that is only good for the very lowest grades without a major reno. No reason DCPS would think that was a good idea either. If they rethink the Cluster, Peabody will become a standalone ECE like Stevens… which would be fine. Between Brent, Maury, LT & smaller Watkins, there’s plenty of ECE IB overflow needed on the Hill… plus people looking at privates, etc who would love to nab an only ECE spot for their kid for 2 years.

Not sure if they would make more than one standalone ECE center on the Hill, they already have plans to make the older building on Miner's property an ECE center
https://dgs.dc.gov/event/dcam-22-cs-rfp-0008-design-build-services-old-miner-early-learning-center

No, that's a day care for the 0-3 set. This would just be the same as Peabody minus K, but not affiliated w/ Watkins (which would then get its own PK3-K).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the Maury boundary would move further East if TPTB thinks the present boundary is over-gentrified. Maybe the people who need to worry are those on the western side of the Maury boundary.

there are barely any kids on the western side - it’s only a few blocks. Maury admits a significant number of OOB students so would make more sense to rebalance the eastern boundaries to spread out between Maury, Payne and Miner.

What? Maury admits by far the smallest percentage of OOB kids anywhere on the Hill.

not in recent years in upper grades

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really really hope they don’t move it. We’re one of those that could be affected. We’re inbounds and have a pre-K3 kid but with the long waitlist we had/have no chance of getting in this year. My understanding is that if we don’t get in next year for pre-K 4 (more possible but still likely not going to happen), and we are zoned out of Maury, we’re out of luck for kindergarten. All because, despite trying, we couldn’t get into our highly popular IB school before 2025-2026. It sucks.

Yes, it's so terrible that you live IB for a school you actually want to attend. Think of how many people don't, or can't afford to.

You are more than welcome to a seat at any number of other schools in the area.

No, the poster above won't be zoned out of Maury. That's just not how it works, boundary changes are normally phased in over 4-6 years. I learned this during the 2013-2014 boundary review on the Hill. Don't panic, mate, learn.

This is not true. They've stated the grandfathering would work the same as 2013-2014 process. The only way it takes 5-6 years is for those students are already enrolled in the school to finish out their time at the school they've been grandfathered into (and potentially their younger siblings). I'm in the same boat as prior poster, DC is prek3 this year and unless we get in via prek4 lottery we will not be grandfathered in if we are drawn out of the Maury boundary.

I've tried to argue that the grandfathering rule is unfair to current Prek3 kids (those who would start kindergarten in 2025) because my lottery list would've looked quite different if I wasn't guaranteed entry into my IB school in kindergarten. The best opportunity to lottery into schools is via prek3 and we have now missed that boat if our IB school changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really really hope they don’t move it. We’re one of those that could be affected. We’re inbounds and have a pre-K3 kid but with the long waitlist we had/have no chance of getting in this year. My understanding is that if we don’t get in next year for pre-K 4 (more possible but still likely not going to happen), and we are zoned out of Maury, we’re out of luck for kindergarten. All because, despite trying, we couldn’t get into our highly popular IB school before 2025-2026. It sucks.

Yes, it's so terrible that you live IB for a school you actually want to attend. Think of how many people don't, or can't afford to.

You are more than welcome to a seat at any number of other schools in the area.

This completely misses the point.

[Anonymous]

Current PreK3 parent you should have phase-in options. The rules will first take effect school year 25-26. That year students could choose the old or new option. Stated differently, assuming old rules, someone entering K in 25-26 can enroll at Maury stay.

[Anonymous]

This all assumes boundaries are even changed in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really really hope they don’t move it. We’re one of those that could be affected. We’re inbounds and have a pre-K3 kid but with the long waitlist we had/have no chance of getting in this year. My understanding is that if we don’t get in next year for pre-K 4 (more possible but still likely not going to happen), and we are zoned out of Maury, we’re out of luck for kindergarten. All because, despite trying, we couldn’t get into our highly popular IB school before 2025-2026. It sucks.

Yes, it's so terrible that you live IB for a school you actually want to attend. Think of how many people don't, or can't afford to.

You are more than welcome to a seat at any number of other schools in the area.

No, the poster above won't be zoned out of Maury. That's just not how it works, boundary changes are normally phased in over 4-6 years. I learned this during the 2013-2014 boundary review on the Hill. Don't panic, mate, learn.

This is not true. They've stated the grandfathering would work the same as 2013-2014 process. The only way it takes 5-6 years is for those students are already enrolled in the school to finish out their time at the school they've been grandfathered into (and potentially their younger siblings). I'm in the same boat as prior poster, DC is prek3 this year and unless we get in via prek4 lottery we will not be grandfathered in if we are drawn out of the Maury boundary.

I've tried to argue that the grandfathering rule is unfair to current Prek3 kids (those who would start kindergarten in 2025) because my lottery list would've looked quite different if I wasn't guaranteed entry into my IB school in kindergarten. The best opportunity to lottery into schools is via prek3 and we have now missed that boat if our IB school changes.

Yep! We are also in the same boat (current pre-k 3 who couldn’t get into Maury). If we’re zoned out, we will not be grandfathered into Maury for K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really really hope they don’t move it. We’re one of those that could be affected. We’re inbounds and have a pre-K3 kid but with the long waitlist we had/have no chance of getting in this year. My understanding is that if we don’t get in next year for pre-K 4 (more possible but still likely not going to happen), and we are zoned out of Maury, we’re out of luck for kindergarten. All because, despite trying, we couldn’t get into our highly popular IB school before 2025-2026. It sucks.

Yes, it's so terrible that you live IB for a school you actually want to attend. Think of how many people don't, or can't afford to.

You are more than welcome to a seat at any number of other schools in the area.

No, the poster above won't be zoned out of Maury. That's just not how it works, boundary changes are normally phased in over 4-6 years. I learned this during the 2013-2014 boundary review on the Hill. Don't panic, mate, learn.

It is how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Current PreK3 parent you should have phase-in options. The rules will first take effect school year 25-26. That year students could choose the old or new option. Stated differently, assuming old rules, someone entering K in 25-26 can enroll at Maury stay.

Can you cite to where you find this rule? Because this is contrary to the understanding of several IB pre-K 3 families who could not get into Maury. All I was told was “yes it’s unfortunate but not many families will be in that position,” which doesn’t feel great if you are one of the unfortunate few in that position!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current PreK3 parent you should have phase-in options. The rules will first take effect school year 25-26. That year students could choose the old or new option. Stated differently, assuming old rules, someone entering K in 25-26 can enroll at Maury stay.

Can you cite to where you find this rule? Because this is contrary to the understanding of several IB pre-K 3 families who could not get into Maury. All I was told was “yes it’s unfortunate but not many families will be in that position,” which doesn’t feel great if you are one of the unfortunate few in that position!

NP. I don't think it's at all clear how it would play out and there is definitely not a single rule that anyone can point to. Grandfathering rules are typically heavily negotiated during boundary review processes (and when new schools are stood up) and they have not always been consistent. I think it could absolutely go either way for non-enrolled K families w/o siblings already at the school; one version of grandfathering we've seen had a different siblings rule. I think it is more likely that such families would not be grandfathered in as they weren't last time around... but they could be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This all assumes boundaries are even changed in the first place.

I think the Cluster boundary will definitely change, because with no bus between Peabody and Watkins, the situation is untenable. If that boundary changes, it will impact nearly every other ES on the Hill because of the way that boundary is shaped.

[Anonymous]

I have seen reports that the phase-in for boundary changes will be handled the same way it was done in the 2013-2014 boundary review.

See this Hill Rag article: https://www.hillrag.com/2023/03/21/dc-begins-school-boundary-study/
And this FAQ page explaining how the grandfathering rules worked in 2015-2016: https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20and%20Feeder%20Pattern%20Changes%20FAQ_March%202015.pdf