Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

At the meeting— did they discuss redrawing boundaries or is this only proposal on the table related to Maury/Miner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It's more than wanting free aftercare. As a parent of a child in an upper Maury grade, I want functional upper grades! The behavioral issues are to the point where my kid doesn't want to go to school.

+2. Maury has significant problems *right now.* This idea that DME wants to combine schools just to balance SES, instead of focusing its concern on educational achievement, makes no sense. Just because parents are rich/have education doesn't mean that their kids don't have behavioral issues. There are lots of "rich" parents that are at work all day and aren't addressing their kids' needs.

It's more than just behavioral issues. Just because a family is rich doesn't mean that their kids are academically strong? Rich parents can afford more resources, but Maury seems to need more resources than its current "rich" parents can afford.

Lol it's honestly a little funny to watch Maury parents go from crowing about their high test scores and terrific school to suddenly claiming they have critical unmet needs and that the cluster idea would harm already struggling kids.

If you talked to any Maury parents in the upper grades you would have heard this. It’s not a secret and it is recent - related to the pandemic and the school expansion in the upper grades post-renovation.

If true, doesn't this make it a temporary problem that probably shouldn't be a determining factor in long-term school planning?

I do also have to wonder to what degree this is a Maury-specific problem versus either (1) a common issue in elementary school upper grades due to, as others have mentioned, hormonal issues, or (2) a pandemic-related problem that impacts all kids and having nothing to do with Maury at all.

[Anonymous]

I know it is sort of irrelevant, but they're not proposing to spread the at-risk kids around in the school system. They are proposing to spread them just to one school, just because the boundaries abut. It is beyond frustrating that after this community struggled so hard to make Maury into a school with strong boundary participation -- and while we are working toward the same goal at Eliot Hine -- that DME would propose some hare-brained scheme that will almost certainly counteract a lot of the progress that has been made. Meanwhile the schools in the wealthy upper northwest are sitting pretty because they had the good sense to live in a larger rich(er) area, I guess.



This would help EH though. People willing to go through the combined schools will most certainly stay for EH. Additionally, EH will have more familiar kids as the numbers of combined graduates and attendees would be much higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the meeting— did they discuss redrawing boundaries or is this only proposal on the table related to Maury/Miner?

They said they considered it, but realized it would achieve the desired goals of improved equity between the two schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

Not if they do the calculation separately. The combined upper grades would 100% be T1. The lower grades would likely not be if they split PK3-1st and likely would be if they split PK3-2nd; another reason actual specific proposals matter.

so 1/4 of the K class would be high needs with no extra funding in the crucial year when they need to learn to read. terrific idea guys.

...I hope you realize that this scenario of 1/4 of the K class being high needs is on the lower end of what the vast majority of schools can and do work with every day. Part of the purpose of if this study, is that as part of a larger school system, having isolated schools with concentrated resources is inequitable. Because if we are being honest, it is not just the Title 1 funding - affluent schools fundraise for extra teacher assistants, school programs, etc. A parent brought up in the chat last night the idea of PTAs sharing resources and having a fundraising cap. I don't think that is under the DME's control, but that would be a great way to curb some of the inequity across the city. Some places are already talking about this option
https://www.arlnow.com/2021/07/15/arlington-pta-leaders-consider-ways-to-distribute-funding-more-equitably/
https://families4equity.org/

A fundraising cap is just ludicrous. What's next, a salary cap to attend DCPS "oh, you can afford private so go away"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know it is sort of irrelevant, but they're not proposing to spread the at-risk kids around in the school system. They are proposing to spread them just to one school, just because the boundaries abut. It is beyond frustrating that after this community struggled so hard to make Maury into a school with strong boundary participation -- and while we are working toward the same goal at Eliot Hine -- that DME would propose some hare-brained scheme that will almost certainly counteract a lot of the progress that has been made. Meanwhile the schools in the wealthy upper northwest are sitting pretty because they had the good sense to live in a larger rich(er) area, I guess.

This would help EH though. People willing to go through the combined schools will most certainly stay for EH. Additionally, EH will have more familiar kids as the numbers of combined graduates and attendees would be much higher.

I disagree that this would help EH, but that's because I foresee an erosion of people willing to go through the combined schools, so we may just have different predictions there. Getting parents who have the resources/flexibility to lottery into a different school or pay for private to send their kid to a school where all of a sudden over half the kids in their class can't score proficient on the PARCC -- and where there's no tracking, so teachers are left to deal with huge gulfs in academic readiness with the result that no one gets the attention they need -- is a very hard sell. It's one that Maury parents have made before, so there's hope I guess, but I think the cluster model itself creates serious obstacles to community involvement/buy-in, and I'm just not convinced they will be able to do it again. Especially if it looks like, once you make a success of a school, DC will find a way to mess with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I ran the actual numbers using MySchool data (meaning I extrapolated raw numbers given population sizes and percentages, combined the schools raw data, and the derived the percentages based on actual populations for a fictional combined school with the same current populations). Here's how it looks, this assumes zero attrition and also no increased IB interest in Miner, as that's an unknown number:

Racial demographics
Miner now - 80% black, 13% white, 7% other
Maury now - 21% black, 58% white, 21% other
Combined school - 45% black, 46% white, 9% other

At risk, SpEd, and ESL
Miner now: 64% at risk, 21% SpEd, 2% ESL
Maury now - 12% at risk, 8% SpEd, 2% ESL
Combined school - 33% at risk, 13% SpEd, 2% ESL

IB percentage
Miner now - 62%
Maury now - 84%
Combined school - 75%

Looking at these numbers, the biggest argument against is that at risk number. Realistically, I think the combined school would retain Title 1 status with some attrition from high-SES families. But that 33% is on the edge and I would be concerned about losing Title 1 status for a combined school where at-risk kids are clustered into the upper grades and a lot of remedial reading assistance is needed. But it's on a knife's edge there.

Another issue that has not been raised but I see in this number is that the "other" demographic, which includes Latino, AAPI, and other racial demographics, actually declines to below 10% with the combined school, down from 21% at Maury. In terms of overall diversity, that might be an issue for Latino and AAPI families who want a critical mass of kids with a similar racial background at the school.

However, the overall diversity of the combined school is better than at either school now, especially Miner which is not at all diverse. I see the argument in favor of combining the populations because I do think diversity in both race and SES of students is genuinely beneficial to all students and to society at large.

I also definitely see the advantage in terms of serving the needs of at-risk and SpEd students. Currently Miner's percentages of both students are impossibly high -- it is not surprising that a school with those numbers has trouble bringing up test scores! I would encourage Maury families to consider what it means to have a school where two-thirds of the population is at risk. I understand why you are reluctant to give up the good thing you have going at Maury, but there actually are very strong arguments that spreading at-risk kids around in the school system benefits the system as a whole.

I really do see the argument for combining these schools even as I also see some real challenges and potential pitfalls. I don't think the combination would "ruin" Maury and I do think it would have the potential to greatly improve outcomes overall. But I'd worry about attrition torpedoing the stated goals of the cluster, and I'd worry about how Title 1 status would be impacted given that a combined school would need funds to accomplish its goals.

Personally I'd be pretty happy to send my (white, upper-SES) student to a school that had no racial majority (I'd love a truly diverse school) and where about a third of students were at risk. The high school I attended in another state was a bit less diverse than that but not much, and had similar numbers for SpEd and at-risk students, and I have long felt that experience gave me a much broader understanding of the world than many of my colleagues who attended more cloistered schools growing up. Racial and socioeconomic diversity really is a good thing, I wish people could see that.

This is easy PP -- lottery for Payne. It has taken people off the waitlist at every grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the meeting— did they discuss redrawing boundaries or is this only proposal on the table related to Maury/Miner?

They said they considered it, but realized it would achieve the desired goals of improved equity between the two schools.

??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know it is sort of irrelevant, but they're not proposing to spread the at-risk kids around in the school system. They are proposing to spread them just to one school, just because the boundaries abut. It is beyond frustrating that after this community struggled so hard to make Maury into a school with strong boundary participation -- and while we are working toward the same goal at Eliot Hine -- that DME would propose some hare-brained scheme that will almost certainly counteract a lot of the progress that has been made. Meanwhile the schools in the wealthy upper northwest are sitting pretty because they had the good sense to live in a larger rich(er) area, I guess.

This would help EH though. People willing to go through the combined schools will most certainly stay for EH. Additionally, EH will have more familiar kids as the numbers of combined graduates and attendees would be much higher.

I disagree that this would help EH, but that's because I foresee an erosion of people willing to go through the combined schools, so we may just have different predictions there. Getting parents who have the resources/flexibility to lottery into a different school or pay for private to send their kid to a school where all of a sudden over half the kids in their class can't score proficient on the PARCC -- and where there's no tracking, so teachers are left to deal with huge gulfs in academic readiness with the result that no one gets the attention they need -- is a very hard sell. It's one that Maury parents have made before, so there's hope I guess, but I think the cluster model itself creates serious obstacles to community involvement/buy-in, and I'm just not convinced they will be able to do it again. Especially if it looks like, once you make a success of a school, DC will find a way to mess with it.


I have a 4th grader and a 2nd grader at Maury. I feel less apprehensive about having a bunch of Miner kids suddenly show up for 3rd or 4th grade than about sending my oldest to EH in a giant building where he will be a blatant minority. Someone said it here earlier, 50/50 is best with no props. I like the idea of integration earlier than the shock of going from Maury to Eliot.

[Anonymous]

Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

Not if they do the calculation separately. The combined upper grades would 100% be T1. The lower grades would likely not be if they split PK3-1st and likely would be if they split PK3-2nd; another reason actual specific proposals matter.

so 1/4 of the K class would be high needs with no extra funding in the crucial year when they need to learn to read. terrific idea guys.

...I hope you realize that this scenario of 1/4 of the K class being high needs is on the lower end of what the vast majority of schools can and do work with every day. Part of the purpose of if this study, is that as part of a larger school system, having isolated schools with concentrated resources is inequitable. Because if we are being honest, it is not just the Title 1 funding - affluent schools fundraise for extra teacher assistants, school programs, etc. A parent brought up in the chat last night the idea of PTAs sharing resources and having a fundraising cap. I don't think that is under the DME's control, but that would be a great way to curb some of the inequity across the city. Some places are already talking about this option
https://www.arlnow.com/2021/07/15/arlington-pta-leaders-consider-ways-to-distribute-funding-more-equitably/
https://families4equity.org/

A fundraising cap is just ludicrous. What's next, a salary cap to attend DCPS "oh, you can afford private so go away"?

Doesn't the PTA fundraise for teachers aids/programming *because* Maury gets less funding per student than a title I school like Miner? I always had the impression we were basically making up that gap, not necessarily getting some massive advantage.

In any case, money unfortunately doesn't seem to be the answer. Almost all of my life, DC has been a top spender on students per capita nationwide. It has not worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

Exactly. That's why they can't tell us anything they will do pedagogically to turn things around. That's not the plan. They just want things to look better; there's no investment in making them actually better.

[Anonymous]

Devil's advocate, but these are the same kids who will later be their classmates at EH. Wouldn't it be better to get them in earlier? If anything, the few kids at Miner who are at grade level or borderline, would certainly benefit from a more rigorous school. Maury kids won't unlearn things just because their peers aren't performing. That's how they are selling EH right now at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Devil's advocate, but these are the same kids who will later be their classmates at EH. Wouldn't it be better to get them in earlier? If anything, the few kids at Miner who are at grade level or borderline, would certainly benefit from a more rigorous school. Maury kids won't unlearn things just because their peers aren't performing. That's how they are selling EH right now at least.

Almost half of the Maury 4th grade leaves to go to Basis, Latin, etc; they don't go on to EH. These are many of the top students at Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Devil's advocate, but these are the same kids who will later be their classmates at EH. Wouldn't it be better to get them in earlier? If anything, the few kids at Miner who are at grade level or borderline, would certainly benefit from a more rigorous school. Maury kids won't unlearn things just because their peers aren't performing. That's how they are selling EH right now at least.

I'm a parent who is currently not sold on Eliot Hine, but the difference is tracking, isn't it? I have no illusions that it is sufficient, but I believe EH at least nominally offers honors classes. Who cares about the make up of the school at large if you are able to take class with the kids -- whoever they may be -- who are at the same level you are, allowing you to benefit so much more from class?

But DCPS doesn't offer any tracking in elementary, absurdly, so if your kid is above or even on grade level and in a class where most of the kids are below grade level, that presents obvious challenges that would be at least somewhat mitigated at a school with tracking (i.e., at EH).

Your kid might not unlearn things, but how much new learning will they be doing in a third, fourth, or fifth grade class where most of the kids are very behind?