Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

Eliot Hine has an IB program, which is where most of the Maury alums end up.

[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

And Miner’s scores are below other schools with a similar at-risk population. Amidon Bowen being a good example.

This really does feel like a slapped-together plan to mask the problems at Miner, which fall squarely at the feet of DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, roughly 3/4 of the PTA funds go to support shared classroom aides in grades 1-5. So each aide supports 2-4 teachers depending on the grade. Adding 2+ classrooms (at least) per grade across 2 campuses would necessitate a large increase in PTA fundraising to keep up that support. I don’t think that will happen in a cluster model.

Beyond the classroom aides, PTA money goes towards school events, supplies, staff appreciation. Which are wonderful, but not some magic bullet to close the equity gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not a shock. It’s literally the least of my child’s concerns at EH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. The only theory behind this is that white people are magical by their mere physical presence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, roughly 3/4 of the PTA funds go to support shared classroom aides in grades 1-5. So each aide supports 2-4 teachers depending on the grade. Adding 2+ classrooms (at least) per grade across 2 campuses would necessitate a large increase in PTA fundraising to keep up that support. I don’t think that will happen in a cluster model.

Beyond the classroom aides, PTA money goes towards school events, supplies, staff appreciation. Which are wonderful, but not some magic bullet to close the equity gap.

Yeah. So basically assuming the ECE school would lose title 1 status, this means that the 1st and 2nd grade experience would be very different from Maury and Miner: no Title 1 money, no PTA aid, kids still at a crucial stage for literacy skills, and a big increase in the kids who need a lot more reading support.

How ANYONE thinks this is clever is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, roughly 3/4 of the PTA funds go to support shared classroom aides in grades 1-5. So each aide supports 2-4 teachers depending on the grade. Adding 2+ classrooms (at least) per grade across 2 campuses would necessitate a large increase in PTA fundraising to keep up that support. I don’t think that will happen in a cluster model.

Beyond the classroom aides, PTA money goes towards school events, supplies, staff appreciation. Which are wonderful, but not some magic bullet to close the equity gap.

I know this has gotten slightly off topic, but while Title 1 schools do get extra funding for things like meals and perhaps other schoolwide support, It does not go to teacher's aides in older grades. Title 1 schools only have aides through kindergarten.
The schools that are able to privately fundraise for teachers aides are big advantage in addition to having a smaller at risk population because that is not built into any school budget past kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eliot Hine has an IB program, which is where most of the Maury alums end up.

EH has some “advanced” track classes and students can chose some electives that meet their needs/interests. MS is also an age where parents can more effectively support with tutoring than elementary school. MS kids can self-differentiate to an extent. Elementary is very different. The class is going to be taught to the median, which will decrease, and leave the top and bottom behind. Maury couldn’t even manage to keep its reading interventionist in the budget.

[Anonymous]

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 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.

Are you kidding with this post? Do you even know what the pandemic problems are? High anxiety, inability to socialize properly, failure to learn critical academic and behaviorial skills because of an entire missed year of school -- none of these problems are "temporary" that will just go away on their own. They are only "temporary" if there is a heavy investment of resources. Some schools will right these problems because they have the resources to fix them. Maury is not one of those schools, at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, roughly 3/4 of the PTA funds go to support shared classroom aides in grades 1-5. So each aide supports 2-4 teachers depending on the grade. Adding 2+ classrooms (at least) per grade across 2 campuses would necessitate a large increase in PTA fundraising to keep up that support. I don’t think that will happen in a cluster model.

Beyond the classroom aides, PTA money goes towards school events, supplies, staff appreciation. Which are wonderful, but not some magic bullet to close the equity gap.

I know this has gotten slightly off topic, but while Title 1 schools do get extra funding for things like meals and perhaps other schoolwide support, It does not go to teacher's aides in older grades. Title 1 schools only have aides through kindergarten.
The schools that are able to privately fundraise for teachers aides are big advantage in addition to having a smaller at risk population because that is not built into any school budget past kindergarten.

Title 1 money absolutely goes to support additional staff & tutoring. This would go away. That’s the point - no PTA aids, no Title 1. Just the magical white skin.

[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 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.

Are you kidding with this post? Do you even know what the pandemic problems are? High anxiety, inability to socialize properly, failure to learn critical academic and behaviorial skills because of an entire missed year of school -- none of these problems are "temporary" that will just go away on their own. They are only "temporary" if there is a heavy investment of resources. Some schools will right these problems because they have the resources to fix them. Maury is not one of those schools, at the moment.

This is one of the reasons I was shocked to hear that the DME hadn't talked with the teachers about these plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where does this money go, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, roughly 3/4 of the PTA funds go to support shared classroom aides in grades 1-5. So each aide supports 2-4 teachers depending on the grade. Adding 2+ classrooms (at least) per grade across 2 campuses would necessitate a large increase in PTA fundraising to keep up that support. I don’t think that will happen in a cluster model.

Beyond the classroom aides, PTA money goes towards school events, supplies, staff appreciation. Which are wonderful, but not some magic bullet to close the equity gap.

I know this has gotten slightly off topic, but while Title 1 schools do get extra funding for things like meals and perhaps other schoolwide support, It does not go to teacher's aides in older grades. Title 1 schools only have aides through kindergarten.
The schools that are able to privately fundraise for teachers aides are big advantage in addition to having a smaller at risk population because that is not built into any school budget past kindergarten.

I thought all DCPS schools have aides through kindergarten? My kid went to Peabody before the Cluster was Title 1, and there was an aide for each class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, roughly 3/4 of the PTA funds go to support shared classroom aides in grades 1-5. So each aide supports 2-4 teachers depending on the grade. Adding 2+ classrooms (at least) per grade across 2 campuses would necessitate a large increase in PTA fundraising to keep up that support. I don’t think that will happen in a cluster model.

Beyond the classroom aides, PTA money goes towards school events, supplies, staff appreciation. Which are wonderful, but not some magic bullet to close the equity gap.

I know this has gotten slightly off topic, but while Title 1 schools do get extra funding for things like meals and perhaps other schoolwide support, It does not go to teacher's aides in older grades. Title 1 schools only have aides through kindergarten.
The schools that are able to privately fundraise for teachers aides are big advantage in addition to having a smaller at risk population because that is not built into any school budget past kindergarten.

+1, we are at a Title 1 school (not Miner) and the extra funding isn't really for classroom support past K (and not even all K classrooms get aids -- only the largest classrooms do).

One thing about Title 1 funding is that while it pays for a lot of extras, and also can help with teacher hiring and retention because of the pay bump teachers get for being at a Title 1 school, it doesn't pay for some of the stuff that UMC families often find make a school appealing, like festivals and other family events. Our school struggles with these because our funding is more limited and while we actually do a good job with PTO fundraising, we have a smaller population of families who can donate money so we simply cannot raise the kinds of dollars that a school like Maury or Ludlow-Taylor can. I also think we have a harder time recruiting families to volunteer at events, and we really struggle with getting parents to jump through all of DCPS's dumb hoops to be able to volunteer in the classroom or chaperone school trips.

Assuming that the cluster school would retain Title 1 funding at least for the upper school, I could actually see it being a really advantageous situation for the combined school, with Title 1 funding to support at risk kids academically and through extras like free aftercare, but also the ability to raise additional funds through the PTO from the wealthier part of the family base to pay for things like classroom support in the upper grades and events that help build community at the school. Potentially a "best of both worlds" situation. Also, because the combined boundary does include several low-income housing projects, even if the experiment is successful enough to draw even more high-SES families to the boundary and school, it will always serve kids from those projects. Combining the boundary with Maury's which has higher SES would help to balance that out a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eliot Hine has an IB program, which is where most of the Maury alums end up.

It's not about "unlearning." It's about not learning in the first place.

I'll be down with this cluster model if DCPS also promises a huge infusion of cash to support aides in every classroom at every grade level. Otherwise this is stupid.