Maury Capitol Hill

[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:

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.

The PTA funding is a red herring. It wouldn’t increase because the number of parents with extra income wouldn’t increase, but students would. It can’t come near to touching the loss of Title 1 funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And support behavioral health staff, sped staff, reading and math interventionists.

[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.

Where does this money go, exactly?

It's important to understand that "per capita student spend" doesn't actually mean that each student gets that money. In DCPS, as in most urban school districts, there is a vast discrepancy in how much money is spent on individual students. A huge portion of funding goes to SpEd and at risk kids, where interventions and assistance can be very expensive.

I also think the size of DCPS schools drives up the cost per pupil spending. DCPS has a lot of small schools -- most suburban districts have fewer larger schools. In some ways the hyper-local neighborhood school model that Maury exemplifies is part of the issue -- larger boundaries and larger schools can create more efficiencies in terms of spending on facilities and maintenance. But that aspect of DCPS won't change anytime soon -- the entire system is based on the existing neighborhood model. Not even the lottery has changed that much at all.

[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:

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.

The PTA funding is a red herring. It wouldn’t increase because the number of parents with extra income wouldn’t increase, but students would. It can’t come near to touching the loss of Title 1 funds.

I think everyone agrees loss of title 1 status is a huge problem for Miner or any combined school. Miner alone has over 200 at risk students. Add in Maury's population and its 300 students deemed at risk. Trying to meet the needs of that population without Title 1 funding would be ridiculous.

Unless DCPS can explain how the cluster retains Title 1 funding (I'd personally want to ensure that it stays for both schools because even if the ECE grades have a lower overall percentage of at risk kids, we're still talking about a large population with a lot of needs), I don't see how the proposal can continue, even if you could sell people on potential benefits.

[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.

Where does this money go, exactly?

It's important to understand that "per capita student spend" doesn't actually mean that each student gets that money. In DCPS, as in most urban school districts, there is a vast discrepancy in how much money is spent on individual students. A huge portion of funding goes to SpEd and at risk kids, where interventions and assistance can be very expensive.

I also think the size of DCPS schools drives up the cost per pupil spending. DCPS has a lot of small schools -- most suburban districts have fewer larger schools. In some ways the hyper-local neighborhood school model that Maury exemplifies is part of the issue -- larger boundaries and larger schools can create more efficiencies in terms of spending on facilities and maintenance. But that aspect of DCPS won't change anytime soon -- the entire system is based on the existing neighborhood model. Not even the lottery has changed that much at all.

Not sure what you're basing the idea that most elementary schools are huge on. Most elementary schools are small to create community and so admin and teachers get to know the kids over time. 500 kids is basically the average
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_095.asp
Who wants an elementary school with 8 kindergarten classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

??

Typo - It would NOT achieve the desired goals of improved equity between the two schools.

[Anonymous]

If this change actually happens, when would it happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

??

Typo - It would NOT achieve the desired goals of improved equity between the two schools.

But they said something bizarre about this -- like that they had redrawn the boundary vertically instead of horizontally but it didn't change anything. I don't think I heard if they tried anything but literally that one alternative configuration (but I may have missed something -- I know someone asked that in the comments).

[Anonymous]

I was interested to learn that when Maury was expanded people already flagged that the building would not have enough room for the number of anticipated students, but DCPS went ahead with expanding the boundary anyway? Was that right? Or am I mixing something up?

[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.

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.

And many of those Maury kids that don't get into Basis, Latin, or an acceptable PCS move or go private.

Does anyone have the numbers for the # of Maury kids per grade at E-H? Or even more detailed, 4th grade at Maury AND 6th grade at E-H?

The # of Maury kids per grade at Eastern?

I'm guessing it's quite low and the cluster would be a temporary band-aid for DCPS to improve #'s for Minor on paper but have worse long term results for Maury and Minor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was interested to learn that when Maury was expanded people already flagged that the building would not have enough room for the number of anticipated students, but DCPS went ahead with expanding the boundary anyway? Was that right? Or am I mixing something up?

But is that really even the issue they are trying to solve for here? I thought the goal was equity, not necessarily concerns over capacity at Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

??

Typo - It would NOT achieve the desired goals of improved equity between the two schools.

But they said something bizarre about this -- like that they had redrawn the boundary vertically instead of horizontally but it didn't change anything. I don't think I heard if they tried anything but literally that one alternative configuration (but I may have missed something -- I know someone asked that in the comments).

Yes, they said they considered redrawing Maury and Miner's boundaries to be north/south rather than east / west shapes. They didn't get into the specifics beyond that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was interested to learn that when Maury was expanded people already flagged that the building would not have enough room for the number of anticipated students, but DCPS went ahead with expanding the boundary anyway? Was that right? Or am I mixing something up?

But is that really even the issue they are trying to solve for here? I thought the goal was equity, not necessarily concerns over capacity at Maury.

No. I just remember it as a sign of overall DCPS incompetence, and a reason to doubt everything they are proposing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

??

Typo - It would NOT achieve the desired goals of improved equity between the two schools.

But they said something bizarre about this -- like that they had redrawn the boundary vertically instead of horizontally but it didn't change anything. I don't think I heard if they tried anything but literally that one alternative configuration (but I may have missed something -- I know someone asked that in the comments).

Yes, they said they considered redrawing Maury and Miner's boundaries to be north/south rather than east / west shapes. They didn't get into the specifics beyond that.

They said that it didn't change the SES situation much, so they didn't go with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And many of those Maury kids that don't get into Basis, Latin, or an acceptable PCS move or go private.

Does anyone have the numbers for the # of Maury kids per grade at E-H? Or even more detailed, 4th grade at Maury AND 6th grade at E-H?

The # of Maury kids per grade at Eastern?

I'm guessing it's quite low and the cluster would be a temporary band-aid for DCPS to improve #'s for Minor on paper but have worse long term results for Maury and Minor.

https://edscape.dc.gov/node/1640846

You can use this to figure out part of your question.