New opposition petition to the Maury-Miner boundary proposal from DME

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

Fine with me, but it won't really help without a good permanent principal. And what happens when you alter the demographics is that Miner might get *less* money, maybe even lose Title I status, so I'm not sure that's going to be as big a change as you hope.

I think you are putting way more faith in a principal here.

A single great principal cannot turn around a school on their own. Miner has failed its community for too long and has no IB buy in and even families who tried for years to help have fled the school in recent years. Who will the principal work with?

It's not that I think a great principal can turn around a school on their own. It's that I think it will benefit Miner to have an *adequate* principal rather than bad principals who often get fired or quit.

There are always dumbass preschool families coming in optimistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if I were a Miner parent, I'm not sure I'd be super enthused about this. The logistics problems are real. Miner itself will probably get *less* money due to demographics. Then you get to (or rather, have to) go to Maury, but not Maury as it currently exists, instead it'll be Maury with worse test scores and worse behaviors. Sure, just about anything's better than Miner, but right now, Miner parents stand a good chance of lotterying into Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins in upper grades, or any number of other schools. Even Brent makes a few offers. By-right access to a worse version of Maury doesn't really feel like an upgrade over what's currently de facto available, considering the other disadvantages of the Cluster proposal.

It's funny how making changes to Miner to help with basic functioning, performance, and retention is not on the table here at all.

Nice try, but no. Just as I can see why Maury families would oppose this plan, it's pretty obvious that the cluster stands to be an upgrade for both current Miner families and families IB for Miner who have younger kids. Even just as a potential option.

Right now I don't know a single Miner IB family who is actually enthusiastic about the idea of sending them to Miner's upper grades. ECE is fine, upper grades not so much. Every one of them would prefer a cluster to that option. And the lottery exists as an alternative no matter what happens. It's not like they lose the option to lottery if the cluster goes through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if I were a Miner parent, I'm not sure I'd be super enthused about this. The logistics problems are real. Miner itself will probably get *less* money due to demographics. Then you get to (or rather, have to) go to Maury, but not Maury as it currently exists, instead it'll be Maury with worse test scores and worse behaviors. Sure, just about anything's better than Miner, but right now, Miner parents stand a good chance of lotterying into Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins in upper grades, or any number of other schools. Even Brent makes a few offers. By-right access to a worse version of Maury doesn't really feel like an upgrade over what's currently de facto available, considering the other disadvantages of the Cluster proposal.

It's funny how making changes to Miner to help with basic functioning, performance, and retention is not on the table here at all.

Nice try, but no. Just as I can see why Maury families would oppose this plan, it's pretty obvious that the cluster stands to be an upgrade for both current Miner families and families IB for Miner who have younger kids. Even just as a potential option.

Right now I don't know a single Miner IB family who is actually enthusiastic about the idea of sending them to Miner's upper grades. ECE is fine, upper grades not so much. Every one of them would prefer a cluster to that option. And the lottery exists as an alternative no matter what happens. It's not like they lose the option to lottery if the cluster goes through.

Fine, I just don't think it's really that great. If you get your older kid into a different school, likely the younger kid gets pulled in too, so no more two-school logistics. And I don't think the new Maury would be any better than Ludlow-Taylor or Brent. It's probably better than Payne and Watkins, but hard to say for sure.

[Anonymous]

I’ve talked to several in bounds Miner families who just are excited because they assume this will increase their home value. I highly doubt that would occur.
Also, the same families have already lotto’d out of Miner or go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

[Anonymous]

Apparently DME coming out with more info today with further analysis.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone with inside scoop know if this will actually happen? Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

I agree that Miner's problems are deep and are not only due to the principals, but that particular person is someone I know from his prior job at McKinley Middle and I find it very, very easy to believe that he is part of the problem.

I'm sure there are some problem teachers, but it's not their fault Andrea Mial slapped a kid.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-principal-facing-allegation-of-slapping-second-grade-student

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if I were a Miner parent, I'm not sure I'd be super enthused about this. The logistics problems are real. Miner itself will probably get *less* money due to demographics. Then you get to (or rather, have to) go to Maury, but not Maury as it currently exists, instead it'll be Maury with worse test scores and worse behaviors. Sure, just about anything's better than Miner, but right now, Miner parents stand a good chance of lotterying into Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins in upper grades, or any number of other schools. Even Brent makes a few offers. By-right access to a worse version of Maury doesn't really feel like an upgrade over what's currently de facto available, considering the other disadvantages of the Cluster proposal.

It's funny how making changes to Miner to help with basic functioning, performance, and retention is not on the table here at all.

Nice try, but no. Just as I can see why Maury families would oppose this plan, it's pretty obvious that the cluster stands to be an upgrade for both current Miner families and families IB for Miner who have younger kids. Even just as a potential option.

Right now I don't know a single Miner IB family who is actually enthusiastic about the idea of sending them to Miner's upper grades. ECE is fine, upper grades not so much. Every one of them would prefer a cluster to that option. And the lottery exists as an alternative no matter what happens. It's not like they lose the option to lottery if the cluster goes through.

Why would Miner families assume the cluster will provide a good by-right school in the upper grades? Both Miner and Maury lose kids in the top grades and a cluster is sure to exacerbate that with a clear break between upper and lower schools. Look at Peabody-Watkins. Peabody is around 70% IB and Watkins is 30%.

This is a short-sighted approach for Miner families, because Eliot-Hine is getting increased IB participation, but if IB families start leaving the upper grades due to the cluster it will set E-H back years. A good middle school is harder to find than elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if I were a Miner parent, I'm not sure I'd be super enthused about this. The logistics problems are real. Miner itself will probably get *less* money due to demographics. Then you get to (or rather, have to) go to Maury, but not Maury as it currently exists, instead it'll be Maury with worse test scores and worse behaviors. Sure, just about anything's better than Miner, but right now, Miner parents stand a good chance of lotterying into Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins in upper grades, or any number of other schools. Even Brent makes a few offers. By-right access to a worse version of Maury doesn't really feel like an upgrade over what's currently de facto available, considering the other disadvantages of the Cluster proposal.

It's funny how making changes to Miner to help with basic functioning, performance, and retention is not on the table here at all.

Nice try, but no. Just as I can see why Maury families would oppose this plan, it's pretty obvious that the cluster stands to be an upgrade for both current Miner families and families IB for Miner who have younger kids. Even just as a potential option.

Right now I don't know a single Miner IB family who is actually enthusiastic about the idea of sending them to Miner's upper grades. ECE is fine, upper grades not so much. Every one of them would prefer a cluster to that option. And the lottery exists as an alternative no matter what happens. It's not like they lose the option to lottery if the cluster goes through.

Fine, I just don't think it's really that great. If you get your older kid into a different school, likely the younger kid gets pulled in too, so no more two-school logistics. And I don't think the new Maury would be any better than Ludlow-Taylor or Brent. It's probably better than Payne and Watkins, but hard to say for sure.

It would be better for IB families because it would be their by right school.

Having a decent by right school is gold. If you've always had that, you might not understand. You might think "whatever, just lottery, you'll get in somewhere."

We aren't IB for Miner but we are IB for another school with similar struggles and if someone told me that we could have IB rights to Watkins or Payne, it would be an upgrade over our current situation. Even if ultimately we lotteried elsewhere. Just knowing your kid can go to an okay school with out major issues through elementary is huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

So is this all a way of offloading some of Miner's upper elementary teachers? This makes a lot of sense-- if the Cluster means a net decrease in total upper elementary kids then they can get rid of some of the teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if I were a Miner parent, I'm not sure I'd be super enthused about this. The logistics problems are real. Miner itself will probably get *less* money due to demographics. Then you get to (or rather, have to) go to Maury, but not Maury as it currently exists, instead it'll be Maury with worse test scores and worse behaviors. Sure, just about anything's better than Miner, but right now, Miner parents stand a good chance of lotterying into Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins in upper grades, or any number of other schools. Even Brent makes a few offers. By-right access to a worse version of Maury doesn't really feel like an upgrade over what's currently de facto available, considering the other disadvantages of the Cluster proposal.

It's funny how making changes to Miner to help with basic functioning, performance, and retention is not on the table here at all.

Nice try, but no. Just as I can see why Maury families would oppose this plan, it's pretty obvious that the cluster stands to be an upgrade for both current Miner families and families IB for Miner who have younger kids. Even just as a potential option.

Right now I don't know a single Miner IB family who is actually enthusiastic about the idea of sending them to Miner's upper grades. ECE is fine, upper grades not so much. Every one of them would prefer a cluster to that option. And the lottery exists as an alternative no matter what happens. It's not like they lose the option to lottery if the cluster goes through.

Fine, I just don't think it's really that great. If you get your older kid into a different school, likely the younger kid gets pulled in too, so no more two-school logistics. And I don't think the new Maury would be any better than Ludlow-Taylor or Brent. It's probably better than Payne and Watkins, but hard to say for sure.

It would be better for IB families because it would be their by right school.

Having a decent by right school is gold. If you've always had that, you might not understand. You might think "whatever, just lottery, you'll get in somewhere."

We aren't IB for Miner but we are IB for another school with similar struggles and if someone told me that we could have IB rights to Watkins or Payne, it would be an upgrade over our current situation. Even if ultimately we lotteried elsewhere. Just knowing your kid can go to an okay school with out major issues through elementary is huge.

I have not always had that. I don't have that right now and I have never had that. I'm just someone who understands how to look at the lottery data and believes that if you try for a few years, you'll get into something equally as good as this imaginary cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

I agree that Miner's problems are deep and are not only due to the principals, but that particular person is someone I know from his prior job at McKinley Middle and I find it very, very easy to believe that he is part of the problem.

I'm sure there are some problem teachers, but it's not their fault Andrea Mial slapped a kid.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-principal-facing-allegation-of-slapping-second-grade-student

I'm not defending any principals here. But when you have a school that has has a series of principals who leave under questionable or controversial circumstances, I guarantee you there is deeper rot at the school. Because even a mediocre principal can do fine at a school with a well-functioning staff and decent culture. Look at LT -- their current principal is not well liked but it doesn't really matter because the school has a great culture and a good staff.

Miner doesn't. It needs total overhaul. A great principal and some cash will not fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently DME coming out with more info today with further analysis.

How /where is this info being shared?