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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries should be according to proximity to the schools, like everyone within 2 mile radius, not according to social engineering experiments. People buy homes for schools and any loss in home values is a hit on retirement funds.

This might make sense in whatever suburban school district you live in, but makes no sense at all in this specific situation. These schools are .5 miles apart and feed to the same middle school and high school. Yes, some people buy inbound for Maury because they like the school, but they do so knowing that the MS and HS are not well regarded and that the other elementaries that feed into that MS, specifically, are not highly regarded (not just Miner, but Payne as well). Since boundaries can shift with populations, presumably these folks knew there was a reasonable chance they could be zoned away from Maury.

Many of the opponents to the cluster actually advocate in favor of moving the boundaries to address demographic inequities instead. However, I think this is often suggested because the person saying it believes they will be on the "winning" side of a redraw, since those who would be rezoned to Miner would see a more dramatic loss in property values than anyone who winds up in a cluster school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries should be according to proximity to the schools, like everyone within 2 mile radius, not according to social engineering experiments. People buy homes for schools and any loss in home values is a hit on retirement funds.

Except with the school boundaries on the Hill, everyone involved is well within 2 miles of almost every school.

+1, this does not work for dense urban districts. And with Maury and Miner specifically, the schools themselves are just a few blocks apart, so no matter how you draw the line between them, it will always be "socially engineered" to some degree. The current boundaries are definitely socially engineered.

And it’s far from just those 2, I live within 2 miles of Amidon-Bowen, Brent, Browne, CHML, JOW, Ludlow, Maury, Miner, Payne, Peabody, SWS, Thompson, Tyler, Van Ness, Walker-Jones, Watkins, Wheatley… and probably others that I’ve never even heard of and so don’t know to look up. Can I pick between all of those schools? 2 miles is really, really far in DC. All of the schools that are actually on the Hill, I live within a mile of.

[Anonymous]

dc itself is 10x10 miles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:School boundaries should be according to proximity to the schools, like everyone within 2 mile radius, not according to social engineering experiments. People buy homes for schools and any loss in home values is a hit on retirement funds.

This might make sense in whatever suburban school district you live in, but makes no sense at all in this specific situation. These schools are .5 miles apart and feed to the same middle school and high school. Yes, some people buy inbound for Maury because they like the school, but they do so knowing that the MS and HS are not well regarded and that the other elementaries that feed into that MS, specifically, are not highly regarded (not just Miner, but Payne as well). Since boundaries can shift with populations, presumably these folks knew there was a reasonable chance they could be zoned away from Maury.

Many of the opponents to the cluster actually advocate in favor of moving the boundaries to address demographic inequities instead. However, I think this is often suggested because the person saying it believes they will be on the "winning" side of a redraw, since those who would be rezoned to Miner would see a more dramatic loss in property values than anyone who winds up in a cluster school.

Yes, but anyone who lives reasonably close to Maury and planned to attend for PK3-5th almost certainly didn't plan on going to a different school AND a different building. The Cluster proposal is way different than a boundary redraw plan with just a few months notice.

[Anonymous]

Looks like DME is going to recommend a working group that will start in 2027 to advise on a redraw or a pairing. It’s not over til it’s over but it’s promising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like DME is going to recommend a working group that will start in 2027 to advise on a redraw or a pairing. It’s not over til it’s over but it’s promising.

Lol surrender!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like DME is going to recommend a working group that will start in 2027 to advise on a redraw or a pairing. It’s not over til it’s over but it’s promising.

Meanwhile they won’t actually do anything to help Miner. Freakin hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like DME is going to recommend a working group that will start in 2027 to advise on a redraw or a pairing. It’s not over til it’s over but it’s promising.

2027??

[Anonymous]

So the working group meets in 2027? Or the merger is in 2027?

How many principals will Miner go through between now and then?

[Anonymous]

The working group to evaluate whether there even should be a merger will begin no earlier than 2027.

[Anonymous]

One of the big criticisms from the Maury community is that the cluster feels rushed and sprung on them. A working group targeting fall 2027 gives everyone an opportunity to get it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the big criticisms from the Maury community is that the cluster feels rushed and sprung on them. A working group targeting fall 2027 gives everyone an opportunity to get it right.

The working group will start now with a goal of a fall 2027 implementation of whatever it is? Or a working group will not even start until 2027?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the big criticisms from the Maury community is that the cluster feels rushed and sprung on them. A working group targeting fall 2027 gives everyone an opportunity to get it right.

And for the Miner community in the meantime? Just keep on keeping on for the next few years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The working group to evaluate whether there even should be a merger will begin no earlier than 2027.

Why on earth shouldn't the working group start now? Not even bother to IMPLEMENT a working group for 3 years? Awful. Sorry, I know this board is full of Maury parents, but I think that Miner parents continue to get absolutely screwed with this decision. In bounds for a school that isn't working and DCPS will do nothing in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The working group to evaluate whether there even should be a merger will begin no earlier than 2027.

Why on earth shouldn't the working group start now? Not even bother to IMPLEMENT a working group for 3 years? Awful. Sorry, I know this board is full of Maury parents, but I think that Miner parents continue to get absolutely screwed with this decision. In bounds for a school that isn't working and DCPS will do nothing in the meantime.

Maybe the Miner constituents should advocate for measure that will actually help Miner instead of enormously divisive and untested plans like the cluster.