Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maury families are protective of their school because it was a Tier 1 school as recently as 2015. A lot of families chose a less convenient location strictly for the school. DCPS wanted community buy-in for community elementary and they got it. To dismantle it so quickly is just dumb. Throw all the $$ and resources at Miner and make it Maury 2.0. Then do JO Wilson, etc. Maury is a model, not a resource.

Miner and JO already get tons of funding. Funding isn't the issue. The problem is the concentration of at risk, high needs students in schools. JO can follow the Maury model, in that it can use its upcoming renovation to attract more of the UMC IB families, assuming administrative competence and high participation by existing IB families.

Miner can't adopt the Maury model because it simply has a higher number of at risk families within its boundary and it's proximity to Benning makes this unlikely to change anytime soon.

A cluster may not be the solution to this problem, but let's not pretend that that Miner can simply will itself into becoming Maury, even with more funding (which it already gets!). That's not how it works.

Where’s the evidence that dispersing high risk kids while *reducing support* will help them, though? Because as many have observed, this plan appears to mean Title 1 will be lost, and no, PTA bakesales cannot make up for that. DME apparently wants to pretend that there is nothing it can do directly to support high poverty schools except, which is bizarre and dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maury families are protective of their school because it was a Tier 1 school as recently as 2015. A lot of families chose a less convenient location strictly for the school. DCPS wanted community buy-in for community elementary and they got it. To dismantle it so quickly is just dumb. Throw all the $$ and resources at Miner and make it Maury 2.0. Then do JO Wilson, etc. Maury is a model, not a resource.

Miner and JO already get tons of funding. Funding isn't the issue. The problem is the concentration of at risk, high needs students in schools. JO can follow the Maury model, in that it can use its upcoming renovation to attract more of the UMC IB families, assuming administrative competence and high participation by existing IB families.

Miner can't adopt the Maury model because it simply has a higher number of at risk families within its boundary and it's proximity to Benning makes this unlikely to change anytime soon.

A cluster may not be the solution to this problem, but let's not pretend that that Miner can simply will itself into becoming Maury, even with more funding (which it already gets!). That's not how it works.

There are actually a good number of UMC and MC “Hill East” families in the Miner boundary and they choose to go elsewhere. UMC parents banded together about 7 years ago and tried to make a go of Miner and they all eventually bailed because the administration was such a trainwreck. Miner has been hugely dysfunctional in the past 10 years, and DCPS staffing choices are largely at fault.

+1000. Put in a strong principal with a mission to increase IB enrollment, and a program that is appealing (Reggio, languages), and assure grade-level instruction, and you’ll see it change.

[Anonymous]

How do you ensure grade-level instruction without tracking? The idea that a 5th grade teacher is supposed to teach kids who are on a 5th grade level at the same time as teaching kids who are at a 1st grade level is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you ensure grade-level instruction without tracking? The idea that a 5th grade teacher is supposed to teach kids who are on a 5th grade level at the same time as teaching kids who are at a 1st grade level is ridiculous.

The best way would be a coteaching model (two teachers in the classroom) similar to SN inclusion classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s almost like DCPS does not want to have highly functional schools exist within the system. They want to destroy what is currently working rather than learn from and emulate the functional school. The whole situation is ridiculous.

What’s happening is that someone who is not very bright either (1) thinks if the smoosh two schools together as an experiment, Miner will be no worse off so they might as well try it (and they DNGAF about Maury) or (2) they want to stick it to gentrifiers.

Maury should engage Charles Allen. See if that good for nothing waste of space can advocate for a preserving a successful school or if he will sell out the Hill once again.

Really don’t understand the Charles Allen haterade, but everyone can come talk to him on Monday: https://www.charlesallenward6.com/ward_6_school_boundaries_community_forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also Maury ranked at the bottom of funding per student last year. Literally last place.

And again, the “robust PTA fundraising” was cited as a reason why.

Our fundraising has screwed us yet again.

Please don't be dramatic. I think the cluster is a bad idea but you sound ridiculous.

Maury ranks low on per student funding because it has very low percentages of SpEd and at risk kids. That's it. The school is full of kids who are well supported at home, on or above grade level, and without a lot of learning disorders or risk factors like poverty and housing insecurity. Kids at Maury do fine with this lower per-student funding not because the PTO is making up the difference but because they do not need the things that extra funding pays for.

You probably don't understand this because you have never had a child at a school in DC with a high SpEd and at-risk population, so you don't understand that a lot of the services that high per-pupil funding pays for are things you don't need anyway, like special transportation for kids coming from shelters, remedial tutoring starting in kindergarten to address delays that should have been caught and addressed years prior, etc.

You can oppose the cluster without trying to make it sound like students at Maury are being deprived of precious resources within DCPS. Students at Maury want for very little and PTO funding goes to pay for things that most DCPS students don't get at all.

So all the NW schools have higher percentages of SpEd and at risk kids?

Maury has no truly self contained classrooms (CES or ILS/OLS) only the HFA program. That’s incredibly unusual, yes.

Maury was also renovated just 5 years ago. Between it's low percentage of at risk and SpEd kids and a $52 million total renovation (really a brand new building), it is completely ridiculous to argue that Maury students are somehow being shortchanged by DCPS.

Oppose the cluster, by all means, it sounds half-baked. But the whining and rending of garments on this thread as though the Maury community is beleaguered is incredibly pathetic. At this point I could care less what happens to y'all, reading all this absurd self-pity.

Maybe learn something about the school before you pontificate? The situation in the upper grades is not the same as PK. Many parents will agree that Maury is not ready to handle an upper elementary that doubles in size & significantly increases in academic & behavioral support needs. That’s based on actual experience. DME apparently believes some kind of magic will happen that will erase these needs, but with an absence of any explanation for how that is supposed to happen. With the loss of Title 1 status as well, there’s no apparent plan other than “Maury can absorb it.”

Good lord, can you read? I'm not endorsing the cluster, I'm just pointing out that Maury is not some struggling school in desperate need of assistance. Maury is doing great. I agree that messing with that is a bad idea. I'm not the DME and think the cluster plan is half baked.

But the whining in this thread and people wildly swinging from "Maury is an exemplification of what can be done with community involvement and struggling schools like Miner should view it as a model for how to proceed" to "Maury is underfunded with massive problems in the upper grades and needs intervention quickly" is almost comical.

Maybe stop for a second to realize that your perspective as a PK parent is limited …

I'm not a PK parent. Are you? If you have kids in upper elementary at Maury, this proposal won't even impact you much if at all. If it happens (and I don't actually think it will) and you thought it would ruin Maury, lotterying into Brent or LT in upper grades isn't that hard.

And before you tell me "but my commute!" -- welcome to DC public schools. That's how it works in most of the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maury families are protective of their school because it was a Tier 1 school as recently as 2015. A lot of families chose a less convenient location strictly for the school. DCPS wanted community buy-in for community elementary and they got it. To dismantle it so quickly is just dumb. Throw all the $$ and resources at Miner and make it Maury 2.0. Then do JO Wilson, etc. Maury is a model, not a resource.

Miner and JO already get tons of funding. Funding isn't the issue. The problem is the concentration of at risk, high needs students in schools. JO can follow the Maury model, in that it can use its upcoming renovation to attract more of the UMC IB families, assuming administrative competence and high participation by existing IB families.

Miner can't adopt the Maury model because it simply has a higher number of at risk families within its boundary and it's proximity to Benning makes this unlikely to change anytime soon.

A cluster may not be the solution to this problem, but let's not pretend that that Miner can simply will itself into becoming Maury, even with more funding (which it already gets!). That's not how it works.

There are actually a good number of UMC and MC “Hill East” families in the Miner boundary and they choose to go elsewhere. UMC parents banded together about 7 years ago and tried to make a go of Miner and they all eventually bailed because the administration was such a trainwreck. Miner has been hugely dysfunctional in the past 10 years, and DCPS staffing choices are largely at fault.

+1000. Put in a strong principal with a mission to increase IB enrollment, and a program that is appealing (Reggio, languages), and assure grade-level instruction, and you’ll see it change.

That sounds great but finding principals in DCPS who care about catering to IB gentrifying families AND who want to sell people on a new pedagogy or language immersion is actually hard. Only made worse by the pandemic which resulted in more people leaving the field.

The average DCPS principal is looking to maintain status quo, collect a paycheck, get to retirement. And as Miner has learned in recent years, schools with real challenged tend to attract the below average principals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t understand how this idea meets the boundary study’s three stated goals.

Precisely this. It only even arguably helps one of the three goals, and that one is far from clear. DME and the high-priced consultants that our tax dollars are paying for are making it up as they go along.

Yes, this is what bothers me most. It’s an interesting idea. But how does this meet the stated study goals? The study has really good goals, IMHO. We’re overdue for a look at our school system.

But to me, this idea reads like: this school has strong performance, this school is struggling; let’s put them together and maybe they’ll even out. No thought given to resources for the children who are struggling or why one school is performing better than the other—other than relative wealth. How does this help individual students who are struggling?

And so far, no one has presented any specific information on how it will work in practice, anyway. The logistics will be challenging (to say the least) for the first few years. And it sounds like they haven’t thought about that at all. I’m also just suspicious of an outside group, with no input from either school’s administration, just deciding that this is the best idea.

It just seems like a pie in the sky idea from an outsider who has no stake in either community and won’t even be around for when this merger happens anyway— so they don’t care about any of the details of combining two schools.

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of this hand wringing is an overreaction.

This idea absolutely sounds half-baked, hard to implement, and probably not likely to accomplish the stated goals of the study. But, as the immediate PP says, there are some core elements of the idea that sound interesting, it's just when you think about it longer that it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I think that's what this process is about. Throwing some ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are throwing this idea at the wall and it doesn't seem very sticky. The Maury community is overwhelmingly opposed. We'll see what Miner families say, but I don't hear a lot of demand for this as a solution -- my guess is that most Miner families would rather have competent administration (for once) than try to turn the school into an ECE center clustered with Maury for upper grades. I'm sure there are some parents who would like access to Maury's success, but it may be too late in the game for that to mean much to them (if you already have a 3rd grader struggling with reading, a cluster that won't be implemented for another year and then would probably take several years to sort itself out isn't really a solution). And for those who have younger kids, I'm betting plan A for them is to try to lottery out, not to try and push through a cluster with Maury.

But I also don't think it's terrible that they are throwing the idea out and getting feedback. This is an exploratory study that will make recommendations. I think it's good for the process to be very transparent and solicit tons of feedback from families. The opposition to this idea will be informative for DCPS moving forward, in terms of understanding what parents look for in elementary programs and what sorts of programs are appealing or unappealing. The Peabody-Watkins cluster was originally pretty popular and seemed to address existing issues and meet parent needs, but over time the community has heavily soured on it due to the distance between the schools and end of the bus program. So they proposed a cluster between school that are much closer and wouldn't require a bus. Well, that's facing other opposition. So maybe the lesson here is that clusters are not the solution to the equity problems facing the district. Better to learn that via a study and some listening sessions than by implementing a change like this without that kind of feedback and discovering everyone hates it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this hand wringing is an overreaction.

This idea absolutely sounds half-baked, hard to implement, and probably not likely to accomplish the stated goals of the study. But, as the immediate PP says, there are some core elements of the idea that sound interesting, it's just when you think about it longer that it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I think that's what this process is about. Throwing some ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are throwing this idea at the wall and it doesn't seem very sticky. The Maury community is overwhelmingly opposed. We'll see what Miner families say, but I don't hear a lot of demand for this as a solution -- my guess is that most Miner families would rather have competent administration (for once) than try to turn the school into an ECE center clustered with Maury for upper grades. I'm sure there are some parents who would like access to Maury's success, but it may be too late in the game for that to mean much to them (if you already have a 3rd grader struggling with reading, a cluster that won't be implemented for another year and then would probably take several years to sort itself out isn't really a solution). And for those who have younger kids, I'm betting plan A for them is to try to lottery out, not to try and push through a cluster with Maury.

But I also don't think it's terrible that they are throwing the idea out and getting feedback. This is an exploratory study that will make recommendations. I think it's good for the process to be very transparent and solicit tons of feedback from families. The opposition to this idea will be informative for DCPS moving forward, in terms of understanding what parents look for in elementary programs and what sorts of programs are appealing or unappealing. The Peabody-Watkins cluster was originally pretty popular and seemed to address existing issues and meet parent needs, but over time the community has heavily soured on it due to the distance between the schools and end of the bus program. So they proposed a cluster between school that are much closer and wouldn't require a bus. Well, that's facing other opposition. So maybe the lesson here is that clusters are not the solution to the equity problems facing the district. Better to learn that via a study and some listening sessions than by implementing a change like this without that kind of feedback and discovering everyone hates it.

I think part of my frustration is that they are saying this is at the "idea" stage, but also that recommendations are being made in a month and we would implement this in two years, and it just seems so ridiculous on that timeline and makes people feel like they are trying to rush through (and maybe force in) something they haven't actually thought through. If this had been presented like -- we are going to put in a strong principal at Miner, we are going to do X or Y with the programming, but if we don't attain X level of boundary participation/PARCC proficiency/whatever metric in X years, then we want to explore more extreme options, and to that end we are starting to explore what a potential cluster could look like and how it might help -- then I feel like that is a conversation I would be much more open to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this hand wringing is an overreaction.

This idea absolutely sounds half-baked, hard to implement, and probably not likely to accomplish the stated goals of the study. But, as the immediate PP says, there are some core elements of the idea that sound interesting, it's just when you think about it longer that it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I think that's what this process is about. Throwing some ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are throwing this idea at the wall and it doesn't seem very sticky. The Maury community is overwhelmingly opposed. We'll see what Miner families say, but I don't hear a lot of demand for this as a solution -- my guess is that most Miner families would rather have competent administration (for once) than try to turn the school into an ECE center clustered with Maury for upper grades. I'm sure there are some parents who would like access to Maury's success, but it may be too late in the game for that to mean much to them (if you already have a 3rd grader struggling with reading, a cluster that won't be implemented for another year and then would probably take several years to sort itself out isn't really a solution). And for those who have younger kids, I'm betting plan A for them is to try to lottery out, not to try and push through a cluster with Maury.

But I also don't think it's terrible that they are throwing the idea out and getting feedback. This is an exploratory study that will make recommendations. I think it's good for the process to be very transparent and solicit tons of feedback from families. The opposition to this idea will be informative for DCPS moving forward, in terms of understanding what parents look for in elementary programs and what sorts of programs are appealing or unappealing. The Peabody-Watkins cluster was originally pretty popular and seemed to address existing issues and meet parent needs, but over time the community has heavily soured on it due to the distance between the schools and end of the bus program. So they proposed a cluster between school that are much closer and wouldn't require a bus. Well, that's facing other opposition. So maybe the lesson here is that clusters are not the solution to the equity problems facing the district. Better to learn that via a study and some listening sessions than by implementing a change like this without that kind of feedback and discovering everyone hates it.

Strong disagree. DME is using up a lot of resources to float an idea that has apparently very little behind it other than the notion that high income schools are taking something away from low income schools. Along with other policy initiatives, this is just one more troubling example of how public schools seem to prioritize trends and theories over actually just buckling down and teaching kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this hand wringing is an overreaction.

This idea absolutely sounds half-baked, hard to implement, and probably not likely to accomplish the stated goals of the study. But, as the immediate PP says, there are some core elements of the idea that sound interesting, it's just when you think about it longer that it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I think that's what this process is about. Throwing some ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are throwing this idea at the wall and it doesn't seem very sticky. The Maury community is overwhelmingly opposed. We'll see what Miner families say, but I don't hear a lot of demand for this as a solution -- my guess is that most Miner families would rather have competent administration (for once) than try to turn the school into an ECE center clustered with Maury for upper grades. I'm sure there are some parents who would like access to Maury's success, but it may be too late in the game for that to mean much to them (if you already have a 3rd grader struggling with reading, a cluster that won't be implemented for another year and then would probably take several years to sort itself out isn't really a solution). And for those who have younger kids, I'm betting plan A for them is to try to lottery out, not to try and push through a cluster with Maury.

But I also don't think it's terrible that they are throwing the idea out and getting feedback. This is an exploratory study that will make recommendations. I think it's good for the process to be very transparent and solicit tons of feedback from families. The opposition to this idea will be informative for DCPS moving forward, in terms of understanding what parents look for in elementary programs and what sorts of programs are appealing or unappealing. The Peabody-Watkins cluster was originally pretty popular and seemed to address existing issues and meet parent needs, but over time the community has heavily soured on it due to the distance between the schools and end of the bus program. So they proposed a cluster between school that are much closer and wouldn't require a bus. Well, that's facing other opposition. So maybe the lesson here is that clusters are not the solution to the equity problems facing the district. Better to learn that via a study and some listening sessions than by implementing a change like this without that kind of feedback and discovering everyone hates it.

I think part of my frustration is that they are saying this is at the "idea" stage, but also that recommendations are being made in a month and we would implement this in two years, and it just seems so ridiculous on that timeline and makes people feel like they are trying to rush through (and maybe force in) something they haven't actually thought through. If this had been presented like -- we are going to put in a strong principal at Miner, we are going to do X or Y with the programming, but if we don't attain X level of boundary participation/PARCC proficiency/whatever metric in X years, then we want to explore more extreme options, and to that end we are starting to explore what a potential cluster could look like and how it might help -- then I feel like that is a conversation I would be much more open to.

Exactly. There are much better and less disruptive ways to attract higher income students to Miner: a good principal, a specialized program, an acknowledgment of an obligation to provide grade-level instruction (note that this benefits all grade level kids including those now at Miner). But this “carrot” approach is politically infeasible because it takes into account the interests and preferences of the high SES mostly white families, which is not on trend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this hand wringing is an overreaction.

This idea absolutely sounds half-baked, hard to implement, and probably not likely to accomplish the stated goals of the study. But, as the immediate PP says, there are some core elements of the idea that sound interesting, it's just when you think about it longer that it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I think that's what this process is about. Throwing some ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are throwing this idea at the wall and it doesn't seem very sticky. The Maury community is overwhelmingly opposed. We'll see what Miner families say, but I don't hear a lot of demand for this as a solution -- my guess is that most Miner families would rather have competent administration (for once) than try to turn the school into an ECE center clustered with Maury for upper grades. I'm sure there are some parents who would like access to Maury's success, but it may be too late in the game for that to mean much to them (if you already have a 3rd grader struggling with reading, a cluster that won't be implemented for another year and then would probably take several years to sort itself out isn't really a solution). And for those who have younger kids, I'm betting plan A for them is to try to lottery out, not to try and push through a cluster with Maury.

But I also don't think it's terrible that they are throwing the idea out and getting feedback. This is an exploratory study that will make recommendations. I think it's good for the process to be very transparent and solicit tons of feedback from families. The opposition to this idea will be informative for DCPS moving forward, in terms of understanding what parents look for in elementary programs and what sorts of programs are appealing or unappealing. The Peabody-Watkins cluster was originally pretty popular and seemed to address existing issues and meet parent needs, but over time the community has heavily soured on it due to the distance between the schools and end of the bus program. So they proposed a cluster between school that are much closer and wouldn't require a bus. Well, that's facing other opposition. So maybe the lesson here is that clusters are not the solution to the equity problems facing the district. Better to learn that via a study and some listening sessions than by implementing a change like this without that kind of feedback and discovering everyone hates it.

I think part of my frustration is that they are saying this is at the "idea" stage, but also that recommendations are being made in a month and we would implement this in two years, and it just seems so ridiculous on that timeline and makes people feel like they are trying to rush through (and maybe force in) something they haven't actually thought through. If this had been presented like -- we are going to put in a strong principal at Miner, we are going to do X or Y with the programming, but if we don't attain X level of boundary participation/PARCC proficiency/whatever metric in X years, then we want to explore more extreme options, and to that end we are starting to explore what a potential cluster could look like and how it might help -- then I feel like that is a conversation I would be much more open to.

PP here and I agree with this -- that would have been a much more reasonable way to present this. Unsurprisingly, the messaging and communication on this has been atrocious and is likely increasing everyone's anxiety around it more than it needs to be.

I do think that everyone opposed should take a moment to register that opposition with the DME. Just email and say "I think this is a bad idea for xyz reasons and I hope that when the recommendation comes out in January, it does not recommend moving forward with this current plan." People have written plenty in this thread that could easily be converted to a short 1-2 paragraph email to the DME. Get enough of those on the record and I think it will be hard to recommend moving forward with a cluster plan.

And if the DME recommends it anyway, it's still not a done deal. At that point more organized opposition would be called for, but I don't think it would be that hard for Maury families to rally to this. Again, we're talking about letter writing campaigns and attending some meetings. If there is no community demand for this plan, I really don't think it will happen.

The Peabody-Watkins cluster happened with broad community support. People viewed it as an improvement over the previous situation, and for a time it was actually very successful and that cluster was considered the most desirable elementary program on the Hill for many years. So given the fact that Maury families are largely quite happy with their current school and there appears to be little to no demand for a cluster from that side of the equation, I really do not see the DME or DCPS ramming this down your throats as long as you stay united in your objection.

I do think Charles Allen could be a good advocate for you if you give him a chance. Education and school support seems to be a focus for him and he could be a mouthpiece on behalf of families if you make it clear to him there's no support for this proposal in Ward 6.

[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

This data struck me. So much of this thread (and DCUM as a whole) is ECE parents who know very little about what happens when kids start learning and differentiation (or lack thereof) creates issues. Respectfully, if your only experience with public education is PK3, PK4, K or even 1st grade, you don't understand the ramifications of merging schools with such divergent test scores and classroom settings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of this hand wringing is an overreaction.

This idea absolutely sounds half-baked, hard to implement, and probably not likely to accomplish the stated goals of the study. But, as the immediate PP says, there are some core elements of the idea that sound interesting, it's just when you think about it longer that it seems like a bad idea.

Well, I think that's what this process is about. Throwing some ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. They are throwing this idea at the wall and it doesn't seem very sticky. The Maury community is overwhelmingly opposed. We'll see what Miner families say, but I don't hear a lot of demand for this as a solution -- my guess is that most Miner families would rather have competent administration (for once) than try to turn the school into an ECE center clustered with Maury for upper grades. I'm sure there are some parents who would like access to Maury's success, but it may be too late in the game for that to mean much to them (if you already have a 3rd grader struggling with reading, a cluster that won't be implemented for another year and then would probably take several years to sort itself out isn't really a solution). And for those who have younger kids, I'm betting plan A for them is to try to lottery out, not to try and push through a cluster with Maury.

But I also don't think it's terrible that they are throwing the idea out and getting feedback. This is an exploratory study that will make recommendations. I think it's good for the process to be very transparent and solicit tons of feedback from families. The opposition to this idea will be informative for DCPS moving forward, in terms of understanding what parents look for in elementary programs and what sorts of programs are appealing or unappealing. The Peabody-Watkins cluster was originally pretty popular and seemed to address existing issues and meet parent needs, but over time the community has heavily soured on it due to the distance between the schools and end of the bus program. So they proposed a cluster between school that are much closer and wouldn't require a bus. Well, that's facing other opposition. So maybe the lesson here is that clusters are not the solution to the equity problems facing the district. Better to learn that via a study and some listening sessions than by implementing a change like this without that kind of feedback and discovering everyone hates it.

I think your POV is a bit naïve. The fact that they are presenting this idea (as the only solution) and opening this up for community input one month before recommendations are due means there is a strong likelihood this happens and they are not seriously accounting for community input. DME started the convo off as this is an idea, but the tone IMO shifted over the course of the meeting from this is an idea, to this is the only idea we have and it is going to become our proposal.