Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

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.

I think is going to be particularly challenging at a "mega school" like they are proposing. There would be 7-8 classes per grade. How will they support that many kids per grade? How many reading interventionists would be needed across both campuses, for example? How many would be provided?

What is DCPS' rationale for not tracking in elementary school? If DME does push this proposal through, could they allow for tracking to provide the appropriate level of reading, math, etc. instruction based on the levels of the students? This seems like the only way to properly combine both schools without sacrificing the learning of the children involved (both the above grade level and below grade level children).

are you new here?

Yes. Can you provide a helpful response now?

DP, but DCPS generally opposes tracking, especially in younger grades, for equity reasons. It's not just DC, this is a common viewpoint in urban school districts with high poverty, because when you have tracking and G&T programs in these schools, generally the honors/G&T programming fills with high-SES kids and you wind up with demographically segregated tracks. This isn't surprising as test scores also correlate with family income. But it looks and feels bad, especially in a city like DC where most poor people are black and most wealthy people are not.

So DCPS elementaries have virtually no tracking, and there are no G&T programs at all. Some of the middle schools have some tracking, especially in math, but generally only if it's a majority white school where you won't get de facto segregation. High schools have some tracking programs (like the IB program at Eastern) but by the time kids get to HS, families have already self-segregated by SES, with higher SES families fleeing for charters or the suburbs if they can't afford to live IB for the one (now two) DCPS high schools with decent test scores and college prospects. So it winds up being too little too late for families who want accelerated academic programming.

I should note that this viewpoint on tracking in urban public schools is so pervasive there was actually an entire episode of Abbott Elementary about it, in which the thesis was "G&T programs are racist and exclusionary" and the one character in the program who didn't originally agree with this was proven wrong and made to feel foolish.

But then how is it not considered racist and exclusionary at the MS and HS levels (e.g. EH and Eastern)?

Well at Eastern the answer is easy -- it's only 2% white so you can institute advanced programming and as long as it includes more than 2% of the school population, it can't be segregated. The IB program there is tiny but it's still majority black. And the school has virtually no high-SES families -- it's 75% at risk and the remaining families are solidly middle class. As I said in my previous comment, high-SES families in DC self segregate by high school (really by middle school) and basically none of the many high-SES families in Ward 6 send their kids to the IB high school.

I don't know enough about the IB program at E-H to tell you how it works or what its demographics are but I think it's just a similar situation as Eastern but not as stark. I do know that Stuart-Hobson has some minimal tracking in math but families had to fight hard for it and I've heard some families refer to it as "honors for all" which isn't really tracking.

Perhaps someone more familiar with E-H can describe how the IB program there works. Further up in this thread, one or two posters claimed that the Maury families who send kids to E-H all wind up in the IB program. But I don't know what percent of high-SES, white Maury families stick around for E-H. My anecdotal observation is that most don't but I don't know the details as I'm far less familiar with EH than SH.[/quote

It has been said earlier in this thread, there is a link in EdScape that shows student movement between schools. I don't think the data was updated yet for this year, but last year 27 kids went from Maury (fall of 2022) to Eliot. My child started there this year, and while we will see the exact data whenever it gets released, it was large number because the 6th grade started with almost 30 more kids than they projected for last spring (they ended up having to hire an additional teacher). The majority of the 5th graders at Payne went to EH this 2023 year, a larger number from Maury, and a good amount from Miner. To answer the question about IB, the IB middle years program is not a separate program at the middle school years, so everybody gets exposure to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

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.

I think is going to be particularly challenging at a "mega school" like they are proposing. There would be 7-8 classes per grade. How will they support that many kids per grade? How many reading interventionists would be needed across both campuses, for example? How many would be provided?

What is DCPS' rationale for not tracking in elementary school? If DME does push this proposal through, could they allow for tracking to provide the appropriate level of reading, math, etc. instruction based on the levels of the students? This seems like the only way to properly combine both schools without sacrificing the learning of the children involved (both the above grade level and below grade level children).

are you new here?

Yes. Can you provide a helpful response now?

DP, but DCPS generally opposes tracking, especially in younger grades, for equity reasons. It's not just DC, this is a common viewpoint in urban school districts with high poverty, because when you have tracking and G&T programs in these schools, generally the honors/G&T programming fills with high-SES kids and you wind up with demographically segregated tracks. This isn't surprising as test scores also correlate with family income. But it looks and feels bad, especially in a city like DC where most poor people are black and most wealthy people are not.

So DCPS elementaries have virtually no tracking, and there are no G&T programs at all. Some of the middle schools have some tracking, especially in math, but generally only if it's a majority white school where you won't get de facto segregation. High schools have some tracking programs (like the IB program at Eastern) but by the time kids get to HS, families have already self-segregated by SES, with higher SES families fleeing for charters or the suburbs if they can't afford to live IB for the one (now two) DCPS high schools with decent test scores and college prospects. So it winds up being too little too late for families who want accelerated academic programming.

I should note that this viewpoint on tracking in urban public schools is so pervasive there was actually an entire episode of Abbott Elementary about it, in which the thesis was "G&T programs are racist and exclusionary" and the one character in the program who didn't originally agree with this was proven wrong and made to feel foolish.

But then how is it not considered racist and exclusionary at the MS and HS levels (e.g. EH and Eastern)?

There is tons of articles and books on the topic, a few (https://buildthefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Best-Intentions-Inequality-Thriving-in-Good-Schools.pdf, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/gifted-programs-worsen-inequality-here-s-what-happens-when-schools-n1243147) - part of the concern is by separating and tracking kids from a young age, it makes it hard for kids who were not initially put into the 'gifted' track in a mid elementary to access higher level courses later on. Some districts find ways around this by offering summer coursework or other options for kids, but often there is not much movement between tracks. Also, the process for placing kids into the advanced tracks is not always objective, with certain parents advocating/pushing for their students who may not be ready to be in a higher track or paying for outside tutoring while in those track. Even in middle schools this year in DC they are shifting to offering the same 6th grade math class to all kids (with 2 teachers, so they can differentiate) - and then moving kids to different tracks after 6th grade. Previously, if a kid didn't get put in advanced 6th grade from the get go, they never even had the option to take algebra by 8th, which would then eliminate certain high school options.
Separate from this DME discussion - one silver lining of COVID and online learning is that online courses may be a way to help kids who were not in a certain track catch up/move up over a summer, so there isn't the risk of being cut out of a track permanently, simply because you had a bad year, or a parent didn't get you into a certain class.

Bolded are fair criticisms. The problem is that DCPS (and other urban districts) threw their hands up and decided the only solution was "honors for all" or no tracking at any grade. "Tracking" is a loaded word that takes whatever meaning you want it to in order to support a desired conclusion. People on DCUM use it to describe some scene from a movie where kids who are tracked to advanced classes pass through double doors into pristine environments with latte machines for all and bean bag chairs while the kids below grade level are relegated to graffiti filled hellscapes. The reality is more nuanced.

Underlined is a well meaning position from an UMC parent with ready access to high speed wifi, spare computers, two parent households with supervision and college and graduate degrees to support advanced learning. Kids who are grades behind didn't get that way because they didn't have access to computer programs or quiet time on their Macbooks. The systemic and other challenges they faced didn't go away due to COVID. In fact the data tells us learning loss was more pronounced for the group you think may have been helped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

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.

I think is going to be particularly challenging at a "mega school" like they are proposing. There would be 7-8 classes per grade. How will they support that many kids per grade? How many reading interventionists would be needed across both campuses, for example? How many would be provided?

What is DCPS' rationale for not tracking in elementary school? If DME does push this proposal through, could they allow for tracking to provide the appropriate level of reading, math, etc. instruction based on the levels of the students? This seems like the only way to properly combine both schools without sacrificing the learning of the children involved (both the above grade level and below grade level children).

are you new here?

Yes. Can you provide a helpful response now?

DP, but DCPS generally opposes tracking, especially in younger grades, for equity reasons. It's not just DC, this is a common viewpoint in urban school districts with high poverty, because when you have tracking and G&T programs in these schools, generally the honors/G&T programming fills with high-SES kids and you wind up with demographically segregated tracks. This isn't surprising as test scores also correlate with family income. But it looks and feels bad, especially in a city like DC where most poor people are black and most wealthy people are not.

So DCPS elementaries have virtually no tracking, and there are no G&T programs at all. Some of the middle schools have some tracking, especially in math, but generally only if it's a majority white school where you won't get de facto segregation. High schools have some tracking programs (like the IB program at Eastern) but by the time kids get to HS, families have already self-segregated by SES, with higher SES families fleeing for charters or the suburbs if they can't afford to live IB for the one (now two) DCPS high schools with decent test scores and college prospects. So it winds up being too little too late for families who want accelerated academic programming.

I should note that this viewpoint on tracking in urban public schools is so pervasive there was actually an entire episode of Abbott Elementary about it, in which the thesis was "G&T programs are racist and exclusionary" and the one character in the program who didn't originally agree with this was proven wrong and made to feel foolish.

But then how is it not considered racist and exclusionary at the MS and HS levels (e.g. EH and Eastern)?

Well at Eastern the answer is easy -- it's only 2% white so you can institute advanced programming and as long as it includes more than 2% of the school population, it can't be segregated. The IB program there is tiny but it's still majority black. And the school has virtually no high-SES families -- it's 75% at risk and the remaining families are solidly middle class. As I said in my previous comment, high-SES families in DC self segregate by high school (really by middle school) and basically none of the many high-SES families in Ward 6 send their kids to the IB high school.

I don't know enough about the IB program at E-H to tell you how it works or what its demographics are but I think it's just a similar situation as Eastern but not as stark. I do know that Stuart-Hobson has some minimal tracking in math but families had to fight hard for it and I've heard some families refer to it as "honors for all" which isn't really tracking.

Perhaps someone more familiar with E-H can describe how the IB program there works. Further up in this thread, one or two posters claimed that the Maury families who send kids to E-H all wind up in the IB program. But I don't know what percent of high-SES, white Maury families stick around for E-H. My anecdotal observation is that most don't but I don't know the details as I'm far less familiar with EH than SH.

It has been said earlier in this thread, there is a link in EdScape that shows student movement between schools. I don't think the data was updated yet for this year, but last year 27 kids went from Maury (fall of 2022) to Eliot. My child started there this year, and while we will see the exact data whenever it gets released, it was large number because the 6th grade started with almost 30 more kids than they projected for last spring (they ended up having to hire an additional teacher). The majority of the 5th graders at Payne went to EH this 2023 year, a larger number from Maury, and a good amount from Miner. To answer the question about IB, the IB middle years program is not a separate program at the middle school years, so everybody gets exposure to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

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.

You don't know who is an ECE parent and who isn't. I have been less skeptical of this proposal (still skeptical, just less so) and I have a kid in 3rd who will take PARCC this year. I think you are assuming anyone who doesn't immediately think this idea is terrible must be a "naive ECE parent." Believe this at your own risk.

Also, I tend to think the input of ECE parents will actually be pretty meaningful to the DME because these are parents who are still early enough in their relationship with these schools to be the group who will make or break an idea like this. If a lot of ECE parents support it but parents with 3-5th graders don't, I imagine that the ECE parents would win out because they have more to lose and more to gain. Those of us with older kids will be gone in not too long. Like every other 3rd grade parent I know, we'll be lotterying for charter MS next year, and if we get a spot at either Latin campus, we'll be gone anyway because I'm still unconvinced of E-H's quality and consistency and I have zero interest in Eastern. So I would not be surprised if any of my feedback on this proposal is taken with a big old grain of salt. At least I can admit this, though.

Anyone who can read knows immediately whether posters are in ECE or upper ES. As a parent of a third grader you are only beginning to understand what happens when differentiation occurs. Every ECE family at Brent and everywhere else starts out saying they want to remain and then move onto their IB MS. Then reality hits and they flee for Latin, BASIS, private, or move. Schools with single digits at grade level mean classrooms full of kids who need remedial help. It means disruptive environments that are exacerbated by hormones. It is neither racist nor close minded to observe that classrooms with 70% of kids at grade level will be markedly different than ones with 8% at grade level.

My point is this; while the families with current upper ES kids won't be there for whatever change may come, they understand the potential impacts in ways you (ECE families) simply don't. I'd also suggest that a parent who admits they plan to bail is no more impacted than one who is already in upper ES. In fact, I'd argue current upper ES families are more important and credible voices since they will actually consume DCPS upper ES.

I love that you start out saying ECE parents don't know anything, then expand this to parents with kids in K and 1st, then tell me that having a 3rd grader means I don't understand.

I don't actually think you know which posters are ECE parents and which aren't. You accused me upthread of being an ECE parent while also misreading my comment (which criticized the cluster plan) as being supportive of it.

What you really want is for people to only listen to you and people who agree with you 100% and not listen to anyone else. I wonder if I can guess which Maury parent you are. I have a few contenders.

Anyway, I started out in ECE assuming we'd move off the Hill altogether before our kid was in 1st grade and never had any intention of sticking around for MS here. Now we're looking at E-H and considering. Not every ECE parent is naive or overly-optimistic -- some are like I was, pessimistic and skeptical until they find themselves pleasantly surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

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.

I think is going to be particularly challenging at a "mega school" like they are proposing. There would be 7-8 classes per grade. How will they support that many kids per grade? How many reading interventionists would be needed across both campuses, for example? How many would be provided?

What is DCPS' rationale for not tracking in elementary school? If DME does push this proposal through, could they allow for tracking to provide the appropriate level of reading, math, etc. instruction based on the levels of the students? This seems like the only way to properly combine both schools without sacrificing the learning of the children involved (both the above grade level and below grade level children).

are you new here?

Yes. Can you provide a helpful response now?

DP, but DCPS generally opposes tracking, especially in younger grades, for equity reasons. It's not just DC, this is a common viewpoint in urban school districts with high poverty, because when you have tracking and G&T programs in these schools, generally the honors/G&T programming fills with high-SES kids and you wind up with demographically segregated tracks. This isn't surprising as test scores also correlate with family income. But it looks and feels bad, especially in a city like DC where most poor people are black and most wealthy people are not.

So DCPS elementaries have virtually no tracking, and there are no G&T programs at all. Some of the middle schools have some tracking, especially in math, but generally only if it's a majority white school where you won't get de facto segregation. High schools have some tracking programs (like the IB program at Eastern) but by the time kids get to HS, families have already self-segregated by SES, with higher SES families fleeing for charters or the suburbs if they can't afford to live IB for the one (now two) DCPS high schools with decent test scores and college prospects. So it winds up being too little too late for families who want accelerated academic programming.

I should note that this viewpoint on tracking in urban public schools is so pervasive there was actually an entire episode of Abbott Elementary about it, in which the thesis was "G&T programs are racist and exclusionary" and the one character in the program who didn't originally agree with this was proven wrong and made to feel foolish.

Just to point out, in DC a G&T program would primarily benefit Black students. Banneker is a historical selective (gifted) school in DC with decades of successful Black grads, and nobody wants to get rid of Banneker. And every elementary school in DC no matter how it struggles has a handful of kids getting PARCC 4s and 5s who could greatly benefit from an accelerated program. This viewpoint that gifted programs are inherently racist is harmful to black kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Pie in the sky, perhaps. From an outsider, well, at least originally, maybe not.

"Additionally, I urge DCPS explore two specific alternative proposals to an expanded Maury ES that would potentially increase access to high-quality seats and better support Maury’s destination middle school. These are: a. The creation of a cluster between Maury ES and Miner ES. Building off of promising practices in Raleigh, NC showing that the consolidation of school boundaries has narrowed achievement gaps, this would create a more mixedincome, diverse educational environment for students while better utilizing capacity at both schools. While many details would need to be discussed, a scenario where Maury ES served as an Early Ed through Grade 2 school with 3rd through 5th grade students attending Miner ES would relieve crowding at Maury ES and better utilize excess capacity and the educational infrastructure at Miner ES. ..."

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/joeweedonstateboardofed/pages/52/attachments/original/1449261913/Maury_Renovation__Dec_2015.pdf?1449261913

Go Away Joe Weedon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Pie in the sky, perhaps. From an outsider, well, at least originally, maybe not.

"Additionally, I urge DCPS explore two specific alternative proposals to an expanded Maury ES that would potentially increase access to high-quality seats and better support Maury’s destination middle school. These are: a. The creation of a cluster between Maury ES and Miner ES. Building off of promising practices in Raleigh, NC showing that the consolidation of school boundaries has narrowed achievement gaps, this would create a more mixedincome, diverse educational environment for students while better utilizing capacity at both schools. While many details would need to be discussed, a scenario where Maury ES served as an Early Ed through Grade 2 school with 3rd through 5th grade students attending Miner ES would relieve crowding at Maury ES and better utilize excess capacity and the educational infrastructure at Miner ES. ..."

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/joeweedonstateboardofed/pages/52/attachments/original/1449261913/Maury_Renovation__Dec_2015.pdf?1449261913

Go Away Joe Weedon.

I just read the letter. I knew Weedon was bad but wow … fighting against the renovation and expansion of his own consituents’ school on such flimsy grounds? Very glad this guy is out of politics and hope he stays far, far away.

[Anonymous]

Maybe EH could start kids in 5th grade like the charter middles, effectively reducing crowding at Maury.

[Anonymous]

Some elementary charters serve as the de-facto g&t programs. DC Prep is known for achieving high test scores with a population of low socioeconomic kids. They provide extended days, interventionists, after school tutoring, etc.

The difference is that families must buy-in and work incredibly hard to keep up with the homework, attendance requirements, requests, and overall be highly involved.
Unfortunately, this is not easily replicated in a neighborhood school where parents may not be as invested in their kids’ education.

[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. We feel blindsided by this and are being told by DME that there’s basically no time until the final proposal is signed, sealed, and delivered. So that’s the “hand-wringing” and panic. That if we don’t weigh in strongly and quickly, we will never have a chance.

I personally feel skeptical of the proposal, and haven’t seen data or argument that I think justifies it in this particular case, but I’d love more time to hear more and study it and draw my own conclusions. But DME is telling us there is no time left.

I wonder if everyone would have been better served if DME had started with education about the challenges—months of school-specific meetings highlighting the challenges and provoking discussion—rather than a single, late-stage meeting where they say, “here’s the problem and here’s the only solution we can think of and we aren’t particularly open to hearing more.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe EH could start kids in 5th grade like the charter middles, effectively reducing crowding at Maury.

this is actually … not a terrible idea? EH is not perfect but is much better able to handle rambunctious tweens & teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

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.

I think is going to be particularly challenging at a "mega school" like they are proposing. There would be 7-8 classes per grade. How will they support that many kids per grade? How many reading interventionists would be needed across both campuses, for example? How many would be provided?

What is DCPS' rationale for not tracking in elementary school? If DME does push this proposal through, could they allow for tracking to provide the appropriate level of reading, math, etc. instruction based on the levels of the students? This seems like the only way to properly combine both schools without sacrificing the learning of the children involved (both the above grade level and below grade level children).

are you new here?

Yes. Can you provide a helpful response now?

DP, but DCPS generally opposes tracking, especially in younger grades, for equity reasons. It's not just DC, this is a common viewpoint in urban school districts with high poverty, because when you have tracking and G&T programs in these schools, generally the honors/G&T programming fills with high-SES kids and you wind up with demographically segregated tracks. This isn't surprising as test scores also correlate with family income. But it looks and feels bad, especially in a city like DC where most poor people are black and most wealthy people are not.

So DCPS elementaries have virtually no tracking, and there are no G&T programs at all. Some of the middle schools have some tracking, especially in math, but generally only if it's a majority white school where you won't get de facto segregation. High schools have some tracking programs (like the IB program at Eastern) but by the time kids get to HS, families have already self-segregated by SES, with higher SES families fleeing for charters or the suburbs if they can't afford to live IB for the one (now two) DCPS high schools with decent test scores and college prospects. So it winds up being too little too late for families who want accelerated academic programming.

I should note that this viewpoint on tracking in urban public schools is so pervasive there was actually an entire episode of Abbott Elementary about it, in which the thesis was "G&T programs are racist and exclusionary" and the one character in the program who didn't originally agree with this was proven wrong and made to feel foolish.

Just to point out, in DC a G&T program would primarily benefit Black students. Banneker is a historical selective (gifted) school in DC with decades of successful Black grads, and nobody wants to get rid of Banneker. And every elementary school in DC no matter how it struggles has a handful of kids getting PARCC 4s and 5s who could greatly benefit from an accelerated program. This viewpoint that gifted programs are inherently racist is harmful to black kids.

Agree. I would go one step further and call it regressive to an entire race. The idea seems to be that if POC are afforded an opportunity to accelerate and get the benefit of advancement, that can only be permitted if it can be race means tested. Since we know SES correlates to academic success, and since we know SES skews non-POC in DC, the conclusion is that the only fair thing to do is make sure hard working, deserving POC don't get the benefit of advancement because it violates some perverse concept of equity. The message to hard working POC is that they must be viewed at all times as a POC monolith. Sorry if you work hard and want better than the minimum. We can't let you have that because we view all POC the same, and not on the merits of your own success and work product.

Sickeningly regressive and no different than self avowed racists who view all POC as being the same and defined by their least capable members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe EH could start kids in 5th grade like the charter middles, effectively reducing crowding at Maury.

this is actually … not a terrible idea? EH is not perfect but is much better able to handle rambunctious tweens & teens.

One of the other proposals DME is considering would standardize start years for middle schools across DCPS and DCPCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, here are the proficiency PARCC scores for Maury and Miner

Rather than fix the problems at Miner, DCPS just wants to bury them by combining the school with Maury.

Maury

ELA 74.12
Math 64.32

Miner

ELA 7.75
Math 8.69

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.

I think is going to be particularly challenging at a "mega school" like they are proposing. There would be 7-8 classes per grade. How will they support that many kids per grade? How many reading interventionists would be needed across both campuses, for example? How many would be provided?

What is DCPS' rationale for not tracking in elementary school? If DME does push this proposal through, could they allow for tracking to provide the appropriate level of reading, math, etc. instruction based on the levels of the students? This seems like the only way to properly combine both schools without sacrificing the learning of the children involved (both the above grade level and below grade level children).

are you new here?

Yes. Can you provide a helpful response now?

DP, but DCPS generally opposes tracking, especially in younger grades, for equity reasons. It's not just DC, this is a common viewpoint in urban school districts with high poverty, because when you have tracking and G&T programs in these schools, generally the honors/G&T programming fills with high-SES kids and you wind up with demographically segregated tracks. This isn't surprising as test scores also correlate with family income. But it looks and feels bad, especially in a city like DC where most poor people are black and most wealthy people are not.

So DCPS elementaries have virtually no tracking, and there are no G&T programs at all. Some of the middle schools have some tracking, especially in math, but generally only if it's a majority white school where you won't get de facto segregation. High schools have some tracking programs (like the IB program at Eastern) but by the time kids get to HS, families have already self-segregated by SES, with higher SES families fleeing for charters or the suburbs if they can't afford to live IB for the one (now two) DCPS high schools with decent test scores and college prospects. So it winds up being too little too late for families who want accelerated academic programming.

I should note that this viewpoint on tracking in urban public schools is so pervasive there was actually an entire episode of Abbott Elementary about it, in which the thesis was "G&T programs are racist and exclusionary" and the one character in the program who didn't originally agree with this was proven wrong and made to feel foolish.

Just to point out, in DC a G&T program would primarily benefit Black students. Banneker is a historical selective (gifted) school in DC with decades of successful Black grads, and nobody wants to get rid of Banneker. And every elementary school in DC no matter how it struggles has a handful of kids getting PARCC 4s and 5s who could greatly benefit from an accelerated program. This viewpoint that gifted programs are inherently racist is harmful to black kids.

Agree. I would go one step further and call it regressive to an entire race. The idea seems to be that if POC are afforded an opportunity to accelerate and get the benefit of advancement, that can only be permitted if it can be race means tested. Since we know SES correlates to academic success, and since we know SES skews non-POC in DC, the conclusion is that the only fair thing to do is make sure hard working, deserving POC don't get the benefit of advancement because it violates some perverse concept of equity. The message to hard working POC is that they must be viewed at all times as a POC monolith. Sorry if you work hard and want better than the minimum. We can't let you have that because we view all POC the same, and not on the merits of your own success and work product.

Sickeningly regressive and no different than self avowed racists who view all POC as being the same and defined by their least capable members.

And this is why Black families with resources tend to high-tail it out of DCPS and those with goals but fewer resources might opt for a charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe EH could start kids in 5th grade like the charter middles, effectively reducing crowding at Maury.

this is actually … not a terrible idea? EH is not perfect but is much better able to handle rambunctious tweens & teens.

One of the other proposals DME is considering would standardize start years for middle schools across DCPS and DCPCS.

Right. It is a horrible idea to make one-off changes to entry grades. That is what a few charters do and it greatly impacts enrollment and staffing. Adding more schools to this off-year entry would further disrupt school patterns. Ie if Maury did that, would Payne and Miner and SWS? (the other feeders to EH)