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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nothing will help Miner without some form of boundary re-draw or demographic change. It has too many at risk kids in the school for even an effective administration to address.

This is simply not true. There are tons of schools with similar or even higher at-risk numbers than Miner that do significantly better on PARCC — and I don’t want to overstate the importance of standardized test scores, but I’m not aware of what other objective standards there are to look to.

DC needs to be able to have effective schools with high at-risk populations, since DCPS is 50% at-risk. It can’t be that we just throw up our hands and say it’s impossible at 64%. We know that it is not impossible from the data for other schools that do better.

right but/and - test scores aren't indicative of whether schools are doing better at teaching kids.

What? Of course test scores are *indicative* of whether schools are doing better at teaching kids. Conclusive? No. The only thing that matters? No. An apples to apples comparison across schools with different demographics? No. But indicative? Obviously.

No, no they're not. Study after study shows test scores are indicative of the SES status of the parents.

All other things being equal. But if you've got similarly at-risk schools performing quite a bit differently on tests, isn't that indicative of something?

Exactly. This isn't Maury scores hire than Miner so it's teaching kids better. It's Miner is substantially underperforming schools with the same demographics or even more at risk students. Of course that's indicative of something.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

Well, the merger will not happen because DME realized that Maury parents will move. This is just to save face now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it also has a significant number of not at risk kids in boundary who do not attend the school. If the school made some changes to improve and got those kids to attend, Miner could have very different school demographics.

According to DME, the Miner IB population demographics mirror the attending demographics. Maybe that data can be parsed more closely, but they've said increasing IB population wouldn't change the at-risk numbers. Increasing IB MC/UMC attendance would also potentially displace the Miner OOB kids who are coming from worse school environments. The cluster would potentially do this as well, if it were successful. I believe that's a big reason DME is punting here. They've heard from a lot of affluent parents from both school communities. They have not heard from Miner at-risk families.

I struggle with that because there are definitely some higher income families that buy in Kingman Park in general. I wish we could see hard numbers rather than just accept this at face value. Rosedale rowhomes and the streets (i.e. surrounding the Rosedale rec center) tend to be very small/narrow though so not as appealing to higher SES families.

Based on the data put out by DME, there are a minimum of 200 non-at-risk in bounds for Miner who don’t go there. Get them to attend, and Miner’s a totally different school.

Good luck. That's true anywhere, but you generally won't get those parents to send their kids. How many Maury parents are going to send their kid to Eliot Hine for MS? Hey if they all just attend, it's a different school.

An increasing number of Maury kids are attending EH each year, and Payne for that matter. It is on the upswing with increasing buy-in, a great principal, good programming, and a nice campus. It doesn't happen overnight. Miner, unfortunately, has a number of issues both demographic and administrative negatively impacting it.

Reading through this thread -- few thoughts/corrections. First, if you listened to the DME meeting streamed last week, the committee gave pushback to several of the proposed timelines in the draft (not just related to Maury/Miner), and that the dates seemed arbitrary or not appropriate. So I would not be surprised if the timeline gets modified. Also, the idea would be that a new principal at Miner would be part of the process (that is the whole point of the working group) - so if/when any changes happen, they would not lose their job, they would be a part of the process they helped formulate. I do think that DCPS is acutely aware of the need for strong leadership at Miner, so hopefully that is prioritized regardless of this boundary process outcome.

Lastly, I agree with the PP - the earlier poster commenting 'how many maury parents send their kids to EH for MS?' shows a lack of awareness about schools in the neighborhood. Not to say everybody has to understand all of the enrollment trends of all of the schools, but if you are going to come on here and comment, it does help to be aware/at least somewhat informed. Yes, some Maury families leave to go to Latin, Basis, etc - but 25-30 5th grade kids have been going to EH in the past several years from Maury, 15-20 from Miner, and recently 25+/year from Payne. So much so that the current 6th grade was 30 kids over projection this year and they needed to hire a new teacher.

Then why are EH's PARCC scores still so abysmal?

Looking at last year's data, it looks like EH's PARCC scores for its non-at-risk students are on par with or better than Stuart Hobson's in 6th and 7th. EH's non-at-risk population takes a dive in 8th, and the scores drop too -- presumably many of the better students are self-selecting out to a different school. This doesn't happen at SH as much, so the issues leading to this drop are vital for EH to address.

Both SH and EH's non-at-risk scores trail Deal's significantly. Some of this is because non-at-risk includes some kids on the bubble of at-risk, and SH and EH presumably have more of that group than Deal does, but it's something for the Capitol Hill middles to look at and try to deal with.

Why do kids leave EH in 8th? Is that a common year to go private? The main middle school charters for Cap Hill families (Basis and Latin) don't take a lot or any kids in that year.

EH is adding more higher level math as it has an increasing number of students that are able to complete the coursework. I believe it's adding Geometry in 8th next year, because they have some kids that have completed 7th grade Algebra. Maybe this will prevent some of the 8th grade attrition.

This is only speculative based on experience in the neighborhood, but many families who decide to stick it out on the Hill for MS move in the middle of middle school. This is even true for some who got to Latin or BASIS. It is easier to move kids in middle school and do 8th at a new school in a new district, then to do it between MS and HS. Moving for 8th enables you to ensure a tracked math class to be able to take the HS math you want them to take, for instance. It allows a kid to work on their writing before HS starts.

In HS, grades count for college. In 8th, they don't (except in some circumstances where you might be taking a HS class for credit that will meet a college admissions requirement, so sometimes foreign language and advanced math). So if you are looking at Eastern and saying no, and don't really feel up to doing the application HS dance, moving between 7th and 8th makes sense.

Also a lot of families with multiple kids will try a track with their oldest, decide it's not the right fit, and move before their younger kids even hit that pipeline. And again, this isn't limited to EH (or SH). I also have known families who scored lottery spots at BASIS and Latin in 5th, did a couple years there, and then decided what they really wanted was a reliably good IB MS/HS feed and moved either to upper NW or out of DC altogether. BASIS, in particular, is not for all families, and that experience can be the thing that finally kicks a delayed play to move away into gear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

Well, the merger will not happen because DME realized that Maury parents will move. This is just to save face now.

Advisory Committee member here, and I will respond to this quickly and share that this is not in fact how any decisions are being made. There are a few more community meetings, and one more meeting as a whole group next month. Then once our draft is finalized, it is still up to the Mayor what/if/how different recommendations are implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it also has a significant number of not at risk kids in boundary who do not attend the school. If the school made some changes to improve and got those kids to attend, Miner could have very different school demographics.

According to DME, the Miner IB population demographics mirror the attending demographics. Maybe that data can be parsed more closely, but they've said increasing IB population wouldn't change the at-risk numbers. Increasing IB MC/UMC attendance would also potentially displace the Miner OOB kids who are coming from worse school environments. The cluster would potentially do this as well, if it were successful. I believe that's a big reason DME is punting here. They've heard from a lot of affluent parents from both school communities. They have not heard from Miner at-risk families.

I struggle with that because there are definitely some higher income families that buy in Kingman Park in general. I wish we could see hard numbers rather than just accept this at face value. Rosedale rowhomes and the streets (i.e. surrounding the Rosedale rec center) tend to be very small/narrow though so not as appealing to higher SES families.

Based on the data put out by DME, there are a minimum of 200 non-at-risk in bounds for Miner who don’t go there. Get them to attend, and Miner’s a totally different school.

Good luck. That's true anywhere, but you generally won't get those parents to send their kids. How many Maury parents are going to send their kid to Eliot Hine for MS? Hey if they all just attend, it's a different school.

An increasing number of Maury kids are attending EH each year, and Payne for that matter. It is on the upswing with increasing buy-in, a great principal, good programming, and a nice campus. It doesn't happen overnight. Miner, unfortunately, has a number of issues both demographic and administrative negatively impacting it.

Reading through this thread -- few thoughts/corrections. First, if you listened to the DME meeting streamed last week, the committee gave pushback to several of the proposed timelines in the draft (not just related to Maury/Miner), and that the dates seemed arbitrary or not appropriate. So I would not be surprised if the timeline gets modified. Also, the idea would be that a new principal at Miner would be part of the process (that is the whole point of the working group) - so if/when any changes happen, they would not lose their job, they would be a part of the process they helped formulate. I do think that DCPS is acutely aware of the need for strong leadership at Miner, so hopefully that is prioritized regardless of this boundary process outcome.

Lastly, I agree with the PP - the earlier poster commenting 'how many maury parents send their kids to EH for MS?' shows a lack of awareness about schools in the neighborhood. Not to say everybody has to understand all of the enrollment trends of all of the schools, but if you are going to come on here and comment, it does help to be aware/at least somewhat informed. Yes, some Maury families leave to go to Latin, Basis, etc - but 25-30 5th grade kids have been going to EH in the past several years from Maury, 15-20 from Miner, and recently 25+/year from Payne. So much so that the current 6th grade was 30 kids over projection this year and they needed to hire a new teacher.

Then why are EH's PARCC scores still so abysmal?

Looking at last year's data, it looks like EH's PARCC scores for its non-at-risk students are on par with or better than Stuart Hobson's in 6th and 7th. EH's non-at-risk population takes a dive in 8th, and the scores drop too -- presumably many of the better students are self-selecting out to a different school. This doesn't happen at SH as much, so the issues leading to this drop are vital for EH to address.

Both SH and EH's non-at-risk scores trail Deal's significantly. Some of this is because non-at-risk includes some kids on the bubble of at-risk, and SH and EH presumably have more of that group than Deal does, but it's something for the Capitol Hill middles to look at and try to deal with.

Why do kids leave EH in 8th? Is that a common year to go private? The main middle school charters for Cap Hill families (Basis and Latin) don't take a lot or any kids in that year.

EH is adding more higher level math as it has an increasing number of students that are able to complete the coursework. I believe it's adding Geometry in 8th next year, because they have some kids that have completed 7th grade Algebra. Maybe this will prevent some of the 8th grade attrition.

This is only speculative based on experience in the neighborhood, but many families who decide to stick it out on the Hill for MS move in the middle of middle school. This is even true for some who got to Latin or BASIS. It is easier to move kids in middle school and do 8th at a new school in a new district, then to do it between MS and HS. Moving for 8th enables you to ensure a tracked math class to be able to take the HS math you want them to take, for instance. It allows a kid to work on their writing before HS starts.

In HS, grades count for college. In 8th, they don't (except in some circumstances where you might be taking a HS class for credit that will meet a college admissions requirement, so sometimes foreign language and advanced math). So if you are looking at Eastern and saying no, and don't really feel up to doing the application HS dance, moving between 7th and 8th makes sense.

Also a lot of families with multiple kids will try a track with their oldest, decide it's not the right fit, and move before their younger kids even hit that pipeline. And again, this isn't limited to EH (or SH). I also have known families who scored lottery spots at BASIS and Latin in 5th, did a couple years there, and then decided what they really wanted was a reliably good IB MS/HS feed and moved either to upper NW or out of DC altogether. BASIS, in particular, is not for all families, and that experience can be the thing that finally kicks a delayed play to move away into gear.

This is an interesting conversation, and I do imagine these factors are are play with a lot of families' choices in middle and high school. There are a few other factors that have been talked about in various threads, and is too much to get into now in great detail (unless somebody else has the energy). First, there is a difference of who takes which classes in which grade, and when they are given the PARCC in those subjects. If some students take them a year ahead in 7th, but the PARCC test is in 8th, the kids who take the PARCC test will by default be given to the children who are not taken the most accelerated course schedule.
Another thing that has been mentioned in this thread is the correlation between test scores and socioeconomic/demographics (not to mention the bigger question of if/why we should judge schools on test scores in the first place, but that is a whole different topic). If you are interested in looking over the thread that was posted after PARCC scores were released that examined the scores across various schools in more detail, here it is - https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/1151471.page .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

Well, the merger will not happen because DME realized that Maury parents will move. This is just to save face now.

Advisory Committee member here, and I will respond to this quickly and share that this is not in fact how any decisions are being made. There are a few more community meetings, and one more meeting as a whole group next month. Then once our draft is finalized, it is still up to the Mayor what/if/how different recommendations are implemented.

A long way of saying the same thing. It's an extremely poorly thought-out plan and has exposed DME as nothing but SJWs. They can't fix the bad schools, so they have to do this so every school struggles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

The "time to acclimate" argument especially does not make sense if they are still committed to the cluster. "Please acclimate to this struggling school and all its attendant problems, and then in 3 years we intend to totally change the makeup and focus of the school by making it PK3-1st with a clustered upper school which will have its own principal." What? That makes zero sense.

Either do the cluster or not, but this seems like a weird halfway measure that leaves everyone involved in limbo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

The "time to acclimate" argument especially does not make sense if they are still committed to the cluster. "Please acclimate to this struggling school and all its attendant problems, and then in 3 years we intend to totally change the makeup and focus of the school by making it PK3-1st with a clustered upper school which will have its own principal." What? That makes zero sense.

Either do the cluster or not, but this seems like a weird halfway measure that leaves everyone involved in limbo.

It is actually in response to the feedback and reality that many of you all on here shared. If it is to happen, it should be thought out and planned collaboratively. This proposal of a working group would not just be waiting and seeing, in theory it will work with school staff, parents and community to research, plan, brainstorm and troubleshoot. So there is a thoughtful plan created by the stakeholders involved , instead of coming down from the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

The "time to acclimate" argument especially does not make sense if they are still committed to the cluster. "Please acclimate to this struggling school and all its attendant problems, and then in 3 years we intend to totally change the makeup and focus of the school by making it PK3-1st with a clustered upper school which will have its own principal." What? That makes zero sense.

Either do the cluster or not, but this seems like a weird halfway measure that leaves everyone involved in limbo.

It is actually in response to the feedback and reality that many of you all on here shared. If it is to happen, it should be thought out and planned collaboratively. This proposal of a working group would not just be waiting and seeing, in theory it will work with school staff, parents and community to research, plan, brainstorm and troubleshoot. So there is a thoughtful plan created by the stakeholders involved , instead of coming down from the top.

But DME says they are “not responsible for implementation” so this isn’t correct.

How about, you know, actual education experts (who do actually exist!) go to Miner and figure out how to improve the teaching there. Why tf would brainstorming by non-experts be what is needed?

[Anonymous]

I know this is unpopular, but I actually think the 2027 timing does make sense. It gives the principal time to get to know the Miner community and figure out the stakeholders, etc. This will make the WG better. It also allows there to be at least one year of data on how the at-risk set asides change demographics at Maury/Miner. So it potentially answers questions about whether that’s a viable equity enhancing alternative. If you figure the set asides are implemented for the first time in the 25-26 lottery, spring 27 seems like a reasonable time to start evaluation of how that went.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

The "time to acclimate" argument especially does not make sense if they are still committed to the cluster. "Please acclimate to this struggling school and all its attendant problems, and then in 3 years we intend to totally change the makeup and focus of the school by making it PK3-1st with a clustered upper school which will have its own principal." What? That makes zero sense.

Either do the cluster or not, but this seems like a weird halfway measure that leaves everyone involved in limbo.

Breathing room for Maury parents to sell their houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it also has a significant number of not at risk kids in boundary who do not attend the school. If the school made some changes to improve and got those kids to attend, Miner could have very different school demographics.

According to DME, the Miner IB population demographics mirror the attending demographics. Maybe that data can be parsed more closely, but they've said increasing IB population wouldn't change the at-risk numbers. Increasing IB MC/UMC attendance would also potentially displace the Miner OOB kids who are coming from worse school environments. The cluster would potentially do this as well, if it were successful. I believe that's a big reason DME is punting here. They've heard from a lot of affluent parents from both school communities. They have not heard from Miner at-risk families.

I struggle with that because there are definitely some higher income families that buy in Kingman Park in general. I wish we could see hard numbers rather than just accept this at face value. Rosedale rowhomes and the streets (i.e. surrounding the Rosedale rec center) tend to be very small/narrow though so not as appealing to higher SES families.

Based on the data put out by DME, there are a minimum of 200 non-at-risk in bounds for Miner who don’t go there. Get them to attend, and Miner’s a totally different school.

Good luck. That's true anywhere, but you generally won't get those parents to send their kids. How many Maury parents are going to send their kid to Eliot Hine for MS? Hey if they all just attend, it's a different school.

An increasing number of Maury kids are attending EH each year, and Payne for that matter. It is on the upswing with increasing buy-in, a great principal, good programming, and a nice campus. It doesn't happen overnight. Miner, unfortunately, has a number of issues both demographic and administrative negatively impacting it.

Reading through this thread -- few thoughts/corrections. First, if you listened to the DME meeting streamed last week, the committee gave pushback to several of the proposed timelines in the draft (not just related to Maury/Miner), and that the dates seemed arbitrary or not appropriate. So I would not be surprised if the timeline gets modified. Also, the idea would be that a new principal at Miner would be part of the process (that is the whole point of the working group) - so if/when any changes happen, they would not lose their job, they would be a part of the process they helped formulate. I do think that DCPS is acutely aware of the need for strong leadership at Miner, so hopefully that is prioritized regardless of this boundary process outcome.

Lastly, I agree with the PP - the earlier poster commenting 'how many maury parents send their kids to EH for MS?' shows a lack of awareness about schools in the neighborhood. Not to say everybody has to understand all of the enrollment trends of all of the schools, but if you are going to come on here and comment, it does help to be aware/at least somewhat informed. Yes, some Maury families leave to go to Latin, Basis, etc - but 25-30 5th grade kids have been going to EH in the past several years from Maury, 15-20 from Miner, and recently 25+/year from Payne. So much so that the current 6th grade was 30 kids over projection this year and they needed to hire a new teacher.

Then why are EH's PARCC scores still so abysmal?

Looking at last year's data, it looks like EH's PARCC scores for its non-at-risk students are on par with or better than Stuart Hobson's in 6th and 7th. EH's non-at-risk population takes a dive in 8th, and the scores drop too -- presumably many of the better students are self-selecting out to a different school. This doesn't happen at SH as much, so the issues leading to this drop are vital for EH to address.

Both SH and EH's non-at-risk scores trail Deal's significantly. Some of this is because non-at-risk includes some kids on the bubble of at-risk, and SH and EH presumably have more of that group than Deal does, but it's something for the Capitol Hill middles to look at and try to deal with.

Why do kids leave EH in 8th? Is that a common year to go private? The main middle school charters for Cap Hill families (Basis and Latin) don't take a lot or any kids in that year.

EH is adding more higher level math as it has an increasing number of students that are able to complete the coursework. I believe it's adding Geometry in 8th next year, because they have some kids that have completed 7th grade Algebra. Maybe this will prevent some of the 8th grade attrition.

This is only speculative based on experience in the neighborhood, but many families who decide to stick it out on the Hill for MS move in the middle of middle school. This is even true for some who got to Latin or BASIS. It is easier to move kids in middle school and do 8th at a new school in a new district, then to do it between MS and HS. Moving for 8th enables you to ensure a tracked math class to be able to take the HS math you want them to take, for instance. It allows a kid to work on their writing before HS starts.

In HS, grades count for college. In 8th, they don't (except in some circumstances where you might be taking a HS class for credit that will meet a college admissions requirement, so sometimes foreign language and advanced math). So if you are looking at Eastern and saying no, and don't really feel up to doing the application HS dance, moving between 7th and 8th makes sense.

Also a lot of families with multiple kids will try a track with their oldest, decide it's not the right fit, and move before their younger kids even hit that pipeline. And again, this isn't limited to EH (or SH). I also have known families who scored lottery spots at BASIS and Latin in 5th, did a couple years there, and then decided what they really wanted was a reliably good IB MS/HS feed and moved either to upper NW or out of DC altogether. BASIS, in particular, is not for all families, and that experience can be the thing that finally kicks a delayed play to move away into gear.

This is an interesting conversation, and I do imagine these factors are are play with a lot of families' choices in middle and high school. There are a few other factors that have been talked about in various threads, and is too much to get into now in great detail (unless somebody else has the energy). First, there is a difference of who takes which classes in which grade, and when they are given the PARCC in those subjects. If some students take them a year ahead in 7th, but the PARCC test is in 8th, the kids who take the PARCC test will by default be given to the children who are not taken the most accelerated course schedule.
Another thing that has been mentioned in this thread is the correlation between test scores and socioeconomic/demographics (not to mention the bigger question of if/why we should judge schools on test scores in the first place, but that is a whole different topic). If you are interested in looking over the thread that was posted after PARCC scores were released that examined the scores across various schools in more detail, here it is - https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/1151471.page .

Thank you — I didn’t realize this. I posted bad information then — the number of PARCC test takers drops dramatically for 8th at EH, but not sure that means anything about student population. Sorry all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

The "time to acclimate" argument especially does not make sense if they are still committed to the cluster. "Please acclimate to this struggling school and all its attendant problems, and then in 3 years we intend to totally change the makeup and focus of the school by making it PK3-1st with a clustered upper school which will have its own principal." What? That makes zero sense.

Either do the cluster or not, but this seems like a weird halfway measure that leaves everyone involved in limbo.

It is actually in response to the feedback and reality that many of you all on here shared. If it is to happen, it should be thought out and planned collaboratively. This proposal of a working group would not just be waiting and seeing, in theory it will work with school staff, parents and community to research, plan, brainstorm and troubleshoot. So there is a thoughtful plan created by the stakeholders involved , instead of coming down from the top.

I truly do appreciate you posting here and explaining your thinking.

I don’t think a plan created by a DME-decreed committee that evolved from an idea DME forced on the school communities becomes “grassroots” by fiat. I also have questions about how members of the working group will be selected and if it will include people who are opposed to this idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to pivot the conversation, but I just listened to the DME recording and scrolled to the section on the recommendation for the cluster working group to begin no earlier to 2027. You can clearly hear a short discussion on why that timeframe does not work and DME seemed to make a note of it, possibly moving the working group to one year from now, so 2025. Giving time for the Miner principal to acclimate does not make sense given the constant principal turnover there - this would push the working group out indefinitely. One year from now would be sufficient. Second, principals are expected to start their jobs prepared on day one, so giving time to acclimate doesn't make sense. I guess we'll find out what is said at the Maury meeting tomorrow.

I disagree with this. Given the “constant principal turnover there,” it makes sense to establish strong leadership before doing anything about this cockamamie cluster idea, which should be (if anything) a last resort. Establishing strong leadership at Miner would be easier, faster, and less disruptive to other schools than the cluster idea, with at least as strong a prospect of improving academic outcomes (as would countless other evidence-based interventions).

Moreover, if the thesis is to pair the schools, rather than to have Maury take over Miner, then having weak or ineffective leadership at Maury will handicap the whole scheme.