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:

Anonymous wrote:At risk set-asides are going to make a minimal difference.

Define "minimal difference." If Maury gets to the 25% it drops the disparity between the schools to below 40%, which is a big improvement by the DME's metric. If the set asides don't do that for whatever reason, then we'll know that and can explore other options.

Maury is 84% IB now. It can’t get to 25% and even if it did, those would not all be at-risk.

It is DME's own projection that with at-risk set-asides Maury's at-risk percentage is estimated to reach 25%, and they acknowledge that all of that growth will come from the upper grades.

Isn't 84% the percent of currently enrolled students, not 84% of capacity.

Maury is 100% at capacity and 16% IB. So even if 100% of OOB were at-risk, the percentage is not going over 16%. As for the upper grades my guess is that most of the new OOB students entering after 2nd grade are at risk now. So there just are not that many seats unless DCPS is going to insist that the school become over-enrolled.

Are you just making things up? Maury is not 100% capacity, as every presentation has shown. DME's own modeling suggests that they will get to 25% through the lottery. These slides are all on the boundary study website.

Maury is at 86% utilization. (https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Study%20School%20Meetings%20Miner%2012.19.2023.pdf)

And many of the OOB students at Maury receive proximity preference and are not at-risk. If proximity preference is bumped for at-risk preference that could definitely have an impact, assuming there are interested at-risk students.

Does anyone know what the order of preferences will be. Normally schools decide. But are they going to make the schools put an at-risk preference first (even before siblings and proximity)? Seems pretty nuts. And going to be hard on some Peabody families that have proximity preference to Maury and aren't willing/able to go to Watkins (such a successful cluster).

At some point—I think fairly recently—the capacity for Maury was revised upward. I remember it being in the 580s or 590s post-renovation, and now they are saying 613 or something. I'd like to learn a lot more about that.

They are saying it will be the #1 preference at all schools with sub-25% at risk across the board. The real life effect of this is going to be a huge boon for charters, because zero non at risk students will get into basically any non-T1 in DC. Maybe in UNW there won't be sufficient at risk applicants, but Brent, Maury, L-T? All those spots, including sibling & proximity ones, are going to at risk students exclusively.

Well that’s one way to break DCPS. Seems like a bad idea to make it number 1. No charter even does that.

bumping sibling preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At risk set-asides are going to make a minimal difference.

Define "minimal difference." If Maury gets to the 25% it drops the disparity between the schools to below 40%, which is a big improvement by the DME's metric. If the set asides don't do that for whatever reason, then we'll know that and can explore other options.

Maury is 84% IB now. It can’t get to 25% and even if it did, those would not all be at-risk.

It is DME's own projection that with at-risk set-asides Maury's at-risk percentage is estimated to reach 25%, and they acknowledge that all of that growth will come from the upper grades.

Isn't 84% the percent of currently enrolled students, not 84% of capacity.

Maury is 100% at capacity and 16% IB. So even if 100% of OOB were at-risk, the percentage is not going over 16%. As for the upper grades my guess is that most of the new OOB students entering after 2nd grade are at risk now. So there just are not that many seats unless DCPS is going to insist that the school become over-enrolled.

Are you just making things up? Maury is not 100% capacity, as every presentation has shown. DME's own modeling suggests that they will get to 25% through the lottery. These slides are all on the boundary study website.

Maury is at 86% utilization. (https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Study%20School%20Meetings%20Miner%2012.19.2023.pdf)

And many of the OOB students at Maury receive proximity preference and are not at-risk. If proximity preference is bumped for at-risk preference that could definitely have an impact, assuming there are interested at-risk students.

Does anyone know what the order of preferences will be. Normally schools decide. But are they going to make the schools put an at-risk preference first (even before siblings and proximity)? Seems pretty nuts. And going to be hard on some Peabody families that have proximity preference to Maury and aren't willing/able to go to Watkins (such a successful cluster).

At some point—I think fairly recently—the capacity for Maury was revised upward. I remember it being in the 580s or 590s post-renovation, and now they are saying 613 or something. I'd like to learn a lot more about that.

They are saying it will be the #1 preference at all schools with sub-25% at risk across the board. The real life effect of this is going to be a huge boon for charters, because zero non at risk students will get into basically any non-T1 in DC. Maybe in UNW there won't be sufficient at risk applicants, but Brent, Maury, L-T? All those spots, including sibling & proximity ones, are going to at risk students exclusively.

Well that’s one way to break DCPS. Seems like a bad idea to make it number 1. No charter even does that.

I doubt the preference would be above siblings. Also, I really don't believe it would "break DCPS." Why do you think that? Adding a relatively small percentage of At Risk students into a highly privileged situation seems a lot like the bussing of yore. I went to a school with bussing. By no means did it break our school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At risk set-asides are going to make a minimal difference.

Define "minimal difference." If Maury gets to the 25% it drops the disparity between the schools to below 40%, which is a big improvement by the DME's metric. If the set asides don't do that for whatever reason, then we'll know that and can explore other options.

Maury is 84% IB now. It can’t get to 25% and even if it did, those would not all be at-risk.

It is DME's own projection that with at-risk set-asides Maury's at-risk percentage is estimated to reach 25%, and they acknowledge that all of that growth will come from the upper grades.

Isn't 84% the percent of currently enrolled students, not 84% of capacity.

Maury is 100% at capacity and 16% IB. So even if 100% of OOB were at-risk, the percentage is not going over 16%. As for the upper grades my guess is that most of the new OOB students entering after 2nd grade are at risk now. So there just are not that many seats unless DCPS is going to insist that the school become over-enrolled.

Are you just making things up? Maury is not 100% capacity, as every presentation has shown. DME's own modeling suggests that they will get to 25% through the lottery. These slides are all on the boundary study website.

Maury is at 86% utilization. (https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Study%20School%20Meetings%20Miner%2012.19.2023.pdf)

And many of the OOB students at Maury receive proximity preference and are not at-risk. If proximity preference is bumped for at-risk preference that could definitely have an impact, assuming there are interested at-risk students.

Does anyone know what the order of preferences will be. Normally schools decide. But are they going to make the schools put an at-risk preference first (even before siblings and proximity)? Seems pretty nuts. And going to be hard on some Peabody families that have proximity preference to Maury and aren't willing/able to go to Watkins (such a successful cluster).

At some point—I think fairly recently—the capacity for Maury was revised upward. I remember it being in the 580s or 590s post-renovation, and now they are saying 613 or something. I'd like to learn a lot more about that.

They are saying it will be the #1 preference at all schools with sub-25% at risk across the board. The real life effect of this is going to be a huge boon for charters, because zero non at risk students will get into basically any non-T1 in DC. Maybe in UNW there won't be sufficient at risk applicants, but Brent, Maury, L-T? All those spots, including sibling & proximity ones, are going to at risk students exclusively.

Well that’s one way to break DCPS. Seems like a bad idea to make it number 1. No charter even does that.

It would not be above IB even for pre-K, per DME, so would only bump OOB sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At risk set-asides are going to make a minimal difference.

Define "minimal difference." If Maury gets to the 25% it drops the disparity between the schools to below 40%, which is a big improvement by the DME's metric. If the set asides don't do that for whatever reason, then we'll know that and can explore other options.

Maury is 84% IB now. It can’t get to 25% and even if it did, those would not all be at-risk.

It is DME's own projection that with at-risk set-asides Maury's at-risk percentage is estimated to reach 25%, and they acknowledge that all of that growth will come from the upper grades.

Isn't 84% the percent of currently enrolled students, not 84% of capacity.

Maury is 100% at capacity and 16% IB. So even if 100% of OOB were at-risk, the percentage is not going over 16%. As for the upper grades my guess is that most of the new OOB students entering after 2nd grade are at risk now. So there just are not that many seats unless DCPS is going to insist that the school become over-enrolled.

Are you just making things up? Maury is not 100% capacity, as every presentation has shown. DME's own modeling suggests that they will get to 25% through the lottery. These slides are all on the boundary study website.

Maury is at 86% utilization. (https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Study%20School%20Meetings%20Miner%2012.19.2023.pdf)

And many of the OOB students at Maury receive proximity preference and are not at-risk. If proximity preference is bumped for at-risk preference that could definitely have an impact, assuming there are interested at-risk students.

Does anyone know what the order of preferences will be. Normally schools decide. But are they going to make the schools put an at-risk preference first (even before siblings and proximity)? Seems pretty nuts. And going to be hard on some Peabody families that have proximity preference to Maury and aren't willing/able to go to Watkins (such a successful cluster).

At some point—I think fairly recently—the capacity for Maury was revised upward. I remember it being in the 580s or 590s post-renovation, and now they are saying 613 or something. I'd like to learn a lot more about that.

They are saying it will be the #1 preference at all schools with sub-25% at risk across the board. The real life effect of this is going to be a huge boon for charters, because zero non at risk students will get into basically any non-T1 in DC. Maybe in UNW there won't be sufficient at risk applicants, but Brent, Maury, L-T? All those spots, including sibling & proximity ones, are going to at risk students exclusively.

Well that’s one way to break DCPS. Seems like a bad idea to make it number 1. No charter even does that.

I doubt the preference would be above siblings. Also, I really don't believe it would "break DCPS." Why do you think that? Adding a relatively small percentage of At Risk students into a highly privileged situation seems a lot like the bussing of yore. I went to a school with bussing. By no means did it break our school system.

It goes above sibling???? Yes it will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At risk set-asides are going to make a minimal difference.

Define "minimal difference." If Maury gets to the 25% it drops the disparity between the schools to below 40%, which is a big improvement by the DME's metric. If the set asides don't do that for whatever reason, then we'll know that and can explore other options.

Maury is 84% IB now. It can’t get to 25% and even if it did, those would not all be at-risk.

It is DME's own projection that with at-risk set-asides Maury's at-risk percentage is estimated to reach 25%, and they acknowledge that all of that growth will come from the upper grades.

Isn't 84% the percent of currently enrolled students, not 84% of capacity.

Maury is 100% at capacity and 16% IB. So even if 100% of OOB were at-risk, the percentage is not going over 16%. As for the upper grades my guess is that most of the new OOB students entering after 2nd grade are at risk now. So there just are not that many seats unless DCPS is going to insist that the school become over-enrolled.

Are you just making things up? Maury is not 100% capacity, as every presentation has shown. DME's own modeling suggests that they will get to 25% through the lottery. These slides are all on the boundary study website.

Maury is at 86% utilization. (https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Study%20School%20Meetings%20Miner%2012.19.2023.pdf)

And many of the OOB students at Maury receive proximity preference and are not at-risk. If proximity preference is bumped for at-risk preference that could definitely have an impact, assuming there are interested at-risk students.

Does anyone know what the order of preferences will be. Normally schools decide. But are they going to make the schools put an at-risk preference first (even before siblings and proximity)? Seems pretty nuts. And going to be hard on some Peabody families that have proximity preference to Maury and aren't willing/able to go to Watkins (such a successful cluster).

At some point—I think fairly recently—the capacity for Maury was revised upward. I remember it being in the 580s or 590s post-renovation, and now they are saying 613 or something. I'd like to learn a lot more about that.

They are saying it will be the #1 preference at all schools with sub-25% at risk across the board. The real life effect of this is going to be a huge boon for charters, because zero non at risk students will get into basically any non-T1 in DC. Maybe in UNW there won't be sufficient at risk applicants, but Brent, Maury, L-T? All those spots, including sibling & proximity ones, are going to at risk students exclusively.

Well that’s one way to break DCPS. Seems like a bad idea to make it number 1. No charter even does that.

It would not be above IB even for pre-K, per DME, so would only bump OOB sibling preference.


Well, for pre-k at a school like Maury which can't accommodate all it's IB pre-K kids, it will put IB at-risk kids toward the front of the line. I'm not sure if the very front of the line will be IB at-risk or IB-sibling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry for the borked quotes.

Maury’s capacity is 539 post-reno, and that was specifically the “high capacity” option chosen. Would like to know where DME gets 613 from.

https://www.hillrag.com/2019/07/05/maury-elementary-school-renovation-nears-completion/

https://www.dlrgroup.com/work/maury-elementary-school/

https://www.mauryelementary.com/maury-modernization/

It may have creeped up over time. EdScape data from last year gave Maury programmatic capacity as 592. Then more recently we've jumped into the 600s.

[Anonymous]

Apologies, if you have 9 ECE classes and only 368 students, then your other grades average approx 35 students. And doesn't Miner have some self-contained classrooms as well? How could you possible have another grade with 3 homerooms? If you did, the other grades would average 30 students. Looking at the numbers, I assumed you must have 1 classroom in some grades. If not, you must have many classrooms that are way underenrolled (DCPS target is 22; 20 is considered full). Also, Miner is way underenrolled for capacity. You may be "overenrolled" based on projections, but that's an accounting thing not an actual capacity issue.

In any case, when my child attend ECE at Miner, her PK3 classroom was almost half white and just over half UMC. Perhaps things have changed? I had assumed, if anything, the gentrification trend in ECE had accelerated, but perhaps that's incorrect?

We have 420 something students enrolled currently.

Our PreK classes are not full.

We have 3 Kindergarten classes ( one is over the limit), we have 3 first grade classes. One of our self-contained K-2 classes is 6 kids over the limit.

We have 2 second grade classes both over the limit.

3rd grade is at the cap. Both 4th grade classes and one 5th grade class are over 20.

We have long term subs teaching in 3 classrooms. We are down a special education teacher and a special education aide.

People keep speaking about Miner like they have a clear understanding of the issues, but you really don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Apologies, if you have 9 ECE classes and only 368 students, then your other grades average approx 35 students. And doesn't Miner have some self-contained classrooms as well? How could you possible have another grade with 3 homerooms? If you did, the other grades would average 30 students. Looking at the numbers, I assumed you must have 1 classroom in some grades. If not, you must have many classrooms that are way underenrolled (DCPS target is 22; 20 is considered full). Also, Miner is way underenrolled for capacity. You may be "overenrolled" based on projections, but that's an accounting thing not an actual capacity issue.

In any case, when my child attend ECE at Miner, her PK3 classroom was almost half white and just over half UMC. Perhaps things have changed? I had assumed, if anything, the gentrification trend in ECE had accelerated, but perhaps that's incorrect?

We have 420 something students enrolled currently.

Our PreK classes are not full.

We have 3 Kindergarten classes ( one is over the limit), we have 3 first grade classes. One of our self-contained K-2 classes is 6 kids over the limit.

We have 2 second grade classes both over the limit.

3rd grade is at the cap. Both 4th grade classes and one 5th grade class are over 20.

We have long term subs teaching in 3 classrooms. We are down a special education teacher and a special education aide.

People keep speaking about Miner like they have a clear understanding of the issues, but you really don’t.

I think you’re talking about different things. Miner is underenrolled from a building utilization perspective (it is at 62% https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary_Study_School%20Meetings%20Miner_2.06.2024%20POSTING.pdf). Sounds like it also has multiple classes that are at or over capacity, probably because it doesn’t have enough kids for another class in that grade, even though there is space in the building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Apologies, if you have 9 ECE classes and only 368 students, then your other grades average approx 35 students. And doesn't Miner have some self-contained classrooms as well? How could you possible have another grade with 3 homerooms? If you did, the other grades would average 30 students. Looking at the numbers, I assumed you must have 1 classroom in some grades. If not, you must have many classrooms that are way underenrolled (DCPS target is 22; 20 is considered full). Also, Miner is way underenrolled for capacity. You may be "overenrolled" based on projections, but that's an accounting thing not an actual capacity issue.

In any case, when my child attend ECE at Miner, her PK3 classroom was almost half white and just over half UMC. Perhaps things have changed? I had assumed, if anything, the gentrification trend in ECE had accelerated, but perhaps that's incorrect?

We have 420 something students enrolled currently.

Our PreK classes are not full.

We have 3 Kindergarten classes ( one is over the limit), we have 3 first grade classes. One of our self-contained K-2 classes is 6 kids over the limit.

We have 2 second grade classes both over the limit.

3rd grade is at the cap. Both 4th grade classes and one 5th grade class are over 20.

We have long term subs teaching in 3 classrooms. We are down a special education teacher and a special education aide.

People keep speaking about Miner like they have a clear understanding of the issues, but you really don’t.

If Miner really increased more than 50 students YOY that’s quite positive. Is that actually true though?

[Anonymous]

^ When you say over the “limit,” what do you mean? The WTU (flexible) limit is 25. I’m having difficulty believing that Miner has so many classes over 25…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ When you say over the “limit,” what do you mean? The WTU (flexible) limit is 25. I’m having difficulty believing that Miner has so many classes over 25…

This is me not understanding how DCPS works — if a class is over the limit do they not split it into two classes? Is that not the point of a limit? These class sizes sound pretty outrageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ When you say over the “limit,” what do you mean? The WTU (flexible) limit is 25. I’m having difficulty believing that Miner has so many classes over 25…

This is me not understanding how DCPS works — if a class is over the limit do they not split it into two classes? Is that not the point of a limit? These class sizes sound pretty outrageous.

Usually yes and they add from the WL to make up the difference. The hardest jump is 1 to 2 classes though, because they aren’t going to make 13 kid classrooms if don’t have a WL to supplement from. 2 to 3 is usually less problematic though because 52 = 26 + 26 or 17 + 17 + 18 and those class sizes will typically fly. Our school has a bunch that size, in fact. This should be all the more true at Miner, which has T1 money to play with. That’s why I’m guessing this person was treating 22 as a limit, which is actually the target (ie ideal) from DCPS’ perspective, not the limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ When you say over the “limit,” what do you mean? The WTU (flexible) limit is 25. I’m having difficulty believing that Miner has so many classes over 25…

This is me not understanding how DCPS works — if a class is over the limit do they not split it into two classes? Is that not the point of a limit? These class sizes sound pretty outrageous.

Usually yes and they add from the WL to make up the difference. The hardest jump is 1 to 2 classes though, because they aren’t going to make 13 kid classrooms if don’t have a WL to supplement from. 2 to 3 is usually less problematic though because 52 = 26 + 26 or 17 + 17 + 18 and those class sizes will typically fly. Our school has a bunch that size, in fact. This should be all the more true at Miner, which has T1 money to play with. That’s why I’m guessing this person was treating 22 as a limit, which is actually the target (ie ideal) from DCPS’ perspective, not the limit.

Thank you for explaining this!! It’s very interesting and helpful.

[Anonymous]

It has hit the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/02/14/maury-miner-elementary-dc-boundary-proposal/

[Anonymous]

Annoyingly, the article doesn't get to the heart of the matter: endemic low DCPS capacity and general incompetence. The UMC and white parents come off as selfish, elitist jerks in the WaPo when the truth is that they know that Maury is only so wonderful even without it being merged with a Title 1 school. When you've finally got a functional school in a dysfunctional system, after years of struggle on the part of neighborhood parents, don't mess with it. The inconvenient truth is that DCPS isn't doing a great job with the high SES kids they've got. There's a reason that more than a third of the Maury 4th graders (and most of the Brent 4th graders) don't return for 5th grade, and it's not because DCPS inspires great confidence in most upper grades UMC Hill parents. Risking killing a goose laying golden eggs won't improve matters.