Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

JO's on a better trajectory than Miner though. About to get a big renovation (really a brand new building which I'm guessing will be as nice as Maury's or SWS), 2R's star has really fallen in recent years, and with the development around Union Market, it is in an area that is demographically very similar to LT in terms of housing costs.

Most (but not all) of JO's FARMS students are coming to the school from across the river -- like Miner, it has a large OOB contingent. But JO has a better shot at increasing IB participation with the new school. So they could organically achieve the kind of "rising tide lifting all boats" effect that the DME is looking for from a Miner-Maury cluster. Miner doesn't have those timing or location advantages.

I'm sure there are JO families today who would love an LT cluster if it were to happen next year. I don't think that will be true in about three years when JO's new facility is done. Whereas I just don't see many signs of improvement at Miner.

Co-sign. Miner does not have demographic advantages of JOW. I believe TR will shutter their 4th Street campus by 2030.

I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I think you’re going to find the reality of change *very* slow if you think in 3 years people wouldn’t want to Cluster with Ludlow. Also, JO has made almost no progress in the last 8 years; they’ve actually dropped off in the last few years. You’re right that they have a demographics advantage over Miner, but actually they have little to show for the last decade despite that. My suspicion is that Ludlow will always remain ahead — it’s way ahead now and it’s IB property will remain more expensive on average. JO will probably be a place folks are happy to stay, but it will be more like 10 years than 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

hahahahahahahahahaha

I don't think that performative clown will save Maury

1000% co-sign. He is only interested in making his pathetic self look good- not in actually representing people from his ward. Is there some sort of photo opportunity for him to sit with black children? If not never mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

hahahahahahahahahaha

I don't think that performative clown will save Maury

1000% co-sign. He is only interested in making his pathetic self look good- not in actually representing people from his ward. Is there some sort of photo opportunity for him to sit with black children? If not never mind.

I was discussing Charles “Performative Clown” Allen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

That conversation could still happen. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

That conversation could still happen. Right?

Nope. The possible recommendations are what they’re presenting now. They’re not going to suddenly add another recommendation that they didn’t workshop at all.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone suggesting that an E-H solution would draw kids away from BASIS and Latin ignores the reality of how short the MS years are and how bad the Hill HS situation is. If you don't want and can't leave DC or move for 9th, you have no choice but to take the Latin or BASIS exit if you are lucky enough to be offered it. MS is 3 years, and there's only 2 years of it before you need to have an idea of what your HS plan is. I sincerely hope E-H and all Hill schools get their sh*t together and prosper in the coming years. But I can tell you from experience that families without guaranteed HS options (ability to move, $ to pay for private) are generally not going to be motivated by nonspecific promises of some sort of "tracking light" at E-H. Step one to getting buy-in at E-H or SH is to stand up and offer a formal tracking process. No more of this nonsense where SH doesn't advertise tracking but allows students to take math classes with the year above and pretends it isn't happening.

This. EH is filled with families who struck out in the lottery and are trying to get a few more years in the city / hoping to lottery into Walls. IB families are not “choosing” EH.

There are absolutely EH families that choose EH over one of those charters … I’m under no illusions about having to find a different solution for HS but so far so good.

So you "chose" EH over a spot at Latin? Even though you won't use your IB HS? You are an example of what I described my friend. You feel you have options for HS; private $, move within DC, move out of DC, etc.

This. People will talk about going to EH or SH (or Jefferson) but their plan for HS is Walls, Banneker, private, or move. The plan is never Eastern. So it's tiresome when people talk about increased buy in for SH and EH (and let's get real about how much increased buy-in these schools are getting) without acknowledging that this is just people postponing their Plan Bs a few more years, not actually buying into the Ward 6 high school.

Both of these conversations can be true. The prior poster had the uninformed and inaccurate picture that all families at EH had already tried and struck out lottery. My family and many others never did the lottery and intended ongoing to EH from the get go.
As for high school, we are not ruling out Eastern but plan to learn about other public school options as well. Participating in the city's school choice system, especially for high school when there are very different programs does not mean you cannot be interested in and choose to go to your neighborhood middle school.

Not even entering the lottery is the picture of entitlement. In order to have acted in that manner you must have access to resources that informed that decision. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. I would love to have mommy/daddy money to pay for private school. I would love to have a job that allows me to cash flow Sidwell in 9th. I would love to be able to move houses at the drop of a hat without regard to financial impact. Good for you.

But here's the thing. People like you ought not lecture people without those options or advantages about what they could or should do. It's the equivalent of having a parachute on under your jacket and encouraging others to get on a plane that is likely to crash, because "what if it doesn't and we reach our destination?"

I stand by my position that no one without HS options chose E-H without at least considering alternatives that solved for HS.

Ok. What’s your point again? The actual EH families’ point is that EH is going fine and we are reasonably happy. Not that we love the HS options or might have taken a spot at Latin. There’s always something potentially better so I struggle to understand why “striking out in the lottery” means EH is bad.

EH is objectively a bad school. You may be telling yourself that middle school academics don’t matter so it’s “going fine” but that doesn’t make it a good school. The academics are abysmal.

Do you have a kid there?

Seriously. The comments on this thread are exhausting. Some people choose one school, some people choose another. Great, that is why we have a lottery/school choice system. The vitriol and assumptions about people who choose to attend a DCPS middle school and think their kids are getting a good education is uncalled for. The merits of judging a school solely on test scores is a conversation for another day, as is the fact that kids can and do learn while in classrooms with kids of varying academic levels.

The vitriol stems from limited choice, because even with the lottery, parents in DC actually have very few good or reliable school choices past elementary school.

And the judgment flows both ways, all the time. Parents who go to charters are judged for "abandoning" DCPS. Parents who lottery into OOB DCPS are viewed as carpet baggers. Parents who send kids to schools with lower test scores (schools like Miner, which has been repeatedly trashed on this thread) are viewed as inadequate. Parents who move out of the city are views as weak-willed. And so on.

Basically the only parents who don't get judged in DC are the ones who send their kids to high quality IB DCPS schools. Like Maury. But then parents in that situation tend to judge everyone else for not being in that situation.

If this situation bothers you, you actually have to fix education in DC so that that people aren't constantly fighting over the very limited resource of good schools in this city.

I think there are small sub-segments of each population that come on here to judge. But outside of this forum, the vast majority of parents at schools are not wasting their energy on this. There are lots of good options in this city, many families are happy at a lot of different schools, not just the few that constantly get praised here . Mainly I am just suggesting people try to have a productive dialogue - when things devolve into uninformed insults from either side, it is unproductive. Even if both sides do it, doesn't mean it is right - isn't that we teach our kids?

The entire premise of this thread is for Maury parents to get mad about the prospect of merging with Miner. If this were a city with "lots of good options" for schools where families were "happy at lots of different schools" I do not think you would see the level of horror and anger in response to this proposal that you see.

Parents know Maury is one of a small handful of decent schools in Ward 6, and Miner is very much not, and this conversation revolves around parents at Maury trying to protect their access to what they are fully aware is a very precious resource.

I might be more inclined to agree with you if this thread were full of praise for Miner but let's get real here.

The thing is, we did Miner for ECE and it *was* really wonderful. They have really talented and dedicated teachers, at least through kindergarten. Kids were doing amazing projects like hatching baby chicks and watching a caterpillar transform into a butterfly. That’s why I actually think the cluster plan could work. The walk between Miner and Maury is neither long nor dangerous. It’s true there are terrifying incidents that have happened near Miner, but there was a carjacking near Maury this summer too! The reality is, walking my kids between the two, which I did often to meet friends at the Maury playground after school, feels lively and idyllic, passing other friends on the walk and beautiful houses and families with kids.

Meanwhile, the segregation between Miner and Maury is truly striking and disturbing. These schools are so close together, and the different even just in the resources in the building is incredible.

I also think concerns about the Miner population flooding Maury with high needs kids in a way that will hurt the school are overblown. A *lot* of Miner kids are out of bounds right now, and that’s in part because there are a *lot* of upper middle class families in the zone who don’t send their kids there (or do for ECE and then leave). With a cluster, if done well, all those kids would probably stay. It honestly seems like a good solution, especially given the strength of ECE at miner and the fact that a ton of Maury kids are there for ECE anyway.

Maybe they could sweeten the deal by feeding Maury to SH? Then both Maury and LT would feed there, which would make for a really strong cohort. EH already has a feed from SWS and Payne and Tyler (I think), so they’d still have a strong cohort too.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone suggesting that an E-H solution would draw kids away from BASIS and Latin ignores the reality of how short the MS years are and how bad the Hill HS situation is. If you don't want and can't leave DC or move for 9th, you have no choice but to take the Latin or BASIS exit if you are lucky enough to be offered it. MS is 3 years, and there's only 2 years of it before you need to have an idea of what your HS plan is. I sincerely hope E-H and all Hill schools get their sh*t together and prosper in the coming years. But I can tell you from experience that families without guaranteed HS options (ability to move, $ to pay for private) are generally not going to be motivated by nonspecific promises of some sort of "tracking light" at E-H. Step one to getting buy-in at E-H or SH is to stand up and offer a formal tracking process. No more of this nonsense where SH doesn't advertise tracking but allows students to take math classes with the year above and pretends it isn't happening.

This. EH is filled with families who struck out in the lottery and are trying to get a few more years in the city / hoping to lottery into Walls. IB families are not “choosing” EH.

There are absolutely EH families that choose EH over one of those charters … I’m under no illusions about having to find a different solution for HS but so far so good.

So you "chose" EH over a spot at Latin? Even though you won't use your IB HS? You are an example of what I described my friend. You feel you have options for HS; private $, move within DC, move out of DC, etc.

This. People will talk about going to EH or SH (or Jefferson) but their plan for HS is Walls, Banneker, private, or move. The plan is never Eastern. So it's tiresome when people talk about increased buy in for SH and EH (and let's get real about how much increased buy-in these schools are getting) without acknowledging that this is just people postponing their Plan Bs a few more years, not actually buying into the Ward 6 high school.

Both of these conversations can be true. The prior poster had the uninformed and inaccurate picture that all families at EH had already tried and struck out lottery. My family and many others never did the lottery and intended ongoing to EH from the get go.
As for high school, we are not ruling out Eastern but plan to learn about other public school options as well. Participating in the city's school choice system, especially for high school when there are very different programs does not mean you cannot be interested in and choose to go to your neighborhood middle school.

Not even entering the lottery is the picture of entitlement. In order to have acted in that manner you must have access to resources that informed that decision. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. I would love to have mommy/daddy money to pay for private school. I would love to have a job that allows me to cash flow Sidwell in 9th. I would love to be able to move houses at the drop of a hat without regard to financial impact. Good for you.

But here's the thing. People like you ought not lecture people without those options or advantages about what they could or should do. It's the equivalent of having a parachute on under your jacket and encouraging others to get on a plane that is likely to crash, because "what if it doesn't and we reach our destination?"

I stand by my position that no one without HS options chose E-H without at least considering alternatives that solved for HS.

Ok. What’s your point again? The actual EH families’ point is that EH is going fine and we are reasonably happy. Not that we love the HS options or might have taken a spot at Latin. There’s always something potentially better so I struggle to understand why “striking out in the lottery” means EH is bad.

EH is objectively a bad school. You may be telling yourself that middle school academics don’t matter so it’s “going fine” but that doesn’t make it a good school. The academics are abysmal.

Do you have a kid there?

Seriously. The comments on this thread are exhausting. Some people choose one school, some people choose another. Great, that is why we have a lottery/school choice system. The vitriol and assumptions about people who choose to attend a DCPS middle school and think their kids are getting a good education is uncalled for. The merits of judging a school solely on test scores is a conversation for another day, as is the fact that kids can and do learn while in classrooms with kids of varying academic levels.

The vitriol stems from limited choice, because even with the lottery, parents in DC actually have very few good or reliable school choices past elementary school.

And the judgment flows both ways, all the time. Parents who go to charters are judged for "abandoning" DCPS. Parents who lottery into OOB DCPS are viewed as carpet baggers. Parents who send kids to schools with lower test scores (schools like Miner, which has been repeatedly trashed on this thread) are viewed as inadequate. Parents who move out of the city are views as weak-willed. And so on.

Basically the only parents who don't get judged in DC are the ones who send their kids to high quality IB DCPS schools. Like Maury. But then parents in that situation tend to judge everyone else for not being in that situation.

If this situation bothers you, you actually have to fix education in DC so that that people aren't constantly fighting over the very limited resource of good schools in this city.

I think there are small sub-segments of each population that come on here to judge. But outside of this forum, the vast majority of parents at schools are not wasting their energy on this. There are lots of good options in this city, many families are happy at a lot of different schools, not just the few that constantly get praised here . Mainly I am just suggesting people try to have a productive dialogue - when things devolve into uninformed insults from either side, it is unproductive. Even if both sides do it, doesn't mean it is right - isn't that we teach our kids?

The entire premise of this thread is for Maury parents to get mad about the prospect of merging with Miner. If this were a city with "lots of good options" for schools where families were "happy at lots of different schools" I do not think you would see the level of horror and anger in response to this proposal that you see.

Parents know Maury is one of a small handful of decent schools in Ward 6, and Miner is very much not, and this conversation revolves around parents at Maury trying to protect their access to what they are fully aware is a very precious resource.

I might be more inclined to agree with you if this thread were full of praise for Miner but let's get real here.

The thing is, we did Miner for ECE and it *was* really wonderful. They have really talented and dedicated teachers, at least through kindergarten. Kids were doing amazing projects like hatching baby chicks and watching a caterpillar transform into a butterfly. That’s why I actually think the cluster plan could work. The walk between Miner and Maury is neither long nor dangerous. It’s true there are terrifying incidents that have happened near Miner, but there was a carjacking near Maury this summer too! The reality is, walking my kids between the two, which I did often to meet friends at the Maury playground after school, feels lively and idyllic, passing other friends on the walk and beautiful houses and families with kids.

Meanwhile, the segregation between Miner and Maury is truly striking and disturbing. These schools are so close together, and the different even just in the resources in the building is incredible.

I also think concerns about the Miner population flooding Maury with high needs kids in a way that will hurt the school are overblown. A *lot* of Miner kids are out of bounds right now, and that’s in part because there are a *lot* of upper middle class families in the zone who don’t send their kids there (or do for ECE and then leave). With a cluster, if done well, all those kids would probably stay. It honestly seems like a good solution, especially given the strength of ECE at miner and the fact that a ton of Maury kids are there for ECE anyway.

Maybe they could sweeten the deal by feeding Maury to SH? Then both Maury and LT would feed there, which would make for a really strong cohort. EH already has a feed from SWS and Payne and Tyler (I think), so they’d still have a strong cohort too.

Sounds like you should have kept your kids at Miner through 5th grade.

Why didn’t you?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone suggesting that an E-H solution would draw kids away from BASIS and Latin ignores the reality of how short the MS years are and how bad the Hill HS situation is. If you don't want and can't leave DC or move for 9th, you have no choice but to take the Latin or BASIS exit if you are lucky enough to be offered it. MS is 3 years, and there's only 2 years of it before you need to have an idea of what your HS plan is. I sincerely hope E-H and all Hill schools get their sh*t together and prosper in the coming years. But I can tell you from experience that families without guaranteed HS options (ability to move, $ to pay for private) are generally not going to be motivated by nonspecific promises of some sort of "tracking light" at E-H. Step one to getting buy-in at E-H or SH is to stand up and offer a formal tracking process. No more of this nonsense where SH doesn't advertise tracking but allows students to take math classes with the year above and pretends it isn't happening.

This. EH is filled with families who struck out in the lottery and are trying to get a few more years in the city / hoping to lottery into Walls. IB families are not “choosing” EH.

There are absolutely EH families that choose EH over one of those charters … I’m under no illusions about having to find a different solution for HS but so far so good.

So you "chose" EH over a spot at Latin? Even though you won't use your IB HS? You are an example of what I described my friend. You feel you have options for HS; private $, move within DC, move out of DC, etc.

This. People will talk about going to EH or SH (or Jefferson) but their plan for HS is Walls, Banneker, private, or move. The plan is never Eastern. So it's tiresome when people talk about increased buy in for SH and EH (and let's get real about how much increased buy-in these schools are getting) without acknowledging that this is just people postponing their Plan Bs a few more years, not actually buying into the Ward 6 high school.

Both of these conversations can be true. The prior poster had the uninformed and inaccurate picture that all families at EH had already tried and struck out lottery. My family and many others never did the lottery and intended ongoing to EH from the get go.
As for high school, we are not ruling out Eastern but plan to learn about other public school options as well. Participating in the city's school choice system, especially for high school when there are very different programs does not mean you cannot be interested in and choose to go to your neighborhood middle school.

Not even entering the lottery is the picture of entitlement. In order to have acted in that manner you must have access to resources that informed that decision. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. I would love to have mommy/daddy money to pay for private school. I would love to have a job that allows me to cash flow Sidwell in 9th. I would love to be able to move houses at the drop of a hat without regard to financial impact. Good for you.

But here's the thing. People like you ought not lecture people without those options or advantages about what they could or should do. It's the equivalent of having a parachute on under your jacket and encouraging others to get on a plane that is likely to crash, because "what if it doesn't and we reach our destination?"

I stand by my position that no one without HS options chose E-H without at least considering alternatives that solved for HS.

Ok. What’s your point again? The actual EH families’ point is that EH is going fine and we are reasonably happy. Not that we love the HS options or might have taken a spot at Latin. There’s always something potentially better so I struggle to understand why “striking out in the lottery” means EH is bad.

EH is objectively a bad school. You may be telling yourself that middle school academics don’t matter so it’s “going fine” but that doesn’t make it a good school. The academics are abysmal.

Do you have a kid there?

Seriously. The comments on this thread are exhausting. Some people choose one school, some people choose another. Great, that is why we have a lottery/school choice system. The vitriol and assumptions about people who choose to attend a DCPS middle school and think their kids are getting a good education is uncalled for. The merits of judging a school solely on test scores is a conversation for another day, as is the fact that kids can and do learn while in classrooms with kids of varying academic levels.

The vitriol stems from limited choice, because even with the lottery, parents in DC actually have very few good or reliable school choices past elementary school.

And the judgment flows both ways, all the time. Parents who go to charters are judged for "abandoning" DCPS. Parents who lottery into OOB DCPS are viewed as carpet baggers. Parents who send kids to schools with lower test scores (schools like Miner, which has been repeatedly trashed on this thread) are viewed as inadequate. Parents who move out of the city are views as weak-willed. And so on.

Basically the only parents who don't get judged in DC are the ones who send their kids to high quality IB DCPS schools. Like Maury. But then parents in that situation tend to judge everyone else for not being in that situation.

If this situation bothers you, you actually have to fix education in DC so that that people aren't constantly fighting over the very limited resource of good schools in this city.

I think there are small sub-segments of each population that come on here to judge. But outside of this forum, the vast majority of parents at schools are not wasting their energy on this. There are lots of good options in this city, many families are happy at a lot of different schools, not just the few that constantly get praised here . Mainly I am just suggesting people try to have a productive dialogue - when things devolve into uninformed insults from either side, it is unproductive. Even if both sides do it, doesn't mean it is right - isn't that we teach our kids?

The entire premise of this thread is for Maury parents to get mad about the prospect of merging with Miner. If this were a city with "lots of good options" for schools where families were "happy at lots of different schools" I do not think you would see the level of horror and anger in response to this proposal that you see.

Parents know Maury is one of a small handful of decent schools in Ward 6, and Miner is very much not, and this conversation revolves around parents at Maury trying to protect their access to what they are fully aware is a very precious resource.

I might be more inclined to agree with you if this thread were full of praise for Miner but let's get real here.

The thing is, we did Miner for ECE and it *was* really wonderful. They have really talented and dedicated teachers, at least through kindergarten. Kids were doing amazing projects like hatching baby chicks and watching a caterpillar transform into a butterfly. That’s why I actually think the cluster plan could work. The walk between Miner and Maury is neither long nor dangerous. It’s true there are terrifying incidents that have happened near Miner, but there was a carjacking near Maury this summer too! The reality is, walking my kids between the two, which I did often to meet friends at the Maury playground after school, feels lively and idyllic, passing other friends on the walk and beautiful houses and families with kids.

Meanwhile, the segregation between Miner and Maury is truly striking and disturbing. These schools are so close together, and the different even just in the resources in the building is incredible.

I also think concerns about the Miner population flooding Maury with high needs kids in a way that will hurt the school are overblown. A *lot* of Miner kids are out of bounds right now, and that’s in part because there are a *lot* of upper middle class families in the zone who don’t send their kids there (or do for ECE and then leave). With a cluster, if done well, all those kids would probably stay. It honestly seems like a good solution, especially given the strength of ECE at miner and the fact that a ton of Maury kids are there for ECE anyway.

Maybe they could sweeten the deal by feeding Maury to SH? Then both Maury and LT would feed there, which would make for a really strong cohort. EH already has a feed from SWS and Payne and Tyler (I think), so they’d still have a strong cohort too.

Again, ECE is totally different from 2nd grade on. And there was just ANOTHER shooting murder at the Starburst - I think that makes 5 this fall? I wouldn’t want to get off a bus at the Starburst at night to do pickup, which is the only feasible public transportation option to downtown. That’s not “idyllic” lady. That’s DC’s failure to control crime coming home to roost.

As for material differences in the buildings, I’d like to hear more about that. I somehow doubt it. If there are problems then it’s likely because the Miner principal was banging the security guard instead of organizing a strong PTO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

JO's on a better trajectory than Miner though. About to get a big renovation (really a brand new building which I'm guessing will be as nice as Maury's or SWS), 2R's star has really fallen in recent years, and with the development around Union Market, it is in an area that is demographically very similar to LT in terms of housing costs.

Most (but not all) of JO's FARMS students are coming to the school from across the river -- like Miner, it has a large OOB contingent. But JO has a better shot at increasing IB participation with the new school. So they could organically achieve the kind of "rising tide lifting all boats" effect that the DME is looking for from a Miner-Maury cluster. Miner doesn't have those timing or location advantages.

I'm sure there are JO families today who would love an LT cluster if it were to happen next year. I don't think that will be true in about three years when JO's new facility is done. Whereas I just don't see many signs of improvement at Miner.

Co-sign. Miner does not have demographic advantages of JOW. I believe TR will shutter their 4th Street campus by 2030.

I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I think you’re going to find the reality of change *very* slow if you think in 3 years people wouldn’t want to Cluster with Ludlow. Also, JO has made almost no progress in the last 8 years; they’ve actually dropped off in the last few years. You’re right that they have a demographics advantage over Miner, but actually they have little to show for the last decade despite that. My suspicion is that Ludlow will always remain ahead — it’s way ahead now and its IB property will remain more expensive on average. JO will probably be a place folks are happy to stay, but it will be more like 10 years than 3.

I disagree because I think when the new building on K Street opens, it's going to be highly visible for IB families, and I think you underestimate the impact this is going to have.

Especially when you understand that currently, more IB families are at TR than at Ludlow. It's much easier to lottery into TR than Ludlow -- this year TR 4th came close to clearing every waitlist except the PK grades. And even for PK, families IB for JO have a much easier time getting into TR than Ludlow because Ludlow's PK seats largely go to their IB families.

Frustration with TR is high, their building is aging and has limited outdoor space, plus is right off Florida Avenue in a way that is unappealing for a lot of people with young kids. I think you're going to see a rapid buy-in at JO when the new building opens, from families that previously would have been thrilled to go to TR instead. Especially as families with babies and toddlers discover the playground at the new building, which I anticipate will be really nice and fill a real need north of H for a great outdoor play space (that neighborhood doesn't have as much green space as the Hill and the existing playground situation is wanting).

If TR was holding strong, you might be right about the 10 years. As it stands, JO is poised for a real renaissance. Especially because lotterying out of the JO boundary for LT/Maury/Brent is increasingly hard even in higher grades.

Some of you are forgetting how quickly LT and Maury went from Title 1 schools that IB families fled for charters to highly desirable IB options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

JO's on a better trajectory than Miner though. About to get a big renovation (really a brand new building which I'm guessing will be as nice as Maury's or SWS), 2R's star has really fallen in recent years, and with the development around Union Market, it is in an area that is demographically very similar to LT in terms of housing costs.

Most (but not all) of JO's FARMS students are coming to the school from across the river -- like Miner, it has a large OOB contingent. But JO has a better shot at increasing IB participation with the new school. So they could organically achieve the kind of "rising tide lifting all boats" effect that the DME is looking for from a Miner-Maury cluster. Miner doesn't have those timing or location advantages.

I'm sure there are JO families today who would love an LT cluster if it were to happen next year. I don't think that will be true in about three years when JO's new facility is done. Whereas I just don't see many signs of improvement at Miner.

Co-sign. Miner does not have demographic advantages of JOW. I believe TR will shutter their 4th Street campus by 2030.

I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I think you’re going to find the reality of change *very* slow if you think in 3 years people wouldn’t want to Cluster with Ludlow. Also, JO has made almost no progress in the last 8 years; they’ve actually dropped off in the last few years. You’re right that they have a demographics advantage over Miner, but actually they have little to show for the last decade despite that. My suspicion is that Ludlow will always remain ahead — it’s way ahead now and its IB property will remain more expensive on average. JO will probably be a place folks are happy to stay, but it will be more like 10 years than 3.

I disagree because I think when the new building on K Street opens, it's going to be highly visible for IB families, and I think you underestimate the impact this is going to have.

Especially when you understand that currently, more IB families are at TR than at Ludlow. It's much easier to lottery into TR than Ludlow -- this year TR 4th came close to clearing every waitlist except the PK grades. And even for PK, families IB for JO have a much easier time getting into TR than Ludlow because Ludlow's PK seats largely go to their IB families.

Frustration with TR is high, their building is aging and has limited outdoor space, plus is right off Florida Avenue in a way that is unappealing for a lot of people with young kids. I think you're going to see a rapid buy-in at JO when the new building opens, from families that previously would have been thrilled to go to TR instead. Especially as families with babies and toddlers discover the playground at the new building, which I anticipate will be really nice and fill a real need north of H for a great outdoor play space (that neighborhood doesn't have as much green space as the Hill and the existing playground situation is wanting).

If TR was holding strong, you might be right about the 10 years. As it stands, JO is poised for a real renaissance. Especially because lotterying out of the JO boundary for LT/Maury/Brent is increasingly hard even in higher grades.

Some of you are forgetting how quickly LT and Maury went from Title 1 schools that IB families fled for charters to highly desirable IB options.

This is true, but can only happen with a principal who acts like IB families are welcome even if they are white/high SES. That’s not really on trend today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

JO's on a better trajectory than Miner though. About to get a big renovation (really a brand new building which I'm guessing will be as nice as Maury's or SWS), 2R's star has really fallen in recent years, and with the development around Union Market, it is in an area that is demographically very similar to LT in terms of housing costs.

Most (but not all) of JO's FARMS students are coming to the school from across the river -- like Miner, it has a large OOB contingent. But JO has a better shot at increasing IB participation with the new school. So they could organically achieve the kind of "rising tide lifting all boats" effect that the DME is looking for from a Miner-Maury cluster. Miner doesn't have those timing or location advantages.

I'm sure there are JO families today who would love an LT cluster if it were to happen next year. I don't think that will be true in about three years when JO's new facility is done. Whereas I just don't see many signs of improvement at Miner.

Co-sign. Miner does not have demographic advantages of JOW. I believe TR will shutter their 4th Street campus by 2030.

I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I think you’re going to find the reality of change *very* slow if you think in 3 years people wouldn’t want to Cluster with Ludlow. Also, JO has made almost no progress in the last 8 years; they’ve actually dropped off in the last few years. You’re right that they have a demographics advantage over Miner, but actually they have little to show for the last decade despite that. My suspicion is that Ludlow will always remain ahead — it’s way ahead now and its IB property will remain more expensive on average. JO will probably be a place folks are happy to stay, but it will be more like 10 years than 3.

I disagree because I think when the new building on K Street opens, it's going to be highly visible for IB families, and I think you underestimate the impact this is going to have.

Especially when you understand that currently, more IB families are at TR than at Ludlow. It's much easier to lottery into TR than Ludlow -- this year TR 4th came close to clearing every waitlist except the PK grades. And even for PK, families IB for JO have a much easier time getting into TR than Ludlow because Ludlow's PK seats largely go to their IB families.

Frustration with TR is high, their building is aging and has limited outdoor space, plus is right off Florida Avenue in a way that is unappealing for a lot of people with young kids. I think you're going to see a rapid buy-in at JO when the new building opens, from families that previously would have been thrilled to go to TR instead. Especially as families with babies and toddlers discover the playground at the new building, which I anticipate will be really nice and fill a real need north of H for a great outdoor play space (that neighborhood doesn't have as much green space as the Hill and the existing playground situation is wanting).

If TR was holding strong, you might be right about the 10 years. As it stands, JO is poised for a real renaissance. Especially because lotterying out of the JO boundary for LT/Maury/Brent is increasingly hard even in higher grades.

Some of you are forgetting how quickly LT and Maury went from Title 1 schools that IB families fled for charters to highly desirable IB options.

This is true, but can only happen with a principal who acts like IB families are welcome even if they are white/high SES. That’s not really on trend today.

Current principal at JO is not unwelcoming to IB families. I think he's kind of like the current principal of LT actually -- kind of a non-entity. PTO and a few very committed members of the teaching staff are much more visible, and PTO in particular is highly welcoming to IB families, as it is run by IB families very committed to the longterm success of the school.

I don't know how this compares to Miner, but I think it bodes well for JO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

JO's on a better trajectory than Miner though. About to get a big renovation (really a brand new building which I'm guessing will be as nice as Maury's or SWS), 2R's star has really fallen in recent years, and with the development around Union Market, it is in an area that is demographically very similar to LT in terms of housing costs.

Most (but not all) of JO's FARMS students are coming to the school from across the river -- like Miner, it has a large OOB contingent. But JO has a better shot at increasing IB participation with the new school. So they could organically achieve the kind of "rising tide lifting all boats" effect that the DME is looking for from a Miner-Maury cluster. Miner doesn't have those timing or location advantages.

I'm sure there are JO families today who would love an LT cluster if it were to happen next year. I don't think that will be true in about three years when JO's new facility is done. Whereas I just don't see many signs of improvement at Miner.

Co-sign. Miner does not have demographic advantages of JOW. I believe TR will shutter their 4th Street campus by 2030.

I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I think you’re going to find the reality of change *very* slow if you think in 3 years people wouldn’t want to Cluster with Ludlow. Also, JO has made almost no progress in the last 8 years; they’ve actually dropped off in the last few years. You’re right that they have a demographics advantage over Miner, but actually they have little to show for the last decade despite that. My suspicion is that Ludlow will always remain ahead — it’s way ahead now and its IB property will remain more expensive on average. JO will probably be a place folks are happy to stay, but it will be more like 10 years than 3.

I disagree because I think when the new building on K Street opens, it's going to be highly visible for IB families, and I think you underestimate the impact this is going to have.

Especially when you understand that currently, more IB families are at TR than at Ludlow. It's much easier to lottery into TR than Ludlow -- this year TR 4th came close to clearing every waitlist except the PK grades. And even for PK, families IB for JO have a much easier time getting into TR than Ludlow because Ludlow's PK seats largely go to their IB families.

Frustration with TR is high, their building is aging and has limited outdoor space, plus is right off Florida Avenue in a way that is unappealing for a lot of people with young kids. I think you're going to see a rapid buy-in at JO when the new building opens, from families that previously would have been thrilled to go to TR instead. Especially as families with babies and toddlers discover the playground at the new building, which I anticipate will be really nice and fill a real need north of H for a great outdoor play space (that neighborhood doesn't have as much green space as the Hill and the existing playground situation is wanting).

If TR was holding strong, you might be right about the 10 years. As it stands, JO is poised for a real renaissance. Especially because lotterying out of the JO boundary for LT/Maury/Brent is increasingly hard even in higher grades.

Some of you are forgetting how quickly LT and Maury went from Title 1 schools that IB families fled for charters to highly desirable IB options.

Even if you get PK3 kids in the first year, it will take 10+ years for the whole school to get there. Just like it did for Maury and LT. You’re crazy if you think IB 3rd graders will flood in for a pretty building while the previous year’s test scores are awful. It’s just not how it works. And, don’t forget, there’s going to be a further dip still during the renovation. Honestly, I hope it works out for JO, but you sound incredibly naive. DCPS is full of shiny empty buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

JO's on a better trajectory than Miner though. About to get a big renovation (really a brand new building which I'm guessing will be as nice as Maury's or SWS), 2R's star has really fallen in recent years, and with the development around Union Market, it is in an area that is demographically very similar to LT in terms of housing costs.

Most (but not all) of JO's FARMS students are coming to the school from across the river -- like Miner, it has a large OOB contingent. But JO has a better shot at increasing IB participation with the new school. So they could organically achieve the kind of "rising tide lifting all boats" effect that the DME is looking for from a Miner-Maury cluster. Miner doesn't have those timing or location advantages.

I'm sure there are JO families today who would love an LT cluster if it were to happen next year. I don't think that will be true in about three years when JO's new facility is done. Whereas I just don't see many signs of improvement at Miner.

Co-sign. Miner does not have demographic advantages of JOW. I believe TR will shutter their 4th Street campus by 2030.

I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I think you’re going to find the reality of change *very* slow if you think in 3 years people wouldn’t want to Cluster with Ludlow. Also, JO has made almost no progress in the last 8 years; they’ve actually dropped off in the last few years. You’re right that they have a demographics advantage over Miner, but actually they have little to show for the last decade despite that. My suspicion is that Ludlow will always remain ahead — it’s way ahead now and its IB property will remain more expensive on average. JO will probably be a place folks are happy to stay, but it will be more like 10 years than 3.

I disagree because I think when the new building on K Street opens, it's going to be highly visible for IB families, and I think you underestimate the impact this is going to have.

Especially when you understand that currently, more IB families are at TR than at Ludlow. It's much easier to lottery into TR than Ludlow -- this year TR 4th came close to clearing every waitlist except the PK grades. And even for PK, families IB for JO have a much easier time getting into TR than Ludlow because Ludlow's PK seats largely go to their IB families.

Frustration with TR is high, their building is aging and has limited outdoor space, plus is right off Florida Avenue in a way that is unappealing for a lot of people with young kids. I think you're going to see a rapid buy-in at JO when the new building opens, from families that previously would have been thrilled to go to TR instead. Especially as families with babies and toddlers discover the playground at the new building, which I anticipate will be really nice and fill a real need north of H for a great outdoor play space (that neighborhood doesn't have as much green space as the Hill and the existing playground situation is wanting).

If TR was holding strong, you might be right about the 10 years. As it stands, JO is poised for a real renaissance. Especially because lotterying out of the JO boundary for LT/Maury/Brent is increasingly hard even in higher grades.

Some of you are forgetting how quickly LT and Maury went from Title 1 schools that IB families fled for charters to highly desirable IB options.

Even if you get PK3 kids in the first year, it will take 10+ years for the whole school to get there. Just like it did for Maury and LT. You’re crazy if you think IB 3rd graders will flood in for a pretty building while the previous year’s test scores are awful. It’s just not how it works. And, don’t forget, there’s going to be a further dip still during the renovation. Honestly, I hope it works out for JO, but you sound incredibly naive. DCPS is full of shiny empty buildings.

No one expect the 3rd grade to suddenly fill with IB families, but in a relatively wealthy boundary like JOs, simply getting more buy-in from IB families for ECE (which I think would happen immediately following the renovation due in large part with people getting tired of TR as the anointed "alternative IB"). Then you need to hold onto a good portion of those IB families. Well good news, because JO's first grade teaching staff is amazing and the K staff is increasingly terrific as well. That, to me, is a "turn around" even if it takes time for test scores to adjust or the upper grades to shift.

I also think there is potential for the upper grades to shift faster than you think because of the MS problem on the Hill and loss of faith in TR's MS option. If SH becomes preferable to TR for MS (which I think may actually have already happened), there are a lot of follow-on effects. It gets harder to lottery into LT in the upper grades, especially 5th. And parents see the advantage of having their kids feed into MS with their elementary cohort. I am not totally sold on the viability of SH, but some people are and this could very much break JO's way.

Anyway, DCPS may be full of "shiny empty buildings" but not on Capitol Hill (I know JO is not on CH but it's the same community). The shiny renovations in Ward 6 tend to be in-demand schools, and no school proves this more effectively than Maury, which underwent a true transformation around the time of their renovation. I recall parents who'd previously turned their noses up at Maury being THRILLED to get spots a the school while it was in the swing space, understanding the shift that was underway. I think a lot of the same factors are currently at play with JO.

[Anonymous]

Its good to see parental involvement in children's education. However, an unhealthy obsession of nit picking schools wouldn't help our kids much, while spending time doing academic and fun activities with them, providing healthy home environment and unprocessed food, providing opportunities for athletics and arts, absolutely would.

DC living gives easy access to art, history, politics, libraries, museums, zoo, botanical garden, parks and nature within driving distance. What are you doing to help them avail those opportunities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from the meeting materials is that combining Maury and Miner will move the needle on the city wide goal to reduce segregation across our schools. The DME team created a table of all the ES that border each other and picked the pair that would move the metric the most without a river or large road in between. Boundary adjustments “would not work” so the strategy is to replicate the Peabody Watkins cluster model.

The impact to the city wide metric under this plan is totally clear to me; segregation will go down, this is good. Less clear and unanswered is: how will the cluster model perform for our kids attending the new cluster school.

Peabody Watkins is a nearby cluster, and I’ve seen a lot of anecdotal comments online about how the school is doing; but frankly it’s really hard to know how to interpret them. Could be grumpy parents with an axe to grind, folks trolling and pretending to be impacted, parents rightfully being proud and invested in a school their children attend, etc. etc.

I took a look at enrollment and test scores for the Peabody Watkins cluster, and five other area ES to see how they’ve fared from 2014 to 2022. I chose those years because it’s when PARCC scores started. I’m sure there are flaws in this methodology; so by all means folks are welcome to jump in with thoughts/critiques and give recommendations on other data to consider.

Short summary 2014-2022 (PARCC era):
- The cluster is last in enrollment growth
- 5th in ELA, 4th in Math
- 5th in improvement of Math&ELA

This is all numbers with very little context, and I'm sure doesn't capture the entirety of the quality of education at all these schools; but at first glance it does not give me faith in the cluster plan. Why would Miner+Maury fair differently that Peabody+Watkins?

Enrollment:
+55% Maury
+45% Ludlow Taylor
+23% Payne
+17% Brent
-8% Peabody
-14% Miner
-31% Watkins

ELA (2022)
67% Ludlow Taylor
66% Brent
66% Maury
46% Payne
37% Watkins
10% Miner

MATH (2022)
67% Brent
59% Maury
45% Ludlow Taylor
39% Watkins
28% Payne
6% Miner

Improvement in ELA + Improvement in Math, From 2014 to 2022
+53% Payne
+44% Ludlow Taylor
+37% Maury
+8% Brent
+7% Watkins
-13% Mined

You should submit this to the DME. And you should loop in Charles Allen.

You realize the DME thinks it is BAD that Maury and LT grew and improved test scores to that extent, right? They want to stop that. That’s the whole goal.

Looking at this & the slide DME presented at the Maury meeting showing how they chose their potential cluster pairs (50%+ differential), I’d say Ludlow is very lucky they didn’t choose 40%+ as their arbitrary “too far apart” metric. If they had, Ludlow and JO would be having this same discussion and the geography there makes way more sense. And I can tell you as a JO IB family that IB families would love to cluster with Ludlow (though 2R would likely collapse overnight as a result).

JO's on a better trajectory than Miner though. About to get a big renovation (really a brand new building which I'm guessing will be as nice as Maury's or SWS), 2R's star has really fallen in recent years, and with the development around Union Market, it is in an area that is demographically very similar to LT in terms of housing costs.

Most (but not all) of JO's FARMS students are coming to the school from across the river -- like Miner, it has a large OOB contingent. But JO has a better shot at increasing IB participation with the new school. So they could organically achieve the kind of "rising tide lifting all boats" effect that the DME is looking for from a Miner-Maury cluster. Miner doesn't have those timing or location advantages.

I'm sure there are JO families today who would love an LT cluster if it were to happen next year. I don't think that will be true in about three years when JO's new facility is done. Whereas I just don't see many signs of improvement at Miner.

Co-sign. Miner does not have demographic advantages of JOW. I believe TR will shutter their 4th Street campus by 2030.

I don’t disagree with the overall message, but I think you’re going to find the reality of change *very* slow if you think in 3 years people wouldn’t want to Cluster with Ludlow. Also, JO has made almost no progress in the last 8 years; they’ve actually dropped off in the last few years. You’re right that they have a demographics advantage over Miner, but actually they have little to show for the last decade despite that. My suspicion is that Ludlow will always remain ahead — it’s way ahead now and its IB property will remain more expensive on average. JO will probably be a place folks are happy to stay, but it will be more like 10 years than 3.

I disagree because I think when the new building on K Street opens, it's going to be highly visible for IB families, and I think you underestimate the impact this is going to have.

Especially when you understand that currently, more IB families are at TR than at Ludlow. It's much easier to lottery into TR than Ludlow -- this year TR 4th came close to clearing every waitlist except the PK grades. And even for PK, families IB for JO have a much easier time getting into TR than Ludlow because Ludlow's PK seats largely go to their IB families.

Frustration with TR is high, their building is aging and has limited outdoor space, plus is right off Florida Avenue in a way that is unappealing for a lot of people with young kids. I think you're going to see a rapid buy-in at JO when the new building opens, from families that previously would have been thrilled to go to TR instead. Especially as families with babies and toddlers discover the playground at the new building, which I anticipate will be really nice and fill a real need north of H for a great outdoor play space (that neighborhood doesn't have as much green space as the Hill and the existing playground situation is wanting).

If TR was holding strong, you might be right about the 10 years. As it stands, JO is poised for a real renaissance. Especially because lotterying out of the JO boundary for LT/Maury/Brent is increasingly hard even in higher grades.

Some of you are forgetting how quickly LT and Maury went from Title 1 schools that IB families fled for charters to highly desirable IB options.

Even if you get PK3 kids in the first year, it will take 10+ years for the whole school to get there. Just like it did for Maury and LT. You’re crazy if you think IB 3rd graders will flood in for a pretty building while the previous year’s test scores are awful. It’s just not how it works. And, don’t forget, there’s going to be a further dip still during the renovation. Honestly, I hope it works out for JO, but you sound incredibly naive. DCPS is full of shiny empty buildings.

I don't think this is accurate, but I think it might have to do with how you define a turn-around for these schools.

I actually think LT and Maury turned around quickly. I had a kid who was a baby around the time it happened, and these two schools went from "I guess that's an okay option" to "highly desirable" in terms of our preferences for school in maybe 18 months. I still remember having conversations with some Maury families when my kid was like 18 months old and my perception of the school rapidly shifting just in the course of those conversations. Same with LT. Some friends of ours with a same-age kid live IB for LT, and when we first started talking about schools, they were upset to discover that CHMS was not a by-right school for them, and disappointed by LT as the consolation prize. By the time our kids actually started PK a little over a year later, they were thrilled.

Now we're just 4 years later and our kids are in mid-grades at these schools and they are considered two of the top three schools on the Hill. The shift happened fast from my perspective, even if I know there were people who had older kids as those shifts were happening who I'm sure thought as you do now about JO.

These changes can happen fast, and a shiny new renovation (especially if in a prominent location in the neighborhood -- I think Maury's location helps because it's so visible to people commuting through the neighborhood, walking to and from Lincoln Park, etc.) and the right neighborhood demographics, or declining interest in a previously popular nearby charter, are exactly what can flip the switch.