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:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

I agree that Miner's problems are deep and are not only due to the principals, but that particular person is someone I know from his prior job at McKinley Middle and I find it very, very easy to believe that he is part of the problem.

I'm sure there are some problem teachers, but it's not their fault Andrea Mial slapped a kid.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-principal-facing-allegation-of-slapping-second-grade-student

I'm not defending any principals here. But when you have a school that has has a series of principals who leave under questionable or controversial circumstances, I guarantee you there is deeper rot at the school. Because even a mediocre principal can do fine at a school with a well-functioning staff and decent culture. Look at LT -- their current principal is not well liked but it doesn't really matter because the school has a great culture and a good staff.

Miner doesn't. It needs total overhaul. A great principal and some cash will not fix it.

I'm not sure what "total overhaul" would involve, do you mean an intervention per the Every Student Succeeds Act? Turning it over to a charter?

I'm saying for DCPS to stop screwing Miner with really terrible principals would be a good starting point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if I were a Miner parent, I'm not sure I'd be super enthused about this. The logistics problems are real. Miner itself will probably get *less* money due to demographics. Then you get to (or rather, have to) go to Maury, but not Maury as it currently exists, instead it'll be Maury with worse test scores and worse behaviors. Sure, just about anything's better than Miner, but right now, Miner parents stand a good chance of lotterying into Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins in upper grades, or any number of other schools. Even Brent makes a few offers. By-right access to a worse version of Maury doesn't really feel like an upgrade over what's currently de facto available, considering the other disadvantages of the Cluster proposal.

It's funny how making changes to Miner to help with basic functioning, performance, and retention is not on the table here at all.

Nice try, but no. Just as I can see why Maury families would oppose this plan, it's pretty obvious that the cluster stands to be an upgrade for both current Miner families and families IB for Miner who have younger kids. Even just as a potential option.

Right now I don't know a single Miner IB family who is actually enthusiastic about the idea of sending them to Miner's upper grades. ECE is fine, upper grades not so much. Every one of them would prefer a cluster to that option. And the lottery exists as an alternative no matter what happens. It's not like they lose the option to lottery if the cluster goes through.

Fine, I just don't think it's really that great. If you get your older kid into a different school, likely the younger kid gets pulled in too, so no more two-school logistics. And I don't think the new Maury would be any better than Ludlow-Taylor or Brent. It's probably better than Payne and Watkins, but hard to say for sure.

It would be better for IB families because it would be their by right school.

Having a decent by right school is gold. If you've always had that, you might not understand. You might think "whatever, just lottery, you'll get in somewhere."

We aren't IB for Miner but we are IB for another school with similar struggles and if someone told me that we could have IB rights to Watkins or Payne, it would be an upgrade over our current situation. Even if ultimately we lotteried elsewhere. Just knowing your kid can go to an okay school with out major issues through elementary is huge.

I have not always had that. I don't have that right now and I have never had that. I'm just someone who understands how to look at the lottery data and believes that if you try for a few years, you'll get into something equally as good as this imaginary cluster.

A bird in the and is worth two in the bush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

I agree that Miner's problems are deep and are not only due to the principals, but that particular person is someone I know from his prior job at McKinley Middle and I find it very, very easy to believe that he is part of the problem.

I'm sure there are some problem teachers, but it's not their fault Andrea Mial slapped a kid.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-principal-facing-allegation-of-slapping-second-grade-student

I'm not defending any principals here. But when you have a school that has has a series of principals who leave under questionable or controversial circumstances, I guarantee you there is deeper rot at the school. Because even a mediocre principal can do fine at a school with a well-functioning staff and decent culture. Look at LT -- their current principal is not well liked but it doesn't really matter because the school has a great culture and a good staff.

Miner doesn't. It needs total overhaul. A great principal and some cash will not fix it.

I'm not sure what "total overhaul" would involve, do you mean an intervention per the Every Student Succeeds Act? Turning it over to a charter?

I'm saying for DCPS to stop screwing Miner with really terrible principals would be a good starting point.

Is DCPS "screwing" Miner or does every decent principal refuse to work there because they know it's a thankless job at a dysfunctional school where they will inevitably be blamed when they can't magically change the entire culture?

[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:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

I agree that Miner's problems are deep and are not only due to the principals, but that particular person is someone I know from his prior job at McKinley Middle and I find it very, very easy to believe that he is part of the problem.

I'm sure there are some problem teachers, but it's not their fault Andrea Mial slapped a kid.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-principal-facing-allegation-of-slapping-second-grade-student

I'm not defending any principals here. But when you have a school that has has a series of principals who leave under questionable or controversial circumstances, I guarantee you there is deeper rot at the school. Because even a mediocre principal can do fine at a school with a well-functioning staff and decent culture. Look at LT -- their current principal is not well liked but it doesn't really matter because the school has a great culture and a good staff.

Miner doesn't. It needs total overhaul. A great principal and some cash will not fix it.

I'm not sure what "total overhaul" would involve, do you mean an intervention per the Every Student Succeeds Act? Turning it over to a charter?

I'm saying for DCPS to stop screwing Miner with really terrible principals would be a good starting point.

Is DCPS "screwing" Miner or does every decent principal refuse to work there because they know it's a thankless job at a dysfunctional school where they will inevitably be blamed when they can't magically change the entire culture?

I think those two effects are both present and reinforce each other.

[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:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

[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:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

DME set the threshold for its consideration. It was outcome determinative.

[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:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

DME set the threshold for its consideration. It was outcome determinative.

“their fake threshold set so that only Maury is singled out”

[Anonymous]

Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

[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:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

A cluster could end up even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

My child is in prek3 at Miner. We are inbounds for Maury. If this goes through with a school year 2026 - 2027 implementation date, dc would be shuffled between the two campuses 4 times. Miner for Prek then Maury for K, then back to Miner for 1st and back to Maury for 2nd. No way we are sticking it out for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

What three campuses? Or are you just referring to kids who are in ECE at Maury now and could be shifted to Miner and then back to Maury?

I think they said in one of the meetings that there would be a way to do it without a swingspace because of Miner's new building -- Miner has an excess of ECE classrooms with sinks and toilets. And at Maury, it's not clear that much retrofit is needed -- converting an ECE classroom to an upper grade classroom mostly just involves changing out furniture and equipment, but doesn't require renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

What three campuses? Or are you just referring to kids who are in ECE at Maury now and could be shifted to Miner and then back to Maury?

I think they said in one of the meetings that there would be a way to do it without a swingspace because of Miner's new building -- Miner has an excess of ECE classrooms with sinks and toilets. And at Maury, it's not clear that much retrofit is needed -- converting an ECE classroom to an upper grade classroom mostly just involves changing out furniture and equipment, but doesn't require renovation.

Yes, three campuses during the implementation phase. As PP above stated, their child currently at Miner for pre-K could go back and forth three times.