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

[Anonymous]

I missed the Maury community meeting last night. How did it go? How certain did the delay until 2027 to start discussing feasibility recommendation seem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I missed the Maury community meeting last night. How did it go? How certain did the delay until 2027 to start discussing feasibility recommendation seem?

I thought the 2027 date didn't sound certain at all. She repeatedly stated that it was a placeholder date and that many Advisory Committee members and proponents of the pairing thought 2027 was too late. She did say that it made sense to give some time, given that Maury has a new principal and that Miner just has an interim principal right now, but it seemed like she was strongly signaling the date may move up.

For these final Maury and Miner meetings, the DME updated their "walking distance" analysis to show average and median walking distances for students to Maury and to Miner, but she confirmed that the analysis did not take into account families that would have to walk to both campuses.

She repeated that the boundary changes they considered would entail more (current) Miner families walking a farther distance to Maury. She conceded that this would be true for the paired school plan too, but stated that it would only be for "half the time," given that the students would start on one campus and graduate to the other. She did not take into account (and in fairness no one brought up) that it would not be just "half the time" for families with children on both campuses.

She clarified that they are discussing an at-risk set-aside of seats, not a preference in the lottery. So some number of seats will be designated for at-risk students and held even after the lottery (because at-risk families often have less information about the lottery and might miss it). I'm not sure if she spoke about how many seats would actually be held (i.e., whether a school under 30% at-risk would be required to hold all its open spots for at-risk students or some specific subset), though I may have just missed this (had the kids running around).

Someone voiced a concern with the size of the paired school, in terms of administrative challenges and effect on sense of community, and DME was entirely dismissive of this. She said there are other elementary schools this size in DCPS, so they're not worried. I think the loss of the small community feel would be a big problem with the plan, so I was disappointed by this.

Someone brought up the negative affect that additional school transitions have on kids. She didn't do much with this, just sort of vaguely said that you have to consider ways it helps and ways it hurts and see how they measure up, which is the closest I heard her come to defending the plan on any grounds other than that it would make the at-risk numbers even. In fairness, the premise of the plan is nothing more than that it will make the at-risk numbers even -- not that it will improve academic outcomes for either at-risk or non at-risk students -- so I didn't expect much more than this. But they're still falling back on general statements that economic integration is good for students, without ever getting into any details about what level of at-risk students counts as "integration" in these studies, whether they show that going from 60% to 40% makes a difference and what that difference is, whether Maury students would be adversely impacted by going from 12% to 40%, etc. Because they don't really care. All they care about is evening out the numbers.

Someone asked about Maury's capacity and how it got juiced, but I completely missed this answer. I am very interested though, and hope someone can supplement.

DME didn't have any details on how the working group would work.

That's all I really remember.

The anti-cluster crowd has seemed content to call the working group recommendation a win. I suppose it is, in the sense that they are no recommending the schools be paired starting in 2026, but it still sounds to me like the Advisory Committee thinks this is a good idea and sees the working group as the next step in putting it into motion. (It's clear the pro-cluster people see it that way too, which is why they are so hot on it starting earlier). But it does push things off a bit, so maybe the anti-cluster people are happy enough to see that it likely won't affect their kids very much if at all. One thing I continue to be struck by is how little engagement there has been in the wider community (and particularly parents of future students) on this. I still talk to people in the area with young kids (who would be affected by this!) who have no idea what is going on. They are the ones with the biggest stake at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I missed the Maury community meeting last night. How did it go? How certain did the delay until 2027 to start discussing feasibility recommendation seem?

I thought the 2027 date didn't sound certain at all. She repeatedly stated that it was a placeholder date and that many Advisory Committee members and proponents of the pairing thought 2027 was too late. She did say that it made sense to give some time, given that Maury has a new principal and that Miner just has an interim principal right now, but it seemed like she was strongly signaling the date may move up.

For these final Maury and Miner meetings, the DME updated their "walking distance" analysis to show average and median walking distances for students to Maury and to Miner, but she confirmed that the analysis did not take into account families that would have to walk to both campuses.

She repeated that the boundary changes they considered would entail more (current) Miner families walking a farther distance to Maury. She conceded that this would be true for the paired school plan too, but stated that it would only be for "half the time," given that the students would start on one campus and graduate to the other. She did not take into account (and in fairness no one brought up) that it would not be just "half the time" for families with children on both campuses.

She clarified that they are discussing an at-risk set-aside of seats, not a preference in the lottery. So some number of seats will be designated for at-risk students and held even after the lottery (because at-risk families often have less information about the lottery and might miss it). I'm not sure if she spoke about how many seats would actually be held (i.e., whether a school under 30% at-risk would be required to hold all its open spots for at-risk students or some specific subset), though I may have just missed this (had the kids running around).

Someone voiced a concern with the size of the paired school, in terms of administrative challenges and effect on sense of community, and DME was entirely dismissive of this. She said there are other elementary schools this size in DCPS, so they're not worried. I think the loss of the small community feel would be a big problem with the plan, so I was disappointed by this.

Someone brought up the negative affect that additional school transitions have on kids. She didn't do much with this, just sort of vaguely said that you have to consider ways it helps and ways it hurts and see how they measure up, which is the closest I heard her come to defending the plan on any grounds other than that it would make the at-risk numbers even. In fairness, the premise of the plan is nothing more than that it will make the at-risk numbers even -- not that it will improve academic outcomes for either at-risk or non at-risk students -- so I didn't expect much more than this. But they're still falling back on general statements that economic integration is good for students, without ever getting into any details about what level of at-risk students counts as "integration" in these studies, whether they show that going from 60% to 40% makes a difference and what that difference is, whether Maury students would be adversely impacted by going from 12% to 40%, etc. Because they don't really care. All they care about is evening out the numbers.

Someone asked about Maury's capacity and how it got juiced, but I completely missed this answer. I am very interested though, and hope someone can supplement.

DME didn't have any details on how the working group would work.

That's all I really remember.

The anti-cluster crowd has seemed content to call the working group recommendation a win. I suppose it is, in the sense that they are no recommending the schools be paired starting in 2026, but it still sounds to me like the Advisory Committee thinks this is a good idea and sees the working group as the next step in putting it into motion. (It's clear the pro-cluster people see it that way too, which is why they are so hot on it starting earlier). But it does push things off a bit, so maybe the anti-cluster people are happy enough to see that it likely won't affect their kids very much if at all. One thing I continue to be struck by is how little engagement there has been in the wider community (and particularly parents of future students) on this. I still talk to people in the area with young kids (who would be affected by this!) who have no idea what is going on. They are the ones with the biggest stake at this point.

It is SUPER frustrating that DME is so biased in favor of this. They claim that “implementation will be up to DCPS,” but then also take substantive positions that are outcome-oriented (like “the size of the school doesn’t matter!”). DME should be soley focused on articulating why the cluster is going to benefit Miner students, and whether there are other ways to acheive it (eg just redrawing boundaries).

[Anonymous]

What exactly does “at risk” mean?

[Anonymous]

Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group). The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year). That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly does “at risk” mean?

“At-risk” means a DCPS student or a public charter school student who is identified as one or more of the following: (A) Homeless; (B) In the District’s foster care system; (C) Qualifies for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(it also means high school students who have been held back, but that's not relevant here)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group). The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year). That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.

2027 makes sense if you want to see how the at-risk set aside plays out, or if you want to try anything else less disruptive than pairing two schools, but for people who have glommed on to this idea and want to implement it come hell or high water, it is too much time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group). The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year). That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.

2027 makes sense if you want to see how the at-risk set aside plays out, or if you want to try anything else less disruptive than pairing two schools, but for people who have glommed on to this idea and want to implement it come hell or high water, it is too much time.

This is true to an extent. The at-risk set aside does not immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner - that is the main reason there is a certain sense of urgency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group). The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year). That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.

2027 makes sense if you want to see how the at-risk set aside plays out, or if you want to try anything else less disruptive than pairing two schools, but for people who have glommed on to this idea and want to implement it come hell or high water, it is too much time.

This is true to an extent. The at-risk set aside does not immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner - that is the main reason there is a certain sense of urgency.

Gosh, if only there were any other way to help Miner. Does DME or DCPS have any other proposal whatsoever? Because the cluster isn't gonna make Miner's teacher and leadership problems disappear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group). The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year). That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.

2027 makes sense if you want to see how the at-risk set aside plays out, or if you want to try anything else less disruptive than pairing two schools, but for people who have glommed on to this idea and want to implement it come hell or high water, it is too much time.

This is true to an extent. The at-risk set aside does not immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner - that is the main reason there is a certain sense of urgency.

I agree that the main problem here is that Miner is underperforming for its students, and I am sympathetic to parents who must be desperate to try anything at this point. But I don't see how the cluster would help, and actually think the logistics of it are at least as likely as not to make things worse for Miner's most vulnerable students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group). The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year). That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.

2027 makes sense if you want to see how the at-risk set aside plays out, or if you want to try anything else less disruptive than pairing two schools, but for people who have glommed on to this idea and want to implement it come hell or high water, it is too much time.

This is true to an extent. The at-risk set aside does not immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner - that is the main reason there is a certain sense of urgency.

a CLUSTER does not “immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner.” I repeat, merging Maury and Miner does ZERO to improve academics at Miner. This is not an academic support plan for Miner (or even for the high risk kids at Maury). It is 100% an exercise in optics and ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group). The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year). That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.

2027 makes sense if you want to see how the at-risk set aside plays out, or if you want to try anything else less disruptive than pairing two schools, but for people who have glommed on to this idea and want to implement it come hell or high water, it is too much time.

This is true to an extent. The at-risk set aside does not immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner - that is the main reason there is a certain sense of urgency.

a CLUSTER does not “immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner.” I repeat, merging Maury and Miner does ZERO to improve academics at Miner. This is not an academic support plan for Miner (or even for the high risk kids at Maury). It is 100% an exercise in optics and ideology.

Thats fair, the cluster does not immediately address the Miner problems, but what I meant was that its a start. And the start is bringing the working group back to an earlier date. 2027 is dangerously far away and Miner can't afford that.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

I don't know what the answer is, but would be eager to learn -- my kids are in the EH pipeline.

NP with an 8th grader at EH. First I'm hearing of this phenomenon of kids leaving in 8th--has not been our experience. There have been smaller 8th grade cohorts over the years, and there was definitely some shift due to pandemic. Pandemic learning loss def plays into PARCC score across teh board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

I don't know what the answer is, but would be eager to learn -- my kids are in the EH pipeline.

NP with an 8th grader at EH. First I'm hearing of this phenomenon of kids leaving in 8th--has not been our experience. There have been smaller 8th grade cohorts over the years, and there was definitely some shift due to pandemic. Pandemic learning loss def plays into PARCC score across teh board