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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But this is where I'm confused. Some people seem to be under the impression that the working group is a precursor to the cluster actually happening, whereas others seem to be under the impression that it's basically a death knell for the idea. I have no idea what's going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But this is where I'm confused. Some people seem to be under the impression that the working group is a precursor to the cluster actually happening, whereas others seem to be under the impression that it's basically a death knell for the idea. I have no idea what's going on.

I think it could go either way. Kicking things to a committee is a traditional way to climb down from an idea without publicly renouncing it. So it's kind of a way for the DME to distance itself from their botched roll-out. If the at-risk preference at Maury brings in enough kids, the case for the cluster is weakened (especially if they're Miner kids). And if Miner gets a good permanent principal (LOL, I know, as if that's gonna happen), then that person will be able to either implement the cluster or it won't be needed because Miner will improve/gentrify. It's unclear how much demographic change is needed to get DME off this idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is not a start of any type. A start would provide direct and urgent academic support to the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I think this was just projecting too much from one set of data. Last year's 8th grade had ~75 PARCC test takers (versus ~100 in 6th and 7th), but based on the previous year's data (when the 7th grade had ~75 PARCC test takers), it looks like it was just a smaller class.

[Anonymous]

Is Miner participating in the principal selection speed-dating this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But this is where I'm confused. Some people seem to be under the impression that the working group is a precursor to the cluster actually happening, whereas others seem to be under the impression that it's basically a death knell for the idea. I have no idea what's going on.

I think it could go either way. Kicking things to a committee is a traditional way to climb down from an idea without publicly renouncing it. So it's kind of a way for the DME to distance itself from their botched roll-out. If the at-risk preference at Maury brings in enough kids, the case for the cluster is weakened (especially if they're Miner kids). And if Miner gets a good permanent principal (LOL, I know, as if that's gonna happen), then that person will be able to either implement the cluster or it won't be needed because Miner will improve/gentrify. It's unclear how much demographic change is needed to get DME off this idea.

The cluster is being pushed mainly by middle class families in the Miner boundary who would apparently prefer to send their kids to a school with different demographics, so I wouldn't assume that more at-risk kids at Maury will weaken the case for the cluster from their perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But this is where I'm confused. Some people seem to be under the impression that the working group is a precursor to the cluster actually happening, whereas others seem to be under the impression that it's basically a death knell for the idea. I have no idea what's going on.

I think it could go either way. Kicking things to a committee is a traditional way to climb down from an idea without publicly renouncing it. So it's kind of a way for the DME to distance itself from their botched roll-out. If the at-risk preference at Maury brings in enough kids, the case for the cluster is weakened (especially if they're Miner kids). And if Miner gets a good permanent principal (LOL, I know, as if that's gonna happen), then that person will be able to either implement the cluster or it won't be needed because Miner will improve/gentrify. It's unclear how much demographic change is needed to get DME off this idea.

The cluster is being pushed mainly by middle class families in the Miner boundary who would apparently prefer to send their kids to a school with different demographics, so I wouldn't assume that more at-risk kids at Maury will weaken the case for the cluster from their perspective.

No, it weakens it from the DME's perspective. And if it makes the blended school less high-income, than that lowers the perceived benefit to Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox News picked up the story. https://www.foxnews.com/media/plan-blend-predominantly-black-white-dc-schools-tense-debate-liberal-neighborhood

Their take is funny. It’s basically “liberals are hypocrites”.

I don’t doubt it. This particular case may be different but as Nikole Hannah Jones has pointed out, “blue” areas have some of the highest segregation in schools and (fairly well-off, white) liberal parents ALWAYS find 1,000 reasons to oppose plans to make schools less white/reflect area demographics whenever they are proposed.

Nikole Hannah Jones is a massive hypocrite who almost certainly will send her kid to a private HS. She did NOT send her daughter to her IB school. She sought out a better option that had better test scores. NHJ would never send her daughter to Miner (or EH for that matter). A total joke.

I know that Ivy Tower diversity crowd and not a single one sends their kids to a school like Miner. Or even to Maury.

BTW I send my kid to EH. And Maury actually reflects DC demographics.

I remember reading her piece on choosing a school for her kid when we were doing the lottery, and it sound like their IB school actually was a school like Miner, but they found a school like Garrison or Amidon-Bowen. Well... yeah. If my IB school was Garrison or Amidon-Bowen, I'd be fine sending my kid there. But if my IB school is Miner, I'd want better for my kid. That doesn't make me racist, it makes me a good parent.

No. The place she sent her kid was more like L-T. Diverse, but not a T1 and with solidly good test scores already. It was definitely not like A-B.

[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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox News picked up the story. https://www.foxnews.com/media/plan-blend-predominantly-black-white-dc-schools-tense-debate-liberal-neighborhood

Their take is funny. It’s basically “liberals are hypocrites”.

I don’t doubt it. This particular case may be different but as Nikole Hannah Jones has pointed out, “blue” areas have some of the highest segregation in schools and (fairly well-off, white) liberal parents ALWAYS find 1,000 reasons to oppose plans to make schools less white/reflect area demographics whenever they are proposed.

Nikole Hannah Jones is a massive hypocrite who almost certainly will send her kid to a private HS. She did NOT send her daughter to her IB school. She sought out a better option that had better test scores. NHJ would never send her daughter to Miner (or EH for that matter). A total joke.

I know that Ivy Tower diversity crowd and not a single one sends their kids to a school like Miner. Or even to Maury.

BTW I send my kid to EH. And Maury actually reflects DC demographics.

Of course they don’t. That’s what’s so hilarious (to me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox News picked up the story. https://www.foxnews.com/media/plan-blend-predominantly-black-white-dc-schools-tense-debate-liberal-neighborhood

Their take is funny. It’s basically “liberals are hypocrites”.

I don’t doubt it. This particular case may be different but as Nikole Hannah Jones has pointed out, “blue” areas have some of the highest segregation in schools and (fairly well-off, white) liberal parents ALWAYS find 1,000 reasons to oppose plans to make schools less white/reflect area demographics whenever they are proposed.

Quoting a known liar and fabricator won’t help your cause.

It’s not my cause, which is why it’s all so amusing to me. I live in a blue area that had a “boundary scare” in the last few years.
So liberal! So progressive! So agitated when faced with the possibility that their “good schools” were in danger of lower test scores, reduced safety and smaller pool of compatible peers.
They all talk a good game about diversity, inclusion and equity… right up until it could affect them. Then they hop right over with the people talking that neighborhood school, success-starts-at-home talk.
It never fails and it’s funny every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox News picked up the story. https://www.foxnews.com/media/plan-blend-predominantly-black-white-dc-schools-tense-debate-liberal-neighborhood

Their take is funny. It’s basically “liberals are hypocrites”.

I don’t doubt it. This particular case may be different but as Nikole Hannah Jones has pointed out, “blue” areas have some of the highest segregation in schools and (fairly well-off, white) liberal parents ALWAYS find 1,000 reasons to oppose plans to make schools less white/reflect area demographics whenever they are proposed.

Quoting a known liar and fabricator won’t help your cause.

It’s not my cause, which is why it’s all so amusing to me. I live in a blue area that had a “boundary scare” in the last few years.
So liberal! So progressive! So agitated when faced with the possibility that their “good schools” were in danger of lower test scores, reduced safety and smaller pool of compatible peers.
They all talk a good game about diversity, inclusion and equity… right up until it could affect them. Then they hop right over with the people talking that neighborhood school, success-starts-at-home talk.
It never fails and it’s funny every time.

Well that’s not actually what’s happening with Maury. Many of us send our older kids to Eliot-Hine. And of course Maury is more geniunely diverse than most elementary schools in the whole country.

The bigger hypocrites IMO are in the Mayor’s office - wringing their hands about poor Miner! Well we control the schools but there is NOTHING we can do directly except kick up dirt to make it seem the fault of white Maury parents! Whatever shall we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox News picked up the story. https://www.foxnews.com/media/plan-blend-predominantly-black-white-dc-schools-tense-debate-liberal-neighborhood

Their take is funny. It’s basically “liberals are hypocrites”.

I don’t doubt it. This particular case may be different but as Nikole Hannah Jones has pointed out, “blue” areas have some of the highest segregation in schools and (fairly well-off, white) liberal parents ALWAYS find 1,000 reasons to oppose plans to make schools less white/reflect area demographics whenever they are proposed.

Quoting a known liar and fabricator won’t help your cause.

It’s not my cause, which is why it’s all so amusing to me. I live in a blue area that had a “boundary scare” in the last few years.
So liberal! So progressive! So agitated when faced with the possibility that their “good schools” were in danger of lower test scores, reduced safety and smaller pool of compatible peers.
They all talk a good game about diversity, inclusion and equity… right up until it could affect them. Then they hop right over with the people talking that neighborhood school, success-starts-at-home talk.
It never fails and it’s funny every time.

Well that’s not actually what’s happening with Maury. Many of us send our older kids to Eliot-Hine. And of course Maury is more geniunely diverse than most elementary schools in the whole country.

The bigger hypocrites IMO are in the Mayor’s office - wringing their hands about poor Miner! Well we control the schools but there is NOTHING we can do directly except kick up dirt to make it seem the fault of white Maury parents! Whatever shall we do.

Thank you for bringing up another verse of this much-played song: The finger-pointing by the people charged with running the schools/city/institution. Just call everyone racist as your policies fail time and time again.
Folks are indignant when directed at them and can clearly see how the story is being spun, facts be damned. And a few weeks later will agree when the charge is leveled at some other convenient target during some other hubbub, never stopping to think that it could be unjustified.

[Anonymous]

What bothers me is the set up of Maury being the good school and Miner being the bad one, when Maury itself has some very real problems that aren’t being addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me is the set up of Maury being the good school and Miner being the bad one, when Maury itself has some very real problems that aren’t being addressed.

Say more--what's happening at Maury?