Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the recommendations of the DME don’t go to the Council?

The recommendations go to the Mayor, who is in charge of DCPS (through a school chancellor she appoints and who serves at her pleasure). The council has no governing authority over DCPS.

The mayor can order adoption of the DME's recommendations or not.

Won't stop the usual suspects from continuing to blame Charles Allen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the recommendations of the DME don’t go to the Council?

The recommendations go to the Mayor, who is in charge of DCPS (through a school chancellor she appoints and who serves at her pleasure). The council has no governing authority over DCPS.

The mayor can order adoption of the DME's recommendations or not.

Won't stop the usual suspects from continuing to blame Charles Allen

Charles Allen certainly could very publicly lobby for DME/the mayor to heed any community consensus that emerges (though of course there is the possibility that the consensus of two school communities will diverge), or at least lobby for a different process that acknowledges community concerns with how fast this process seems, how ill-thought out the logistics are, and other process problems (not least, that Miner still has not been given a school meeting).

[Anonymous]

We can safely assume that Charles Allen will support ruining Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watching DME talk through the absolute lack of details, logistics or understanding of how the cluster plan would be implemented or impact students is eroding whatever misguided confidence I had in DCPS.

This was disturbing. They literally said they had no details on implementing the cluster idea, hadn’t thought about practicalities, timing, staffing, facilities…and that they’d figure it out AFTER deciding if it was a feasible plan.

But how do you decide something is “feasible” without thinking about the specifics? What does “feasible” even mean then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watching DME talk through the absolute lack of details, logistics or understanding of how the cluster plan would be implemented or impact students is eroding whatever misguided confidence I had in DCPS.

This was disturbing. They literally said they had no details on implementing the cluster idea, hadn’t thought about practicalities, timing, staffing, facilities…and that they’d figure it out AFTER deciding if it was a feasible plan.

But how do you decide something is “feasible” without thinking about the specifics? What does “feasible” even mean then?

“feasible” means that it makes their demographics look better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, Tyler was better than all of them. And SWS is atrocious.

Lol. Tyler, the school no one mentions in this thread. Spanish immersion, and still doing better than all the rest.

And will only go higher as it turns into an opt in school for those with proximity preference (and will be the next to lose Title 1)

Proximity preference only applies if you live closer to that school than your in bounds school - which does not apply to a lot of houses in that boundary. However it is a pretty large building with a pretty small boundary, so it may continue to have OOB seats either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the recommendations of the DME don’t go to the Council?

The recommendations go to the Mayor, who is in charge of DCPS (through a school chancellor she appoints and who serves at her pleasure). The council has no governing authority over DCPS.

The mayor can order adoption of the DME's recommendations or not.

Won't stop the usual suspects from continuing to blame Charles Allen

Charles Allen certainly could very publicly lobby for DME/the mayor to heed any community consensus that emerges (though of course there is the possibility that the consensus of two school communities will diverge), or at least lobby for a different process that acknowledges community concerns with how fast this process seems, how ill-thought out the logistics are, and other process problems (not least, that Miner still has not been given a school meeting).

They have said multiple times, and Paul Kihn repeated tonight that they reached out to all schools at the same time over a month ago. They are also holding meetings with schools in other wards, and have had other meetings with school leaders ahead of community meetings (https://dme.dc.gov/node/1688576). Payne has not had their meeting yet, nor has Tyler. Obviously the Maury/Miner topic has people more emotional, but it does not seem like an intentional slight.

[Anonymous]

Wow, this is a really hard and hurtful thread to read as a Watkins parent. My child is thriving at Watkins. I’m happy to talk to anyone about the many great things going on at Watkins. Karen Pence, [e-mail].

[Anonymous]

I hadn't appreciated how much smaller the Peabody/Watkins cluster is than the proposed Maury/Miner pair. Total enrollment across both Peabody and Watkins for SY22-23 is 584. For the same period, combined enrollment at Maury and Miner was 895. There are only five schools in all of DCPS that are larger than that (CHEC, Coolidge, Deal, Roosevelt, JR). (It's also considerably larger, incidentally, than the suburban NoVa elementary school I attended.) Lafayette is almost that size, but I've always thought of that as a pretty huge elementary school. This would profoundly change a lot that is great about Maury.

[Anonymous]

Did they talk any more about this “at risk” set aside idea? The first I saw of it as a proposal being considered (opposed to an idea raised in q&a) was tonight but I jumped off before the session ended.

I really like this idea, FWIW. I was struck that it could be applied to dozens of schools across DC— and so it could help a lot more students than just those around Maury/Miner. (And presumably do more towards their overall goals than just focus on one neighborhood). Overall, it seems waaaay less complicated, with no need of thinking of cluster logistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is a really hard and hurtful thread to read as a Watkins parent. My child is thriving at Watkins. I’m happy to talk to anyone about the many great things going on at Watkins. Karen Pence, [e-mail].

I am sure that many kids are having wonderful experiences at Watkins, and I'm sorry you've been hurt by this thread. Thank you for reaching out. I'm curious -- are there ways that you think the clustering itself is a boon to your experience, or do you think your experience would be at least as good if Watkins began in PK3? Aside from any other issue, I'm one of the ones really stuck on the logistics/commute issues and have been having a hard time understanding the positives of this solution (which would really complicate pick-up and drop-off and significantly lengthen commutes for my family) versus others such as at-risk set asides for lottery seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is a really hard and hurtful thread to read as a Watkins parent. My child is thriving at Watkins. I’m happy to talk to anyone about the many great things going on at Watkins. Karen Pence, [e-mail].

Karen, mom of a first grader, has entered the chat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the recommendations of the DME don’t go to the Council?

The recommendations go to the Mayor, who is in charge of DCPS (through a school chancellor she appoints and who serves at her pleasure). The council has no governing authority over DCPS.

The mayor can order adoption of the DME's recommendations or not.

Won't stop the usual suspects from continuing to blame Charles Allen

Charles Allen certainly could very publicly lobby for DME/the mayor to heed any community consensus that emerges (though of course there is the possibility that the consensus of two school communities will diverge), or at least lobby for a different process that acknowledges community concerns with how fast this process seems, how ill-thought out the logistics are, and other process problems (not least, that Miner still has not been given a school meeting).

They have said multiple times, and Paul Kihn repeated tonight that they reached out to all schools at the same time over a month ago. They are also holding meetings with schools in other wards, and have had other meetings with school leaders ahead of community meetings (https://dme.dc.gov/node/1688576). Payne has not had their meeting yet, nor has Tyler. Obviously the Maury/Miner topic has people more emotional, but it does not seem like an intentional slight.

It may not be an intentional slight -- I certainly don't think DME cares about Maury parents more than Miner parents or anything like that -- but it is pretty bizarre in the context of this boundary study. The study launched back in March and the final town halls are December 12-14. I cannot understand why a proposal that would so profoundly impact two school communities (and that no one, as far as I can tell, has been asking for) was not brought to us much earlier in the process. As it is, the Advisory Committee will meet tomorrow for the last time before the final town halls without the benefit of DME having even talked to Miner yet.

[Anonymous]

Tyler parents won’t even know what’s going on until January!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is a really hard and hurtful thread to read as a Watkins parent. My child is thriving at Watkins. I’m happy to talk to anyone about the many great things going on at Watkins. Karen Pence, [e-mail].

Is this really the first time you are learning that many people on the Hill don’t think Watkins is a great school?!