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: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

[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: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

It is about punishing Maury, because the obvious solution is to improve Miner by doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send them there. That alone would eliminate the discrepancy between the schools.

But DCPS doesn't want to fix that or make Miner a good school that high SES parents would send their kids to.

[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: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

It is about punishing Maury, because the obvious solution is to improve Miner by doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send them there. That alone would eliminate the discrepancy between the schools.

But DCPS doesn't want to fix that or make Miner a good school that high SES parents would send their kids to.

First, "doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send [kids to Miner]" is what the boundary review committee is doing -- within its remit -- by proposing a cluster. The committee is not in charge of, e.g., doubling the money per pupil being spent at Miner. They don't remotely have that authority. Second, for this committee, this is not just about improving Miner; rather, it's about the huge at risk v not at risk demographic differences between two neighboring schools. So, yes, adding at risk kids to Maury is one of the things it's aiming to do, but to view that explicitly as "punishing Maury" is pretty gross even if you disagree with it. (And I actually hate the cluster concept and think it's not working where it was implemented under mostly more favorable circumstances; geography is the only more favorable condition here, which is admittedly a big one.)

[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: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

It is about punishing Maury, because the obvious solution is to improve Miner by doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send them there. That alone would eliminate the discrepancy between the schools.

But DCPS doesn't want to fix that or make Miner a good school that high SES parents would send their kids to.

First, "doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send [kids to Miner]" is what the boundary review committee is doing -- within its remit -- by proposing a cluster. The committee is not in charge of, e.g., doubling the money per pupil being spent at Miner. They don't remotely have that authority. Second, for this committee, this is not just about improving Miner; rather, it's about the huge at risk v not at risk demographic differences between two neighboring schools. So, yes, adding at risk kids to Maury is one of the things it's aiming to do, but to view that explicitly as "punishing Maury" is pretty gross even if you disagree with it. (And I actually hate the cluster concept and think it's not working where it was implemented under mostly more favorable circumstances; geography is the only more favorable condition here, which is admittedly a big one.)

All of this. The martyrdom arguments really grate, especially for those of us at other DCPS schools in the neighborhood that already manage to do pretty well with much higher at risk populations than Maury. I have been disturbed by the comments along the lines of "they hate us 'cause they ain't us." Maury has a good reputation but there are lots of good elementary schools in this neighborhood. It's pretty obvious to me that Maury and Miner were singled out because of their close proximity and disparate populations, and not because of some weird vendetta against the Maury community. It's just a very weird argument.

[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: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

It is about punishing Maury, because the obvious solution is to improve Miner by doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send them there. That alone would eliminate the discrepancy between the schools.

But DCPS doesn't want to fix that or make Miner a good school that high SES parents would send their kids to.

First, "doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send [kids to Miner]" is what the boundary review committee is doing -- within its remit -- by proposing a cluster. The committee is not in charge of, e.g., doubling the money per pupil being spent at Miner. They don't remotely have that authority. Second, for this committee, this is not just about improving Miner; rather, it's about the huge at risk v not at risk demographic differences between two neighboring schools. So, yes, adding at risk kids to Maury is one of the things it's aiming to do, but to view that explicitly as "punishing Maury" is pretty gross even if you disagree with it. (And I actually hate the cluster concept and think it's not working where it was implemented under mostly more favorable circumstances; geography is the only more favorable condition here, which is admittedly a big one.)

No, they aren't doing anything to get parents to invest in Miner - they are eliminating Miner, as it is today, entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

It is about punishing Maury, because the obvious solution is to improve Miner by doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send them there. That alone would eliminate the discrepancy between the schools.

But DCPS doesn't want to fix that or make Miner a good school that high SES parents would send their kids to.

First, "doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send [kids to Miner]" is what the boundary review committee is doing -- within its remit -- by proposing a cluster. The committee is not in charge of, e.g., doubling the money per pupil being spent at Miner. They don't remotely have that authority. Second, for this committee, this is not just about improving Miner; rather, it's about the huge at risk v not at risk demographic differences between two neighboring schools. So, yes, adding at risk kids to Maury is one of the things it's aiming to do, but to view that explicitly as "punishing Maury" is pretty gross even if you disagree with it. (And I actually hate the cluster concept and think it's not working where it was implemented under mostly more favorable circumstances; geography is the only more favorable condition here, which is admittedly a big one.)

All of this. The martyrdom arguments really grate, especially for those of us at other DCPS schools in the neighborhood that already manage to do pretty well with much higher at risk populations than Maury. I have been disturbed by the comments along the lines of "they hate us 'cause they ain't us." Maury has a good reputation but there are lots of good elementary schools in this neighborhood. It's pretty obvious to me that Maury and Miner were singled out because of their close proximity and disparate populations, and not because of some weird vendetta against the Maury community. It's just a very weird argument.

Maury is proof that city schools can work. DCPS isn't a fan because it demonstrates how bad their leadership at other schools is.

[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: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

Is DME's job to develop and implement "the Mayor's vision for academic excellence and creating a high-quality education continuum from birth to 24 (from early childhood to K-12 to post-secondary and the workforce)" or is it mainly balance demographics? Both Miner and Maury parents are saying that their schools are presently not doing a good job at ensuring "academic excellence" and yet DME's response is just to focus on demographic balancing without addressing these concerns??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

It is about punishing Maury, because the obvious solution is to improve Miner by doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send them there. That alone would eliminate the discrepancy between the schools.

But DCPS doesn't want to fix that or make Miner a good school that high SES parents would send their kids to.

First, "doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send [kids to Miner]" is what the boundary review committee is doing -- within its remit -- by proposing a cluster. The committee is not in charge of, e.g., doubling the money per pupil being spent at Miner. They don't remotely have that authority. Second, for this committee, this is not just about improving Miner; rather, it's about the huge at risk v not at risk demographic differences between two neighboring schools. So, yes, adding at risk kids to Maury is one of the things it's aiming to do, but to view that explicitly as "punishing Maury" is pretty gross even if you disagree with it. (And I actually hate the cluster concept and think it's not working where it was implemented under mostly more favorable circumstances; geography is the only more favorable condition here, which is admittedly a big one.)

All of this. The martyrdom arguments really grate, especially for those of us at other DCPS schools in the neighborhood that already manage to do pretty well with much higher at risk populations than Maury. I have been disturbed by the comments along the lines of "they hate us 'cause they ain't us." Maury has a good reputation but there are lots of good elementary schools in this neighborhood. It's pretty obvious to me that Maury and Miner were singled out because of their close proximity and disparate populations, and not because of some weird vendetta against the Maury community. It's just a very weird argument.

This is exactly the point I'm making. Maury isn't doing that great of a job with its current small at-risk population. It's not even doing a great job with it's current non at-risk population. Students are succeeding because their parents are putting in extra effort beyond what is happening in the class. It's all smoke and mirrors. Add more at-risk and you'll see how Maury isn't that great of a school. Good luck to those Miner families who are hoping for better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

Boy that’s quite the hypocrisy when you said yourself you wouldn’t send a kid to Miner. But then again there have been numerous pro-cluster folks who send their kids to school in Bethesda instead of Miner …/

[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: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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

As has been raised on DCUM repeatedly, the DME’s sometimes absurd results-oriented constraints that leave a Maury-Miner cluster as the only possible option in fact make it seem like Maury is being targeted. That and the fact that influential education advocates have been targeting Maury for a cluster for many years. It’s not some conspiracy theory particularly about Maury per se, but it seems very likely to me that this whole proposal arose specifically from policy entrepreneurs who see Maury as a great way to make a point. The main way I see this is the DME’s absurd insistence that there is no way to achieve significant balance through redrawing the boundaries; and the fact that they created arbitrary cut-offs that excluded any other school pairings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

There is definitely a fundamental disconnect somewhere, because in particular I have not seen any "public meltdowns" by the anti-cluster people on MOTH. I have seen pro-cluster people on MOTH freely insinuate that anyone opposed must be a racist, and responses to that that have been pretty measured, considering.

I've seen embarrassing behavior from people on both sides, but the anger and reactivity of the people opposed to the cluster has appeared more personal to me. And I say that as an outsider who would never send my kid to Miner and have always thought of Maury as a great school with a great school community, and went into the debate inclined to agree with opposition.

I have almost reached a point of thinking the cluster needs to happen because I think a lot of people have revealed their fundamental discomfort with some of the realities of DCPS and with living in a pretty socio-economically diverse neighborhood.

The cluster was always meant in many ways to punish Maury for having a successful school (the only way to close the achievement gap is by pulling down the top), so your coming around to this side for the same reasons is fitting.

I don't think this is true, at all, having read and listened to the DME explanations of the cluster.

The fact that some of you keep saying this -- that the cluster is some kind of punishment for Maury being successful -- is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say this stuff is embarrassing to watch.

Especially when it is followed by the argument that the cluster is a mistake because Maury has a bunch of issues of their own to fix.

Which is it? Is Maury so successful that the DME got mad and decided to punish the school? Or is it floundering in upper grades and struggling with math and the cluster will make it hard for them to solve these issues?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cluster proposal has less to do with Maury specifically and is exactly what the DME says it is -- a plan to address a wide discrepancy in enrollment between two neighboring schools. You can agree or disagree with that goal, but I tend to believe that the DME is doing exactly what they say they are doing -- trying to balance the demographics of nearby schools with a cluster. This is a common goal of boundary studies in pretty much all school districts, and is also often a subject of hot debate because it virtually always results in high-SES families being forced into boundaries with low-SES families. Nothing about this situation indicates that Maury is the target of some kind of political vendetta.

It is about punishing Maury, because the obvious solution is to improve Miner by doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send them there. That alone would eliminate the discrepancy between the schools.

But DCPS doesn't want to fix that or make Miner a good school that high SES parents would send their kids to.

First, "doing everything possible to get its in bounds parents to send [kids to Miner]" is what the boundary review committee is doing -- within its remit -- by proposing a cluster. The committee is not in charge of, e.g., doubling the money per pupil being spent at Miner. They don't remotely have that authority. Second, for this committee, this is not just about improving Miner; rather, it's about the huge at risk v not at risk demographic differences between two neighboring schools. So, yes, adding at risk kids to Maury is one of the things it's aiming to do, but to view that explicitly as "punishing Maury" is pretty gross even if you disagree with it. (And I actually hate the cluster concept and think it's not working where it was implemented under mostly more favorable circumstances; geography is the only more favorable condition here, which is admittedly a big one.)

All of this. The martyrdom arguments really grate, especially for those of us at other DCPS schools in the neighborhood that already manage to do pretty well with much higher at risk populations than Maury. I have been disturbed by the comments along the lines of "they hate us 'cause they ain't us." Maury has a good reputation but there are lots of good elementary schools in this neighborhood. It's pretty obvious to me that Maury and Miner were singled out because of their close proximity and disparate populations, and not because of some weird vendetta against the Maury community. It's just a very weird argument.

This is exactly the point I'm making. Maury isn't doing that great of a job with its current small at-risk population. It's not even doing a great job with it's current non at-risk population. Students are succeeding because their parents are putting in extra effort beyond what is happening in the class. It's all smoke and mirrors. Add more at-risk and you'll see how Maury isn't that great of a school. Good luck to those Miner families who are hoping for better.

I would say Maury does very good job up to 2nd grade then it becomes more difficult. By 5th grade and a complete lack of continuity in teaching staff and no expertise in upper grades and behavioral supports, and budgetary constraints forcing hard choices about allocating funds for remediation/SN, and it’s actively troubled. I expect a cluster would end up exactly like Peabody/Watkins - tons of buy in for ECE and plummeting IB for upper grades, and a concomitant end to the fragile buy-in trend at EH.

[Anonymous]

Maury has a lot of behavioral issues in the upper grades, and most of the problem kids are the high SES inbounds kids. I’m not sure if clustering will make this problem better, or worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maury has a lot of behavioral issues in the upper grades, and most of the problem kids are the high SES inbounds kids. I’m not sure if clustering will make this problem better, or worse.

clustering with no additional support & loss of title 1 funds will make it much worse.