Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advisory Committee member here. Yes, we began meeting before summer, you can see what was discussed at each meeting here https://dme.dc.gov/page/2023-advisory-committee-student-assignment-meetings. There was a lot of work we did in late spring and early fall before these scenarios were drafted and school meetings were scheduled last month. There were several rounds of town halls to help give feedback and provide input along the way. One in May, and one in September. You can watch previous townhalls here, https://dme.dc.gov/page/dc-public-education-boundary-and-student-assignment-study-2023-town-halls. For those of you reading this thread, I do recommend spreading the word about the townhalls next week.

Plans like this don’t come from Advisory Committee meetings and townhalls. It was dreamed up in a DME office and pushed to you.

[Anonymous]

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

Do you live IB? Presumably your goal would be to persuade IB parents of Watkins quality so they would send their kids there. Watkins is at 33% IB and Maury is 84% (albeit upper grades lower, but still much higher than 1/3). Maury is demonstrably thriving as is, and Watkins is not getting the same buy-in. Maury parents reasonably do not want to change to a model that fewer people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a Miner parent in the Q&A tonight who said the Maury townhall commentary was "hurtful," and I didn't really understand that either. I feel like the commentary I've heard has been frank about the challenges Miner has faced -- none of which are the fault of its students -- and the challenges that people think would face the proposed cluster, but I haven't seen anything derogatory about Miner students or families.

I feel the same way, though I think some of it comes from feeling like the Maury community is “rejecting” partnering with Miner, but that’s not the overriding message I’ve been hearing at all. And I feel sad that this is how it’s being taken. I’ve tried to be really involved about listening to this plan and the reasoning but I just cannot get over the lack of detail on implementation, nor the stress it will likely personally bring me if we have kids in multiple schools.

And from other parents, I’m hearing the same concerns about total lack of detail on a pretty big plan and increased stress about commutes/drop off— on top of some people feeling exasperated that they may literally live outside one school but won’t even get to go there for half of elementary school.

Agree. I’m a Maury parent and I’ve been in a LOT of conversations with Maury folks about this over the past two weeks and I simply have not heard Maury parents “rejecting” Miner or being snooty about it or any of the accusations that are being levied. If Miner parents feel that way, that is awful and I empathize with them. But the blame lies with DME for rolling this out in a way that feels like Maury is the only voice that matters, not on Maury parents who I have not heard express hurtful sentiments.

It may not have been you saying these things , but the way some people on here, at last night's meeting, and in the Maury meeting were talking was not welcoming at all. Obsessing over test scores and what would happen if some of the at risk students at Miner interacted and learned with your Maury kids was talked about at length. Threatening to move rather than walk three blocks to their school in such a horrible neighborhood (when many already do this for ECE). Focusing on time commuting to new drop offs, while saying they will leave to enter the lottery of a school which is even further away. Just to name a few, but it is naive to think those things would not be at least a little hurtful to the school down the street

Hang on. I’m sympathetic, I really am, but these things simply were not said. No one said anything about “what would happen if some of the at risk students at Miner interacted and learned with Maury kids,” or that it was “such a horrible neighborhood.” I copied and saved a document of all of the questions asked in the chat (not just the ones that Charles read out loud), and what you are claiming simply isn’t there. Yes, people asked for data, and yes, people asked about safety. Those are not invalid questions to at least discuss.

And focus on commuting time is neither invalid nor hypothetical. Most families have more than one kid, so it’s not only a question of additional travel time to one school, it’s a question of two drop-offs and two pick-ups when your kids aren’t in the same school. I don’t know why people keep brushing that off. As it is, it’s a mad rush for me to drop the kids off at one school, get to work on time, and hustle out of work to be back on the hill to pick up before aftercare closes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a Miner parent in the Q&A tonight who said the Maury townhall commentary was "hurtful," and I didn't really understand that either. I feel like the commentary I've heard has been frank about the challenges Miner has faced -- none of which are the fault of its students -- and the challenges that people think would face the proposed cluster, but I haven't seen anything derogatory about Miner students or families.

I feel the same way, though I think some of it comes from feeling like the Maury community is “rejecting” partnering with Miner, but that’s not the overriding message I’ve been hearing at all. And I feel sad that this is how it’s being taken. I’ve tried to be really involved about listening to this plan and the reasoning but I just cannot get over the lack of detail on implementation, nor the stress it will likely personally bring me if we have kids in multiple schools.

And from other parents, I’m hearing the same concerns about total lack of detail on a pretty big plan and increased stress about commutes/drop off— on top of some people feeling exasperated that they may literally live outside one school but won’t even get to go there for half of elementary school.

Agree. I’m a Maury parent and I’ve been in a LOT of conversations with Maury folks about this over the past two weeks and I simply have not heard Maury parents “rejecting” Miner or being snooty about it or any of the accusations that are being levied. If Miner parents feel that way, that is awful and I empathize with them. But the blame lies with DME for rolling this out in a way that feels like Maury is the only voice that matters, not on Maury parents who I have not heard express hurtful sentiments.

It may not have been you saying these things , but the way some people on here, at last night's meeting, and in the Maury meeting were talking was not welcoming at all. Obsessing over test scores and what would happen if some of the at risk students at Miner interacted and learned with your Maury kids was talked about at length. Threatening to move rather than walk three blocks to their school in such a horrible neighborhood (when many already do this for ECE). Focusing on time commuting to new drop offs, while saying they will leave to enter the lottery of a school which is even further away. Just to name a few, but it is naive to think those things would not be at least a little hurtful to the school down the street

Hang on. I’m sympathetic, I really am, but these things simply were not said. No one said anything about “what would happen if some of the at risk students at Miner interacted and learned with Maury kids,” or that it was “such a horrible neighborhood.” I copied and saved a document of all of the questions asked in the chat (not just the ones that Charles read out loud), and what you are claiming simply isn’t there. Yes, people asked for data, and yes, people asked about safety. Those are not invalid questions to at least discuss.

And focus on commuting time is neither invalid nor hypothetical. Most families have more than one kid, so it’s not only a question of additional travel time to one school, it’s a question of two drop-offs and two pick-ups when your kids aren’t in the same school. I don’t know why people keep brushing that off. As it is, it’s a mad rush for me to drop the kids off at one school, get to work on time, and hustle out of work to be back on the hill to pick up before aftercare closes.

To the extent people asked about safety, it goes without saying that the Miner families deserve safety too. DC needs to clean up the Starburst. It’s honestly shocking sometimes to drive into town down Bladensburg and see the deterioration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advisory Committee member here. Yes, we began meeting before summer, you can see what was discussed at each meeting here https://dme.dc.gov/page/2023-advisory-committee-student-assignment-meetings. There was a lot of work we did in late spring and early fall before these scenarios were drafted and school meetings were scheduled last month. There were several rounds of town halls to help give feedback and provide input along the way. One in May, and one in September. You can watch previous townhalls here, https://dme.dc.gov/page/dc-public-education-boundary-and-student-assignment-study-2023-town-halls. For those of you reading this thread, I do recommend spreading the word about the townhalls next week.

I love how none of these links work. It exemplifies this entire boundary meeting experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you even attend the meeting? I have been very vocally, openly critical of Charles for plenty of things in the past, including to his face at town halls and office hours, but he literally opened the meeting by saying he did not support the proposal and had not heard the data that would justify it.

Plus I give him credit for forcing DME to present to the entire ward instead of doing it school by school, which has resulted in nothing but confusion and feelings of being left out. Now we can see that DME incompetence is ward-wide and not just pertaining to a particular school.

[Anonymous]

My main take-away is that there are so many issues left to be considered that I have no idea why DME thinks this last set of town halls should be final, and that recommendations will be ready by March. If it took them 6 months just to get to this stage, it should take them at least 2 years to be able to answer all the questions raised and provide the data needed. They are no where near the recommendation stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you even attend the meeting? I have been very vocally, openly critical of Charles for plenty of things in the past, including to his face at town halls and office hours, but he literally opened the meeting by saying he did not support the proposal and had not heard the data that would justify it.

I stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you live IB? Presumably your goal would be to persuade IB parents of Watkins quality so they would send their kids there. Watkins is at 33% IB and Maury is 84% (albeit upper grades lower, but still much higher than 1/3). Maury is demonstrably thriving as is, and Watkins is not getting the same buy-in. Maury parents reasonably do not want to change to a model that fewer people want.

+1. Why does Watkins have such little IB buy-in? Maybe Karen can explain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advisory Committee member here. Yes, we began meeting before summer, you can see what was discussed at each meeting here https://dme.dc.gov/page/2023-advisory-committee-student-assignment-meetings. There was a lot of work we did in late spring and early fall before these scenarios were drafted and school meetings were scheduled last month. There were several rounds of town halls to help give feedback and provide input along the way. One in May, and one in September. You can watch previous townhalls here, https://dme.dc.gov/page/dc-public-education-boundary-and-student-assignment-study-2023-town-halls. For those of you reading this thread, I do recommend spreading the word about the townhalls next week.

I love how none of these links work. It exemplifies this entire boundary meeting experience.

I believe this is an issue of DCUM shortening links, it is very easy to find these pages if you just Google DME boundary study.

[Anonymous]

The Brent discussion made zero sense. The reason for shrinking the boundary is to alleviate over-crowding, and yet there is no overcrowding currently, nor any projected overcrowding because of the renovation? What on earth???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you live IB? Presumably your goal would be to persuade IB parents of Watkins quality so they would send their kids there. Watkins is at 33% IB and Maury is 84% (albeit upper grades lower, but still much higher than 1/3). Maury is demonstrably thriving as is, and Watkins is not getting the same buy-in. Maury parents reasonably do not want to change to a model that fewer people want.

+1. Why does Watkins have such little IB buy-in? Maybe Karen can explain?

Not Karen but I wonder if the cluster model actually is a big reason for the anomalously low and decreasing IB rate at Watkins. I know that for us at Maury, a lot of school community and culture was built up from PK3 on looking up to the older kids and all their traditions like PARCC popsicles and the 5th grade fundraisers. So even though school gets higher stakes and more complex as kids get older the transition is natural. But for a cluster you have no continuity and you have nothing to look forward to being one of the “big kids” at the school. So many more families just peel off after Peabody for other solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you live IB? Presumably your goal would be to persuade IB parents of Watkins quality so they would send their kids there. Watkins is at 33% IB and Maury is 84% (albeit upper grades lower, but still much higher than 1/3). Maury is demonstrably thriving as is, and Watkins is not getting the same buy-in. Maury parents reasonably do not want to change to a model that fewer people want.

+1. Why does Watkins have such little IB buy-in? Maybe Karen can explain?

There is also clear selection bias, because Watkins families are following this process. Considering many families at impacted schools did not know about the proposals until very recently, I doubt families at charters and privates are aware of them. Families that opted out of Watkins have moved on and are likely not attending these meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Brent discussion made zero sense. The reason for shrinking the boundary is to alleviate over-crowding, and yet there is no overcrowding currently, nor any projected overcrowding because of the renovation? What on earth???

A Brent-Tyler *optional* cluster is one of the few ideas that might make sense since so many Hill families prize language immersion. Was there any discussion of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you live IB? Presumably your goal would be to persuade IB parents of Watkins quality so they would send their kids there. Watkins is at 33% IB and Maury is 84% (albeit upper grades lower, but still much higher than 1/3). Maury is demonstrably thriving as is, and Watkins is not getting the same buy-in. Maury parents reasonably do not want to change to a model that fewer people want.

+1. Why does Watkins have such little IB buy-in? Maybe Karen can explain?

Not Karen but I wonder if the cluster model actually is a big reason for the anomalously low and decreasing IB rate at Watkins. I know that for us at Maury, a lot of school community and culture was built up from PK3 on looking up to the older kids and all their traditions like PARCC popsicles and the 5th grade fundraisers. So even though school gets higher stakes and more complex as kids get older the transition is natural. But for a cluster you have no continuity and you have nothing to look forward to being one of the “big kids” at the school. So many more families just peel off after Peabody for other solutions.

I can only imagine this would be even more challenging with a school as large as the Miner-Maury cluster would be. The sense of community that encourages people to stay would be hard to maintain with so many families.