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

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Didn't Maury have the lowest funding per student in the city last year?

The renovation number is a glitzy eye candy for a narrative but it was necessary as the size of the student population exploded. Hell, it's full now. It's not like the students received a renovation just because.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Didn't Maury have the lowest funding per student in the city last year?

The renovation number is a glitzy eye candy for a narrative but it was necessary as the size of the student population exploded. Hell, it's full now. It's not like the students received a renovation just because.....

Also totally ignores that Miner got a new building in 2003.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Didn't Maury have the lowest funding per student in the city last year?

The renovation number is a glitzy eye candy for a narrative but it was necessary as the size of the student population exploded. Hell, it's full now. It's not like the students received a renovation just because.....

Yes, the modernization allowed Maury to expand (including more OOB at risk students!) Stupid narrative that claims this means Maury got preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Didn't Maury have the lowest funding per student in the city last year?

The renovation number is a glitzy eye candy for a narrative but it was necessary as the size of the student population exploded. Hell, it's full now. It's not like the students received a renovation just because.....

Also totally ignores that Miner got a new building in 2003.

Miner facilities are a lot nicer than Maury in some ways - ECE playground, the big field.

[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.

I agree that the "punishing Maury" comments come off a little silly (though in fairness I think I have only heard them on anonymous fora, so who knows who is making them). It is maybe a clumsy way of saying that DME and DCPS are more interested in cooking the books rather than actually improving educational outcomes -- e.g., "closing the gap" by capping the top rather than bringing up the bottom, turning one school with good test scores and one school with dreadful test scores into one school with mediocre-to-okay test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

The point is that DCPS has failed Maury, and now DME is trying to cover up that failure simply by merging two schools. Why not address the real problems? What makes anyone think that combining these two schools fill fix problems like ensuring a stable administration? That's not something that is fixed by demographic balancing??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Don't twist what is said. The op-ed simply states that Maury got a $52 million renovation while Miner struggles with basics like a functional PA system and usable field space. That's not an attack on Maury, it's a perfect illustration of how DCPS, and DC generally, tend to handle facilities issues -- they love to cut a ribbon on a brand new school, field, rec center, etc., but they are terrible at maintenance and essentially abandon facilities at a certain point, figuring they are past the point of repair and they'll just rebuild them later.

I say this as a parent at a neighboring school that is in horrible disrepair and has been for years, but because we are slated for a full-scale renovation in a couple years, good luck getting them to fix basic stuff like malfunctioning heating systems, and toilets/sinks/water fountains that work for maybe two months out of every 12. DC is horrible at maintaining buildings, and that's why Maury is nicer than Miner. It's just newer. Soon Maury will also start to fall apart and the city won't do anything about that either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Don't twist what is said. The op-ed simply states that Maury got a $52 million renovation while Miner struggles with basics like a functional PA system and usable field space. That's not an attack on Maury, it's a perfect illustration of how DCPS, and DC generally, tend to handle facilities issues -- they love to cut a ribbon on a brand new school, field, rec center, etc., but they are terrible at maintenance and essentially abandon facilities at a certain point, figuring they are past the point of repair and they'll just rebuild them later.

I say this as a parent at a neighboring school that is in horrible disrepair and has been for years, but because we are slated for a full-scale renovation in a couple years, good luck getting them to fix basic stuff like malfunctioning heating systems, and toilets/sinks/water fountains that work for maybe two months out of every 12. DC is horrible at maintaining buildings, and that's why Maury is nicer than Miner. It's just newer. Soon Maury will also start to fall apart and the city won't do anything about that either.

Sad but true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Don't twist what is said. The op-ed simply states that Maury got a $52 million renovation while Miner struggles with basics like a functional PA system and usable field space. That's not an attack on Maury, it's a perfect illustration of how DCPS, and DC generally, tend to handle facilities issues -- they love to cut a ribbon on a brand new school, field, rec center, etc., but they are terrible at maintenance and essentially abandon facilities at a certain point, figuring they are past the point of repair and they'll just rebuild them later.

I say this as a parent at a neighboring school that is in horrible disrepair and has been for years, but because we are slated for a full-scale renovation in a couple years, good luck getting them to fix basic stuff like malfunctioning heating systems, and toilets/sinks/water fountains that work for maybe two months out of every 12. DC is horrible at maintaining buildings, and that's why Maury is nicer than Miner. It's just newer. Soon Maury will also start to fall apart and the city won't do anything about that either.

No, it clearly implies that there is a funding disparity between the schools, which there absolutely is not. Miner was not due for a modernization, Maury was. And now the modernization of the old Miner building is underway. I will concede that it’s possible that Maury parents on the margin are more able to be a squeaky wheel to get maintenance attention. But if so, isn’t that DCPS’s fault for not having a better system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/any-school-fail-without-adequate-support/

Good op ed except the suggestion that Maury get preferential funding is false.

Don't twist what is said. The op-ed simply states that Maury got a $52 million renovation while Miner struggles with basics like a functional PA system and usable field space. That's not an attack on Maury, it's a perfect illustration of how DCPS, and DC generally, tend to handle facilities issues -- they love to cut a ribbon on a brand new school, field, rec center, etc., but they are terrible at maintenance and essentially abandon facilities at a certain point, figuring they are past the point of repair and they'll just rebuild them later.

I say this as a parent at a neighboring school that is in horrible disrepair and has been for years, but because we are slated for a full-scale renovation in a couple years, good luck getting them to fix basic stuff like malfunctioning heating systems, and toilets/sinks/water fountains that work for maybe two months out of every 12. DC is horrible at maintaining buildings, and that's why Maury is nicer than Miner. It's just newer. Soon Maury will also start to fall apart and the city won't do anything about that either.

No, it clearly implies that there is a funding disparity between the schools, which there absolutely is not. Miner was not due for a modernization, Maury was. And now the modernization of the old Miner building is underway. I will concede that it’s possible that Maury parents on the margin are more able to be a squeaky wheel to get maintenance attention. But if so, isn’t that DCPS’s fault for not having a better system?

It does not "clearly imply" this, and the only reason you think so is because you want to jump all over anyone advocating on behalf of Miner as attacking Maury. Name the language that implies a funding disparity? There is none. You are reading something into it because of your own defensiveness.

It's absolutely an embarrassment that DCPS can't even provide Miner students with baseline technology or a functional exercise field. The fact that the city will tout Maury's modernization (which they absolutely will, as an example of their investment in education) while ignoring the fact that a school 3 blocks away doesn't even have a functional PA system is emblematic of a school district, and city government, that regularly papers over it's own incompetence by pointing to something shiny and new nearby.

[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.

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

Except there are numerous comments in this thread that Maury is actually failing kids in the upper grades and that the only reason test scores at Maury remain as high as they are is because the school has a lot of high-SES families who can supplement and support at home.

Also, I'd argue that there are schools more successful than Maury in DC, including in Ward 6, and DCPS isn't clustering them.

Increasingly it seems like both Miner and Maury have issues and maybe a cluster is a good idea as it would enable them to both pool resources and boundaries (and IB families) to see if they can address them together as they have been unable to address them apart. It certainly does not seem that Maury is some kind of paragon of public education that DCPS is destroying out of spite. Brent's test scores are just as high, L-T does a better job of education at risk kids, Tyler's immersion program is well-respected, SWS and CHMS both fill niches in the city and remain in high demand among parents who want those approaches. There's really nothing special about Maury.

[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:

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.

Except there are numerous comments in this thread that Maury is actually failing kids in the upper grades and that the only reason test scores at Maury remain as high as they are is because the school has a lot of high-SES families who can supplement and support at home.

Also, I'd argue that there are schools more successful than Maury in DC, including in Ward 6, and DCPS isn't clustering them.

Increasingly it seems like both Miner and Maury have issues and maybe a cluster is a good idea as it would enable them to both pool resources and boundaries (and IB families) to see if they can address them together as they have been unable to address them apart. It certainly does not seem that Maury is some kind of paragon of public education that DCPS is destroying out of spite. Brent's test scores are just as high, L-T does a better job of education at risk kids, Tyler's immersion program is well-respected, SWS and CHMS both fill niches in the city and remain in high demand among parents who want those approaches. There's really nothing special about Maury.

the only way a cluster could improve upper grades would be with a laser focus on academics and evidence based instruction, including some degree of tracking. not going to happen, as we all know. about everything else takes priority over basics like reading, writing & math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Except there are numerous comments in this thread that Maury is actually failing kids in the upper grades and that the only reason test scores at Maury remain as high as they are is because the school has a lot of high-SES families who can supplement and support at home.

Also, I'd argue that there are schools more successful than Maury in DC, including in Ward 6, and DCPS isn't clustering them.

Increasingly it seems like both Miner and Maury have issues and maybe a cluster is a good idea as it would enable them to both pool resources and boundaries (and IB families) to see if they can address them together as they have been unable to address them apart. It certainly does not seem that Maury is some kind of paragon of public education that DCPS is destroying out of spite. Brent's test scores are just as high, L-T does a better job of education at risk kids, Tyler's immersion program is well-respected, SWS and CHMS both fill niches in the city and remain in high demand among parents who want those approaches. There's really nothing special about Maury.

I don’t understand this argument for the cluster at all. If both schools have issues, why would putting them together be a solution? Wouldn’t that just create more issues? And DCPS cannot seem to solve the issues that currently exist at each school; wouldn’t it be easier for them to address the different issues at each school? Or even if that isn’t easier, the cluster shouldn’t be implemented as a tool if it isn’t going to improve anything especially given the many logistical issues it is going to cause for families.

I also think that the many of the issues people have referenced at Maury are in later grades. A cluster would exacerbate those issues given the likely significant attrition that will happen when there is a transition from one school to the other as we see with Peabody and Watkins.