Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, a bunch of parents who would never send their kids to Miner (or akkkkshually, really considered it but of course didn’t go there) have joined the chat to get butt hurt and offended on somebody else’s behalf over made up offenses that ignore the actual concerns of parents.

Totally predictable that the white saviors have arrived here to save the day, armed only with their emotions and zero facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, a bunch of parents who would never send their kids to Miner (or akkkkshually, really considered it but of course didn’t go there) have joined the chat to get butt hurt and offended on somebody else’s behalf over made up offenses that ignore the actual concerns of parents.

Maybe they would send their kids to Miner if it was clustered with Maury, though.

[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: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.

No, there is continuity. When my PK3 was at Peabody, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the kindergartners. When he moved to Watkins, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the 5th graders. You are coming at this with the perspective of a parent rather than as an actual kid in the cluster.

Not a Peabody/Watkins parent but the bolded is an incredibly useful point that I think a lot more people in this thread could stand to think about.

I mean the parents are making the decisions, so it kind of does matter …

Yes, but it helps if parents aren't projecting things on to kids that aren't actually the case.

Am I imaging the homicides?

The homicides are clearly a huge, tragic problem, but it's not helpful to bring crime up in the context of the boundary discussion. Students will continue to attend Miner regardless of the outcome of this process and they all deserve a safe environment and commute.

Students absolutely all deserve a safe environment and commute 100%. Crime is too high all around capitol hill tbh.

It seems to me that a cluster would likely result in increased commutes. Kids IB for miner would be going to maury, and kids ib for maury would be going to miner, and families with two kids are maybe having to go to both. I don't know if there would be a way to do it, but i wonder if there are studies that could be done on how much that extra time commuting would increase crimes on commuting parents/kids in either boundary. it seems like a longer walking commute would make you more vulnerable and if youre having to take a car now you might be vulnerable to carjacking where you werent before when you were just walking. i would be interested to see data like this before being asked to decide if this idea is feasible.

Also i have been wondering how much more people would need to or choose to drive their kids to school. I think the streets around the schools are already too dangerous in the mornings with the kids walking and all the cars driving in. I'd like to see a study or data on things like this. seems like they need to look into a lot more things before they even present ideas like this.

Alternatively, I wonder if more intermixing of the community between Maury and Miner boundaries would decrease crime, as it would get people more invested in and involved in the broader community, including the parts of their neighborhood Maury parents currently avoid. The crime in this neighborhood is committed by a small group of people and the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of families at Miner are not committing crimes and actively want the crime to stop. Increasing connections among community members by sending their kids to school together, and just getting more people walking through more parts of the neighborhood and interacting with more of their neighbors, including the ones from other racial and socioeconomic groups, is JUST the kind of behavior that tends to make neighborhoods less susceptible to crime. Safe neighborhoods tend to be ones with strong community ties, people who recognize each other and have shared interests, and plenty of people out and about providing witnesses and support to someone who might be in trouble, all of which serve as natural deterrents to crime.

This is all just made up bullsht when it comes to what deters crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended both meetings and have been trying to stay on top of comments in the community (both public ones and ones here).

I haven’t liked some of the discussion around Miner and agree that it is offensive. We live near Maury and love Rosedale. I’d have no problem walking my kids to Miner. We were going to do Miner pre-k until we got extremely lucky in the lottery. I liked the facilities and teachers (at least the ECE ones). Let’s not forget that Maury had a high profile carjacking nearby last week, and another dramatic attempted one a few months ago. The perceived “safety differences” don’t matter at all to me because I truly can’t see many differences at this point.

But what I’m getting extremely frustrated about is having any opposition turned into just: “they are scared of Miner, they live in a bubble.” It’s obscuring the real drawbacks to this plan. There have been dozens of great questions with no answers from the DME. The majority of opposition (the great majority; people love to pick out a few offensive remarks and ignore the rest) has nothing to do with safety. It’s: what are the details? How do you know this is practicable? (They actually said they won’t work out details until after making recommendations…what?!) When is this happening? What do the teachers think? How do you know this will achieve your goals? How does this compare to the at risk set aside idea? No answers.

It’s easy to attack the “safety” argument, because it’s not a good one, and it’s offensive to Miner’s community. I am sorry for that and want absolutely nothing to do with those arguments or line of thinking. But there are many other completely unrelated reasons people are against this or at least skeptical, and those reasons have not been addressed.

I agree with this comment.

I posted a bunch of pages back about the fact that I felt some of the opposition that I seeing on this thread was really starting to sound petty and small, and that I would encourage people who oppose the cluster plan to instead focus on the practical and substantive objections to what is obviously a half-baked plan, and stop engaging in petty and sometimes offensive complaints that really do make Maury families come off as entitled.

So enough complaints about how Miner is simply too far away (it's .5 miles) or how Miner is in a "war zone" and Maury is in a crime-free utopia (again, it's .5 miles). I think these complaints are especially tone deaf in a city where many, many families make much longer commutes simply to send their child to a halfway decent school, and where we are all dealing with rising crime and it's impact on our quality of life. If dealing with crime or walking a half mile are dealbreakers for you, I would gently suggest that living in DC in 2023 is not a great fit.

But yes, there are genuine objections to this plan! Make them! How much would it cost to retro-fit two schools, one of which was very recently completely remodeled to suit it's PK3-5th community, in order to make one an ECE+ center and the other upper school only. Is that the best way to spend money that could instead be invested in improving outcomes for all students at Miner?How would DCPS support the new combined school regarding disparate learning outcomes in a way that actually served the needs of both populations? Would teachers and administration be retained?

Also, much earlier in the thread I asked whether the demographic model the DME has run for this plan are working from the population of families who live IB for each school, or from each schools current actual demographics. The DME made clear they looked only at the current demographics. I have serious questions about that approach, because boundary rights means that if a cluster were created, the many high-SES white families who currently live IB for Miner but have opted out of the school, could suddenly get by-right access to Maury. If those families then opted into the cluster, this would instantly push out OOB families. Since most of those families are coming from across the river and currently very poorly served by their own IB schools, all this does is displace them from an option they deemed as preferable to their current IB option, and leave them with even fewer options. Does that actually improve equity in the district? No.

THESE are the kinds of arguments that should be made. The plan sucks. But every time I see a comment about how a Maury parent couldn't possibly walk 4 extra blocks for drop off, or how Miner, a nearby elementary school, is apparently ground zero for the current DC crime wave, I feel like the cluster becomes more likely. Because those arguments are lazy, entitled, and bad. Stop making them. Take your racist dogwhistles somewhere else (also Rosedale pool and library are great, give them a try, weirdos).

You don’t get to just wish away other people’s actual concerns, and it’s weird that you’re trying to. Almost as if you think it is more socially acceptable to cloak your objections in a certain manner but we are not allowed to talk about crime?

[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: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.

No, there is continuity. When my PK3 was at Peabody, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the kindergartners. When he moved to Watkins, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the 5th graders. You are coming at this with the perspective of a parent rather than as an actual kid in the cluster.

Not a Peabody/Watkins parent but the bolded is an incredibly useful point that I think a lot more people in this thread could stand to think about.

I mean the parents are making the decisions, so it kind of does matter …

Yes, but it helps if parents aren't projecting things on to kids that aren't actually the case.

Am I imaging the homicides?

The homicides are clearly a huge, tragic problem, but it's not helpful to bring crime up in the context of the boundary discussion. Students will continue to attend Miner regardless of the outcome of this process and they all deserve a safe environment and commute.

I agree and thought it was odd it was included on the DME’s slides.

How are the homicides irrelevant? Parents don’t want to have to deal with worrying about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings. That’s what you’re asking Maury parents to do. Maury parents don’t want it. Neither do Miner parents.

Maybe Miner parents don't want to have to intervene in a carjacking while picking their kids up from their first day of school: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/on-video-neighbors-stop-attempted-carjacking-in-northeast-dc/3413466/

Or maybe they don't want to have to encounter a woman dying of a gunshot wound on the ground outside an apartment building while walking Maury: https://www.hillrag.com/2023/09/11/woman-dies-in-duncan-place-shooting/

The crime arguments don't work, you need to cut it out. That is not a viable objection to the cluster plan, and it's also got "racist dogwhistle" overtones that are really unhelpful in this conversation.

Maybe Maury parents don’t want to deal with EVEN MORE crime? And oh yes, it is so anti-racist to deny that a terrible crime corner exists steps away from a majority black elementary school …

[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: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.

No, there is continuity. When my PK3 was at Peabody, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the kindergartners. When he moved to Watkins, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the 5th graders. You are coming at this with the perspective of a parent rather than as an actual kid in the cluster.

Not a Peabody/Watkins parent but the bolded is an incredibly useful point that I think a lot more people in this thread could stand to think about.

I mean the parents are making the decisions, so it kind of does matter …

Yes, but it helps if parents aren't projecting things on to kids that aren't actually the case.

Am I imaging the homicides?

The homicides are clearly a huge, tragic problem, but it's not helpful to bring crime up in the context of the boundary discussion. Students will continue to attend Miner regardless of the outcome of this process and they all deserve a safe environment and commute.

I agree and thought it was odd it was included on the DME’s slides.

How are the homicides irrelevant? Parents don’t want to have to deal with worrying about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings. That’s what you’re asking Maury parents to do. Maury parents don’t want it. Neither do Miner parents.

My kid goes to Maury and I worry about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings right now. Is Miner really all that different?

[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: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.

No, there is continuity. When my PK3 was at Peabody, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the kindergartners. When he moved to Watkins, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the 5th graders. You are coming at this with the perspective of a parent rather than as an actual kid in the cluster.

Not a Peabody/Watkins parent but the bolded is an incredibly useful point that I think a lot more people in this thread could stand to think about.

I mean the parents are making the decisions, so it kind of does matter …

Yes, but it helps if parents aren't projecting things on to kids that aren't actually the case.

Am I imaging the homicides?

The homicides are clearly a huge, tragic problem, but it's not helpful to bring crime up in the context of the boundary discussion. Students will continue to attend Miner regardless of the outcome of this process and they all deserve a safe environment and commute.

I agree and thought it was odd it was included on the DME’s slides.

How are the homicides irrelevant? Parents don’t want to have to deal with worrying about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings. That’s what you’re asking Maury parents to do. Maury parents don’t want it. Neither do Miner parents.

My kid goes to Maury and I worry about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings right now. Is Miner really all that different?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Miner parent but I was offended on their behalf reading this thread, so I'm not at all surprised that Miner parents following this process feel "rejected" by some in the Maury community. Just as an example, when discussing test scores, people in this thread have alleged that Miner kids "can't read" and complained that having Miner and Maury students in the same classes would be horribly unfair to the Maury kid. Of course that's offensive!

A lot of the conversation about the neighborhood issues is also pretty offensive. These schools are very near one another (a half mile along a major thoroughfare). But several posters have stated that the neighborhoods are "very different" and that they would not feel safe in the area around Miner. So you wouldn't feel safe walking four blocks from where you currently live and go to school? You never go to the Rosedale pool or library? You don't go to H Street? You don't take your kids to the playground and fields at RFK? Posters are talking about Miner like it's in a war zone or something, when it is simply in a less nice but extremely nearby part of the neighborhood they currently live in.

Of course Miner families are offended. People are really showing their a$$es here, and it's unsurprising to me that this thread is full of hand-wringing from Maury parents but I have seen few if any comments from Miner parents.

I can assure you that it is not Maury, but DME, who is “rejecting” Miner parents. DME people are the ones who haven’t even deigned to have a meeting with Miner. (Incidentally, one person who *has* hosted a meeting about this with Miner PTA leadership is Maury’s PTA president!)

It cannot be unfair for Maury parents to even ask how educational outcomes would be impacted by the combination. 8% of Miner students “meet” ELA expectations in PARCC, and 0% “exceed” them. At Maury, 74% meet or exceed. How would you be doing your job as a parent if you don’t at least ask, “will combining these two cohorts impact my child?” If the answer is, “it won’t negatively impact learning for kids who are meeting or exceeding expectations,” then fantastic! I’m all ears for data that supports that answer. But DME and the people on this thread haven’t provided it. If the answer is “yes, it will negatively impact learning for kids who are already meeting or exceeding expectations because teachers will have to devote more resources to the kids who need more help, but you as a community member should accept that trade-off because the underperforming kids will benefit even more,” then that is a fine argument, too—make it, and see if it persuades.

But what you cannot do is put your hands over your ears and say that it’s unfair or offensive for people to even ask the question of how a combination will impact students. Same goes for commutes and safety. If you want to argue that there are no safety issues near Miner as compared to Maury, go for it, show the data. If you want to argue that parents shouldn’t be bothered by an additional 30 minutes a day of traveling to and from drop-offs when they have kids in both schools, have at it. But please do not try to censor the discussion by saying it’s unfair to even talk about this stuff.

Dying to hear more about this -- I didn't know this at all.

I only know about it third-hand so I’m reluctant to share someone else’s story, but my understanding is that one of Maury’s PTA presidents reached out and had a lunch or dinner or something with Miner counterparts, just to get to know each other and break bread and have some personal connection—rather than the kinds of projection and assumptions of motive and accusations you see in purely online spaces. Very worthy and admirable, if you ask me. (And Maury’s PTA presidents really are kind and empathetic women - I have no idea what position they take on this but one of them has raised some of the most thoughtful questions asked at any of the recent meetings.)

[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: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.

No, there is continuity. When my PK3 was at Peabody, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the kindergartners. When he moved to Watkins, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the 5th graders. You are coming at this with the perspective of a parent rather than as an actual kid in the cluster.

Not a Peabody/Watkins parent but the bolded is an incredibly useful point that I think a lot more people in this thread could stand to think about.

I mean the parents are making the decisions, so it kind of does matter …

Yes, but it helps if parents aren't projecting things on to kids that aren't actually the case.

Am I imaging the homicides?

The homicides are clearly a huge, tragic problem, but it's not helpful to bring crime up in the context of the boundary discussion. Students will continue to attend Miner regardless of the outcome of this process and they all deserve a safe environment and commute.

I agree and thought it was odd it was included on the DME’s slides.

How are the homicides irrelevant? Parents don’t want to have to deal with worrying about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings. That’s what you’re asking Maury parents to do. Maury parents don’t want it. Neither do Miner parents.

Maybe Miner parents don't want to have to intervene in a carjacking while picking their kids up from their first day of school: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/on-video-neighbors-stop-attempted-carjacking-in-northeast-dc/3413466/

Or maybe they don't want to have to encounter a woman dying of a gunshot wound on the ground outside an apartment building while walking Maury: https://www.hillrag.com/2023/09/11/woman-dies-in-duncan-place-shooting/

The crime arguments don't work, you need to cut it out. That is not a viable objection to the cluster plan, and it's also got "racist dogwhistle" overtones that are really unhelpful in this conversation.

Maybe Maury parents don’t want to deal with EVEN MORE crime? And oh yes, it is so anti-racist to deny that a terrible crime corner exists steps away from a majority black elementary school …

And Maury is 42% non-white.

So yes it is unhelpful to demonize Maury parents worried about high levels of violent crime in and around Miner as “racist.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended both meetings and have been trying to stay on top of comments in the community (both public ones and ones here).

I haven’t liked some of the discussion around Miner and agree that it is offensive. We live near Maury and love Rosedale. I’d have no problem walking my kids to Miner. We were going to do Miner pre-k until we got extremely lucky in the lottery. I liked the facilities and teachers (at least the ECE ones). Let’s not forget that Maury had a high profile carjacking nearby last week, and another dramatic attempted one a few months ago. The perceived “safety differences” don’t matter at all to me because I truly can’t see many differences at this point.

But what I’m getting extremely frustrated about is having any opposition turned into just: “they are scared of Miner, they live in a bubble.” It’s obscuring the real drawbacks to this plan. There have been dozens of great questions with no answers from the DME. The majority of opposition (the great majority; people love to pick out a few offensive remarks and ignore the rest) has nothing to do with safety. It’s: what are the details? How do you know this is practicable? (They actually said they won’t work out details until after making recommendations…what?!) When is this happening? What do the teachers think? How do you know this will achieve your goals? How does this compare to the at risk set aside idea? No answers.

It’s easy to attack the “safety” argument, because it’s not a good one, and it’s offensive to Miner’s community. I am sorry for that and want absolutely nothing to do with those arguments or line of thinking. But there are many other completely unrelated reasons people are against this or at least skeptical, and those reasons have not been addressed.

I agree with this comment.

I posted a bunch of pages back about the fact that I felt some of the opposition that I seeing on this thread was really starting to sound petty and small, and that I would encourage people who oppose the cluster plan to instead focus on the practical and substantive objections to what is obviously a half-baked plan, and stop engaging in petty and sometimes offensive complaints that really do make Maury families come off as entitled.

So enough complaints about how Miner is simply too far away (it's .5 miles) or how Miner is in a "war zone" and Maury is in a crime-free utopia (again, it's .5 miles). I think these complaints are especially tone deaf in a city where many, many families make much longer commutes simply to send their child to a halfway decent school, and where we are all dealing with rising crime and it's impact on our quality of life. If dealing with crime or walking a half mile are dealbreakers for you, I would gently suggest that living in DC in 2023 is not a great fit.

But yes, there are genuine objections to this plan! Make them! How much would it cost to retro-fit two schools, one of which was very recently completely remodeled to suit it's PK3-5th community, in order to make one an ECE+ center and the other upper school only. Is that the best way to spend money that could instead be invested in improving outcomes for all students at Miner?How would DCPS support the new combined school regarding disparate learning outcomes in a way that actually served the needs of both populations? Would teachers and administration be retained?

Also, much earlier in the thread I asked whether the demographic model the DME has run for this plan are working from the population of families who live IB for each school, or from each schools current actual demographics. The DME made clear they looked only at the current demographics. I have serious questions about that approach, because boundary rights means that if a cluster were created, the many high-SES white families who currently live IB for Miner but have opted out of the school, could suddenly get by-right access to Maury. If those families then opted into the cluster, this would instantly push out OOB families. Since most of those families are coming from across the river and currently very poorly served by their own IB schools, all this does is displace them from an option they deemed as preferable to their current IB option, and leave them with even fewer options. Does that actually improve equity in the district? No.

THESE are the kinds of arguments that should be made. The plan sucks. But every time I see a comment about how a Maury parent couldn't possibly walk 4 extra blocks for drop off, or how Miner, a nearby elementary school, is apparently ground zero for the current DC crime wave, I feel like the cluster becomes more likely. Because those arguments are lazy, entitled, and bad. Stop making them. Take your racist dogwhistles somewhere else (also Rosedale pool and library are great, give them a try, weirdos).

You don’t get to just wish away other people’s actual concerns, and it’s weird that you’re trying to. Almost as if you think it is more socially acceptable to cloak your objections in a certain manner but we are not allowed to talk about crime?

Okay, then continue to alienate people and undermine your goals by fixating on the idea that the crime issues between these two schools are so different, or arguing that four blocks is an impossible distance to accommodate of drop off/pick up. Obviously it's more important to you to express your rage about theses aspect of the plan rather than to actually make a cogent, convincing argument that could impact the DME's recommendations.

Enjoy your noseless existence, at least your face will be well and spited when it's over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Miner parent but I was offended on their behalf reading this thread, so I'm not at all surprised that Miner parents following this process feel "rejected" by some in the Maury community. Just as an example, when discussing test scores, people in this thread have alleged that Miner kids "can't read" and complained that having Miner and Maury students in the same classes would be horribly unfair to the Maury kid. Of course that's offensive!

A lot of the conversation about the neighborhood issues is also pretty offensive. These schools are very near one another (a half mile along a major thoroughfare). But several posters have stated that the neighborhoods are "very different" and that they would not feel safe in the area around Miner. So you wouldn't feel safe walking four blocks from where you currently live and go to school? You never go to the Rosedale pool or library? You don't go to H Street? You don't take your kids to the playground and fields at RFK? Posters are talking about Miner like it's in a war zone or something, when it is simply in a less nice but extremely nearby part of the neighborhood they currently live in.

Of course Miner families are offended. People are really showing their a$$es here, and it's unsurprising to me that this thread is full of hand-wringing from Maury parents but I have seen few if any comments from Miner parents.

I can assure you that it is not Maury, but DME, who is “rejecting” Miner parents. DME people are the ones who haven’t even deigned to have a meeting with Miner. (Incidentally, one person who *has* hosted a meeting about this with Miner PTA leadership is Maury’s PTA president!)

It cannot be unfair for Maury parents to even ask how educational outcomes would be impacted by the combination. 8% of Miner students “meet” ELA expectations in PARCC, and 0% “exceed” them. At Maury, 74% meet or exceed. How would you be doing your job as a parent if you don’t at least ask, “will combining these two cohorts impact my child?” If the answer is, “it won’t negatively impact learning for kids who are meeting or exceeding expectations,” then fantastic! I’m all ears for data that supports that answer. But DME and the people on this thread haven’t provided it. If the answer is “yes, it will negatively impact learning for kids who are already meeting or exceeding expectations because teachers will have to devote more resources to the kids who need more help, but you as a community member should accept that trade-off because the underperforming kids will benefit even more,” then that is a fine argument, too—make it, and see if it persuades.

But what you cannot do is put your hands over your ears and say that it’s unfair or offensive for people to even ask the question of how a combination will impact students. Same goes for commutes and safety. If you want to argue that there are no safety issues near Miner as compared to Maury, go for it, show the data. If you want to argue that parents shouldn’t be bothered by an additional 30 minutes a day of traveling to and from drop-offs when they have kids in both schools, have at it. But please do not try to censor the discussion by saying it’s unfair to even talk about this stuff.

Dying to hear more about this -- I didn't know this at all.

I only know about it third-hand so I’m reluctant to share someone else’s story, but my understanding is that one of Maury’s PTA presidents reached out and had a lunch or dinner or something with Miner counterparts, just to get to know each other and break bread and have some personal connection—rather than the kinds of projection and assumptions of motive and accusations you see in purely online spaces. Very worthy and admirable, if you ask me. (And Maury’s PTA presidents really are kind and empathetic women - I have no idea what position they take on this but one of them has raised some of the most thoughtful questions asked at any of the recent meetings.)

That's great. I definitely think the way forward should through communication and discussion between the communities, not Maury parents just circling up to express their outrage at each other. It's a bad look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Miner parent but I was offended on their behalf reading this thread, so I'm not at all surprised that Miner parents following this process feel "rejected" by some in the Maury community. Just as an example, when discussing test scores, people in this thread have alleged that Miner kids "can't read" and complained that having Miner and Maury students in the same classes would be horribly unfair to the Maury kid. Of course that's offensive!

A lot of the conversation about the neighborhood issues is also pretty offensive. These schools are very near one another (a half mile along a major thoroughfare). But several posters have stated that the neighborhoods are "very different" and that they would not feel safe in the area around Miner. So you wouldn't feel safe walking four blocks from where you currently live and go to school? You never go to the Rosedale pool or library? You don't go to H Street? You don't take your kids to the playground and fields at RFK? Posters are talking about Miner like it's in a war zone or something, when it is simply in a less nice but extremely nearby part of the neighborhood they currently live in.

Of course Miner families are offended. People are really showing their a$$es here, and it's unsurprising to me that this thread is full of hand-wringing from Maury parents but I have seen few if any comments from Miner parents.

I can assure you that it is not Maury, but DME, who is “rejecting” Miner parents. DME people are the ones who haven’t even deigned to have a meeting with Miner. (Incidentally, one person who *has* hosted a meeting about this with Miner PTA leadership is Maury’s PTA president!)

It cannot be unfair for Maury parents to even ask how educational outcomes would be impacted by the combination. 8% of Miner students “meet” ELA expectations in PARCC, and 0% “exceed” them. At Maury, 74% meet or exceed. How would you be doing your job as a parent if you don’t at least ask, “will combining these two cohorts impact my child?” If the answer is, “it won’t negatively impact learning for kids who are meeting or exceeding expectations,” then fantastic! I’m all ears for data that supports that answer. But DME and the people on this thread haven’t provided it. If the answer is “yes, it will negatively impact learning for kids who are already meeting or exceeding expectations because teachers will have to devote more resources to the kids who need more help, but you as a community member should accept that trade-off because the underperforming kids will benefit even more,” then that is a fine argument, too—make it, and see if it persuades.

But what you cannot do is put your hands over your ears and say that it’s unfair or offensive for people to even ask the question of how a combination will impact students. Same goes for commutes and safety. If you want to argue that there are no safety issues near Miner as compared to Maury, go for it, show the data. If you want to argue that parents shouldn’t be bothered by an additional 30 minutes a day of traveling to and from drop-offs when they have kids in both schools, have at it. But please do not try to censor the discussion by saying it’s unfair to even talk about this stuff.

Dying to hear more about this -- I didn't know this at all.

I only know about it third-hand so I’m reluctant to share someone else’s story, but my understanding is that one of Maury’s PTA presidents reached out and had a lunch or dinner or something with Miner counterparts, just to get to know each other and break bread and have some personal connection—rather than the kinds of projection and assumptions of motive and accusations you see in purely online spaces. Very worthy and admirable, if you ask me. (And Maury’s PTA presidents really are kind and empathetic women - I have no idea what position they take on this but one of them has raised some of the most thoughtful questions asked at any of the recent meetings.)

That's great. I definitely think the way forward should through communication and discussion between the communities, not Maury parents just circling up to express their outrage at each other. It's a bad look.

Oh please. This will either happen or it won’t based on a decision by someone who does not care at all what you think is a bad look.

[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: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.

No, there is continuity. When my PK3 was at Peabody, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the kindergartners. When he moved to Watkins, he looked up to the "big kids" who were the 5th graders. You are coming at this with the perspective of a parent rather than as an actual kid in the cluster.

Not a Peabody/Watkins parent but the bolded is an incredibly useful point that I think a lot more people in this thread could stand to think about.

I mean the parents are making the decisions, so it kind of does matter …

Yes, but it helps if parents aren't projecting things on to kids that aren't actually the case.

Am I imaging the homicides?

The homicides are clearly a huge, tragic problem, but it's not helpful to bring crime up in the context of the boundary discussion. Students will continue to attend Miner regardless of the outcome of this process and they all deserve a safe environment and commute.

I agree and thought it was odd it was included on the DME’s slides.

How are the homicides irrelevant? Parents don’t want to have to deal with worrying about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings. That’s what you’re asking Maury parents to do. Maury parents don’t want it. Neither do Miner parents.

My kid goes to Maury and I worry about getting shot on the way to pickup in the evenings right now. Is Miner really all that different?

The crime at the Starburst intersection and immediate area around Miner is worse, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended both meetings and have been trying to stay on top of comments in the community (both public ones and ones here).

I haven’t liked some of the discussion around Miner and agree that it is offensive. We live near Maury and love Rosedale. I’d have no problem walking my kids to Miner. We were going to do Miner pre-k until we got extremely lucky in the lottery. I liked the facilities and teachers (at least the ECE ones). Let’s not forget that Maury had a high profile carjacking nearby last week, and another dramatic attempted one a few months ago. The perceived “safety differences” don’t matter at all to me because I truly can’t see many differences at this point.

But what I’m getting extremely frustrated about is having any opposition turned into just: “they are scared of Miner, they live in a bubble.” It’s obscuring the real drawbacks to this plan. There have been dozens of great questions with no answers from the DME. The majority of opposition (the great majority; people love to pick out a few offensive remarks and ignore the rest) has nothing to do with safety. It’s: what are the details? How do you know this is practicable? (They actually said they won’t work out details until after making recommendations…what?!) When is this happening? What do the teachers think? How do you know this will achieve your goals? How does this compare to the at risk set aside idea? No answers.

It’s easy to attack the “safety” argument, because it’s not a good one, and it’s offensive to Miner’s community. I am sorry for that and want absolutely nothing to do with those arguments or line of thinking. But there are many other completely unrelated reasons people are against this or at least skeptical, and those reasons have not been addressed.

I agree with this comment.

I posted a bunch of pages back about the fact that I felt some of the opposition that I seeing on this thread was really starting to sound petty and small, and that I would encourage people who oppose the cluster plan to instead focus on the practical and substantive objections to what is obviously a half-baked plan, and stop engaging in petty and sometimes offensive complaints that really do make Maury families come off as entitled.

So enough complaints about how Miner is simply too far away (it's .5 miles) or how Miner is in a "war zone" and Maury is in a crime-free utopia (again, it's .5 miles). I think these complaints are especially tone deaf in a city where many, many families make much longer commutes simply to send their child to a halfway decent school, and where we are all dealing with rising crime and it's impact on our quality of life. If dealing with crime or walking a half mile are dealbreakers for you, I would gently suggest that living in DC in 2023 is not a great fit.

But yes, there are genuine objections to this plan! Make them! How much would it cost to retro-fit two schools, one of which was very recently completely remodeled to suit it's PK3-5th community, in order to make one an ECE+ center and the other upper school only. Is that the best way to spend money that could instead be invested in improving outcomes for all students at Miner?How would DCPS support the new combined school regarding disparate learning outcomes in a way that actually served the needs of both populations? Would teachers and administration be retained?

Also, much earlier in the thread I asked whether the demographic model the DME has run for this plan are working from the population of families who live IB for each school, or from each schools current actual demographics. The DME made clear they looked only at the current demographics. I have serious questions about that approach, because boundary rights means that if a cluster were created, the many high-SES white families who currently live IB for Miner but have opted out of the school, could suddenly get by-right access to Maury. If those families then opted into the cluster, this would instantly push out OOB families. Since most of those families are coming from across the river and currently very poorly served by their own IB schools, all this does is displace them from an option they deemed as preferable to their current IB option, and leave them with even fewer options. Does that actually improve equity in the district? No.

THESE are the kinds of arguments that should be made. The plan sucks. But every time I see a comment about how a Maury parent couldn't possibly walk 4 extra blocks for drop off, or how Miner, a nearby elementary school, is apparently ground zero for the current DC crime wave, I feel like the cluster becomes more likely. Because those arguments are lazy, entitled, and bad. Stop making them. Take your racist dogwhistles somewhere else (also Rosedale pool and library are great, give them a try, weirdos).

You don’t get to just wish away other people’s actual concerns, and it’s weird that you’re trying to. Almost as if you think it is more socially acceptable to cloak your objections in a certain manner but we are not allowed to talk about crime?

Okay, then continue to alienate people and undermine your goals by fixating on the idea that the crime issues between these two schools are so different, or arguing that four blocks is an impossible distance to accommodate of drop off/pick up. Obviously it's more important to you to express your rage about theses aspect of the plan rather than to actually make a cogent, convincing argument that could impact the DME's recommendations.

Enjoy your noseless existence, at least your face will be well and spited when it's over.

I’m not triangulating some political messaging campaign here, although is is peak Capitol Hill that you believe that. Crime and the added commute (probably about an hour) are actually two big concerns for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended both meetings and have been trying to stay on top of comments in the community (both public ones and ones here).

I haven’t liked some of the discussion around Miner and agree that it is offensive. We live near Maury and love Rosedale. I’d have no problem walking my kids to Miner. We were going to do Miner pre-k until we got extremely lucky in the lottery. I liked the facilities and teachers (at least the ECE ones). Let’s not forget that Maury had a high profile carjacking nearby last week, and another dramatic attempted one a few months ago. The perceived “safety differences” don’t matter at all to me because I truly can’t see many differences at this point.

But what I’m getting extremely frustrated about is having any opposition turned into just: “they are scared of Miner, they live in a bubble.” It’s obscuring the real drawbacks to this plan. There have been dozens of great questions with no answers from the DME. The majority of opposition (the great majority; people love to pick out a few offensive remarks and ignore the rest) has nothing to do with safety. It’s: what are the details? How do you know this is practicable? (They actually said they won’t work out details until after making recommendations…what?!) When is this happening? What do the teachers think? How do you know this will achieve your goals? How does this compare to the at risk set aside idea? No answers.

It’s easy to attack the “safety” argument, because it’s not a good one, and it’s offensive to Miner’s community. I am sorry for that and want absolutely nothing to do with those arguments or line of thinking. But there are many other completely unrelated reasons people are against this or at least skeptical, and those reasons have not been addressed.

I agree with this comment.

I posted a bunch of pages back about the fact that I felt some of the opposition that I seeing on this thread was really starting to sound petty and small, and that I would encourage people who oppose the cluster plan to instead focus on the practical and substantive objections to what is obviously a half-baked plan, and stop engaging in petty and sometimes offensive complaints that really do make Maury families come off as entitled.

So enough complaints about how Miner is simply too far away (it's .5 miles) or how Miner is in a "war zone" and Maury is in a crime-free utopia (again, it's .5 miles). I think these complaints are especially tone deaf in a city where many, many families make much longer commutes simply to send their child to a halfway decent school, and where we are all dealing with rising crime and it's impact on our quality of life. If dealing with crime or walking a half mile are dealbreakers for you, I would gently suggest that living in DC in 2023 is not a great fit.

But yes, there are genuine objections to this plan! Make them! How much would it cost to retro-fit two schools, one of which was very recently completely remodeled to suit it's PK3-5th community, in order to make one an ECE+ center and the other upper school only. Is that the best way to spend money that could instead be invested in improving outcomes for all students at Miner?How would DCPS support the new combined school regarding disparate learning outcomes in a way that actually served the needs of both populations? Would teachers and administration be retained?

Also, much earlier in the thread I asked whether the demographic model the DME has run for this plan are working from the population of families who live IB for each school, or from each schools current actual demographics. The DME made clear they looked only at the current demographics. I have serious questions about that approach, because boundary rights means that if a cluster were created, the many high-SES white families who currently live IB for Miner but have opted out of the school, could suddenly get by-right access to Maury. If those families then opted into the cluster, this would instantly push out OOB families. Since most of those families are coming from across the river and currently very poorly served by their own IB schools, all this does is displace them from an option they deemed as preferable to their current IB option, and leave them with even fewer options. Does that actually improve equity in the district? No.

THESE are the kinds of arguments that should be made. The plan sucks. But every time I see a comment about how a Maury parent couldn't possibly walk 4 extra blocks for drop off, or how Miner, a nearby elementary school, is apparently ground zero for the current DC crime wave, I feel like the cluster becomes more likely. Because those arguments are lazy, entitled, and bad. Stop making them. Take your racist dogwhistles somewhere else (also Rosedale pool and library are great, give them a try, weirdos).

You don’t get to just wish away other people’s actual concerns, and it’s weird that you’re trying to. Almost as if you think it is more socially acceptable to cloak your objections in a certain manner but we are not allowed to talk about crime?

Okay, then continue to alienate people and undermine your goals by fixating on the idea that the crime issues between these two schools are so different, or arguing that four blocks is an impossible distance to accommodate of drop off/pick up. Obviously it's more important to you to express your rage about theses aspect of the plan rather than to actually make a cogent, convincing argument that could impact the DME's recommendations.

Enjoy your noseless existence, at least your face will be well and spited when it's over.

I’m not triangulating some political messaging campaign here, although is is peak Capitol Hill that you believe that. Crime and the added commute (probably about an hour) are actually two big concerns for me.

The interesting thing to me that has been brought up several times in here and at meetings, and in convos I have had offline is that there are many families that are already doing this drop off at Miner for ECE, and then later ending up at Maury. Many of those families have commented a) how they are not entirely against this cluster idea b) they had positive experiences there. Also as another person has noted, due to the strange decisions/boundary redraw after the last DME process 10 years ago, the Maury boundary cuts very far east, meaning for some current in bounds family at Maury, they already are closer to Miner than they are to Maury, or at least equidistant. It also seems hard to think that a few blocks will add an hour to a commute. It seems like the most vocal Maury families are the ones living on the western edge of the Maury boundary, and for them, their older kids could easily walk to Maury for upper grades (no change in commute or safety concern) - meaning only one drop off if they still had younger kids at the Miner school.