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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

What three campuses? Or are you just referring to kids who are in ECE at Maury now and could be shifted to Miner and then back to Maury?

I think they said in one of the meetings that there would be a way to do it without a swingspace because of Miner's new building -- Miner has an excess of ECE classrooms with sinks and toilets. And at Maury, it's not clear that much retrofit is needed -- converting an ECE classroom to an upper grade classroom mostly just involves changing out furniture and equipment, but doesn't require renovation.

Where did you get this info? Miner has 8 ECE classes and as far as I know (as a parent of a child in Miner ECE) the entire ECE wing is at capacity. Maury has 4-5 ECE classes. There is no way Miner has the ECE space for that many additional classes.

[Anonymous]

What do the parents at Miner actually want, aside from the possibility of a cluster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

My child is in prek3 at Miner. We are inbounds for Maury. If this goes through with a school year 2026 - 2027 implementation date, dc would be shuffled between the two campuses 4 times. Miner for Prek then Maury for K, then back to Miner for 1st and back to Maury for 2nd. No way we are sticking it out for this.

While I feel for you, I've been through a full scale modernization at a DCPS and that's also inconvenient (and also families chose to leave if they got lottery spots during that process because they didn't want to deal with the swing space). While it's a perfectly valid reason to complain generally about the burden on your family, it's not a reason to scrap a plan because it's a temporary inconvenience that will only impact a few grades during the transition. It's just bad luck of timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

My child is in prek3 at Miner. We are inbounds for Maury. If this goes through with a school year 2026 - 2027 implementation date, dc would be shuffled between the two campuses 4 times. Miner for Prek then Maury for K, then back to Miner for 1st and back to Maury for 2nd. No way we are sticking it out for this.

While I feel for you, I've been through a full scale modernization at a DCPS and that's also inconvenient (and also families chose to leave if they got lottery spots during that process because they didn't want to deal with the swing space). While it's a perfectly valid reason to complain generally about the burden on your family, it's not a reason to scrap a plan because it's a temporary inconvenience that will only impact a few grades during the transition. It's just bad luck of timing.

I get that it is bad luck. I was trying to illustrate the point of the prior poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

My child is in prek3 at Miner. We are inbounds for Maury. If this goes through with a school year 2026 - 2027 implementation date, dc would be shuffled between the two campuses 4 times. Miner for Prek then Maury for K, then back to Miner for 1st and back to Maury for 2nd. No way we are sticking it out for this.

While I feel for you, I've been through a full scale modernization at a DCPS and that's also inconvenient (and also families chose to leave if they got lottery spots during that process because they didn't want to deal with the swing space). While it's a perfectly valid reason to complain generally about the burden on your family, it's not a reason to scrap a plan because it's a temporary inconvenience that will only impact a few grades during the transition. It's just bad luck of timing.

It is a reason when the purported goal is to achieve a certain socio-economic ratio. If the better resourced families choose not to stay through a messy transition, that will undercut DME's ability to achieve its stated goal. Also, this will be messier than your typical modernization because it involves two physical campuses and merging two administrations. Maury had a renovation not to long ago, but it was manageable because nothing else was changing and families felt supported through that transition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

What three campuses? Or are you just referring to kids who are in ECE at Maury now and could be shifted to Miner and then back to Maury?

I think they said in one of the meetings that there would be a way to do it without a swingspace because of Miner's new building -- Miner has an excess of ECE classrooms with sinks and toilets. And at Maury, it's not clear that much retrofit is needed -- converting an ECE classroom to an upper grade classroom mostly just involves changing out furniture and equipment, but doesn't require renovation.

Where did you get this info? Miner has 8 ECE classes and as far as I know (as a parent of a child in Miner ECE) the entire ECE wing is at capacity. Maury has 4-5 ECE classes. There is no way Miner has the ECE space for that many additional classes.

Miner built a whole new ECE building, doubling their ECE capacity over what is in their existing wing. The plan was originally to convert the existing wing to a 0-3 daycare center, and move ECE grades to the new building. But if the cluster plan goes through, it sounds like they would scrap the 0-3 center, use the new building for PK, use existing ECE capacity for K, and then using existing upper grade classrooms for 1st.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do the parents at Miner actually want, aside from the possibility of a cluster?

They want what everyone wants -- a functioning school for their kids to attend. But despite years of efforts by IB families to make Miner that school, there are institutionalized issues that are not being addressed.

When you have parents who will stay at a school for 4-5 years (so through K 1st and even 2nd) before giving up, you cannot argue that the problem is IB families are insufficiently committed. There have been many committed families over the years who have worked to build up the school, create community, attract IB families, raise money, etc. Yet the test scores remain in the pits, outcomes for at risk kids continue to be very poor, and the school continues to bleed IB families after ECE grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do the parents at Miner actually want, aside from the possibility of a cluster?

They want what everyone wants -- a functioning school for their kids to attend. But despite years of efforts by IB families to make Miner that school, there are institutionalized issues that are not being addressed.

When you have parents who will stay at a school for 4-5 years (so through K 1st and even 2nd) before giving up, you cannot argue that the problem is IB families are insufficiently committed. There have been many committed families over the years who have worked to build up the school, create community, attract IB families, raise money, etc. Yet the test scores remain in the pits, outcomes for at risk kids continue to be very poor, and the school continues to bleed IB families after ECE grades.

I would never suggest they are insufficiently committed-- I personally have met them and think they are great. But I don't feel like I have a good grasp of what the "institutionalized issues" are and how they might be remedied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk with ANY of the Peabody/Watkins parents and then talk with any of the LT parents and you will see why a cluster is not a great idea.

... for Maury parents. The whole point is that Miner parents stand to benefit.

Everyone understands why Maury families are opposed. Miner is a mess. The kids at Miner (and IB for Miner) deserve a functional school. The cluster > the status quo, so they are going to support it.

The only way around it is to propose something else that would improve the status quo for them. But "more money and a new principal" isn't it. Nor are at risk set asides at Maury.

People are not going to work against their own interest. A cluster is presently the best option for Miner IB families' interest.

Re-drawing the boundary and choice sets are other viable options that are far less disruptive. I really feel for kids from both schools during the transition if this goes through. Some kids will get shuffled between three campuses, possibly more if a swing space is needed.

My child is in prek3 at Miner. We are inbounds for Maury. If this goes through with a school year 2026 - 2027 implementation date, dc would be shuffled between the two campuses 4 times. Miner for Prek then Maury for K, then back to Miner for 1st and back to Maury for 2nd. No way we are sticking it out for this.

While I feel for you, I've been through a full scale modernization at a DCPS and that's also inconvenient (and also families chose to leave if they got lottery spots during that process because they didn't want to deal with the swing space). While it's a perfectly valid reason to complain generally about the burden on your family, it's not a reason to scrap a plan because it's a temporary inconvenience that will only impact a few grades during the transition. It's just bad luck of timing.

It is a reason when the purported goal is to achieve a certain socio-economic ratio. If the better resourced families choose not to stay through a messy transition, that will undercut DME's ability to achieve its stated goal. Also, this will be messier than your typical modernization because it involves two physical campuses and merging two administrations. Maury had a renovation not to long ago, but it was manageable because nothing else was changing and families felt supported through that transition.

Not if they are leaving due to the inconvenience of a transitional period. There were families that left Maury when they were in their swing space. Because their youngest children were in middle grades and it didn't make sense to stick it out through the disruption of a swing space only for one of their kids to attend the renovated school for a year or two. It is assumed that transitions will result in temporary attrition from families who don't want to deal with transition years. That's not a reason to not modernize a school building, and it's not a reason to scrap the cluster.

Now, if the argument is that families from both boundaries will abandon the cluster even after the transition period, that's an argument against the cluster. But "my specific kid might have to change campuses multiple times" is not compelling because that's a temporary issue that will resolve once implementation is done. It won't even impact most kids in the cluster -- kids in upper grades at Maury won't change campuses at all, kids in lower grades at Maury will only change once as intended, and kids in upper grades at Miner will only change once. It's just a few classes in Maury lower grades who will switch twice. And the PP was in a very unique situation because she is currently at Miner OOB for PK, and her kid will go to K at Maury (if they choose, they could just stay at Miner) for one year before switching back to Miner for 1st and then back to Maury for 2nd. That's such a bespoke situation as to be totally irrelevant to a conversation about community impacts. She could just keep her kid at Miner for K and then she'd be less impacted than other families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do the parents at Miner actually want, aside from the possibility of a cluster?

They want what everyone wants -- a functioning school for their kids to attend. But despite years of efforts by IB families to make Miner that school, there are institutionalized issues that are not being addressed.

When you have parents who will stay at a school for 4-5 years (so through K 1st and even 2nd) before giving up, you cannot argue that the problem is IB families are insufficiently committed. There have been many committed families over the years who have worked to build up the school, create community, attract IB families, raise money, etc. Yet the test scores remain in the pits, outcomes for at risk kids continue to be very poor, and the school continues to bleed IB families after ECE grades.

I would never suggest they are insufficiently committed-- I personally have met them and think they are great. But I don't feel like I have a good grasp of what the "institutionalized issues" are and how they might be remedied.

Do you? Can they be remedied? If committed parents can work at turning around a school for years and years with zero improvement (and we're talking about new sets of committed parents coming in every year and trying to make that difference, over a decade or more, so it's not like it's 3 people trying for 2 years here) then maybe the problem cannot be remedied this way.

And during that time the school has also had several principals. And the school is Title 1 and gets extra funding that way. The school got a new playground recently as well. And yet year after year, Miner doesn't get any better.

Do you really think the problem is that the PTO at Miner is just well-meaning but misinformed? Really? Or could it be that the problems run too deep and that drastic action must be taken, to either shut this school down or combine it with a more successful neighboring 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

[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:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

Not necessarily, one of the low income housing units on either side of Miner could be carved out into the L-T or the Maury boundary.

[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:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

FWIW your point about the Pentacle being equidistant from LT and Maury is exactly the point... It is not possible to extend the Maury boundary to capture the Pentacle because of where it is relative to Miner; the same thing is true for LT. You cannot re-boundary your way out of the issue. Yes, you obviously could cluster LT and Miner instead of Maury and Miner, but logistically & equity-wise, that's obviously an inferior option. So other than pure what-about-ism, which Maury posters seem great at, what better solution are you actually advocating for?

[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:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

That's untrue. The pentacle is at 15th and Benning. You could just extend LT's boundary to include G street through gales and 16th street. In turn you could shrink part of the LT boundary on the east side, have it start at 10th or 11th and have those families rerouted to Miner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

Not necessarily, one of the low income housing units on either side of Miner could be carved out into the L-T or the Maury boundary.

Not unless you literally snaked around the school. There is zero chance that will happen. People are really missing the point that Miner is not uniquely bad in DCPS. They aren't going to create a ridiculously gerrymandered boundary just to get one housing project out of the zone. Not least of all because that wouldn't fix Miner at all. The OOB kids don't look different than the IB kids, so while you'd get one building's worth of kids into one particular other school, you wouldn't actually do anything for Miner. Also, there is zero reason to believe that those particularl families particularly want to go to their new school and they'd retain proximity preference for the school that is literally across the road from them, so maybe you'd end up moving 50% of one building's worth of kids?