Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"Many" families -- I think someone looked it up earlier and it was something like 7 a year -- with AT Lincoln Park having much bigger numbers of Maury families.

Adding an hour to the commute makes sense to me -- google maps gives the walk as around 10 minutes, so round trip with my little kid walking with me one way will be about 30, which adds up to an hour every day.

I am happy to allow the Maury families in the eastern part of the boundary to attend Miner if they choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why don’t you look at a map instead of being so lazy? Having to pickup/drop off at Miner means having to walk the opposite direction from the metro, which means taking the bus or streetcar from the Starburst to Union Station instead of the Blue Line. Easily an extra 30 min each way for me, and probably most people commuting downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like those families that were at Miner and had a great experience are no longer there. That's one of the primary concerns many people have with this and it is borne out at Peabody-Watkins. It's hard for all Hill elementaries to retain kids in the upper grades. Splitting between two campuses will make it easier for families to leave because they will view it as two schools, just like they do at P-W. Likely more so, because there will be more kids per grade, so less sense of community across each grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like those families that were at Miner and had a great experience are no longer there. That's one of the primary concerns many people have with this and it is borne out at Peabody-Watkins. It's hard for all Hill elementaries to retain kids in the upper grades. Splitting between two campuses will make it easier for families to leave because they will view it as two schools, just like they do at P-W. Likely more so, because there will be more kids per grade, so less sense of community across each grade.

DP but it's clear from the PP's comment that they these are families IB for Maury who always intended to attend Maury for K-5, but who couldn't get PK spots (which happens a lot for Maury IB families). Then they went to Miner for PK, enjoyed their experience, and are now at their IB school (Maury) for upper grades, where they are also happy.

In other words, this PP is describing families who are essentially already having the "cluster experience" and are satisfied with it. Not people who started at Miner and fled, but people who utilized it for it's good ECE program when they couldn't get spots at Maury, which cannot accommodate the current demand for PK from IB families.

[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.

I’m a Maury parent and don’t think relative crime rates have any place in this discussion.

This whole crime thing is a distraction. A sad distraction. There are a million other real issues with a cluster that aren’t being addressed. But we keep lapsing into “Maury parents are mean!” and the super unhelpful and offensive rejoinder, “Well, we might get shot!” instead of addressing anything real.

I’m not even sure half of you are real people, it’s so perfectly troll-like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like those families that were at Miner and had a great experience are no longer there. That's one of the primary concerns many people have with this and it is borne out at Peabody-Watkins. It's hard for all Hill elementaries to retain kids in the upper grades. Splitting between two campuses will make it easier for families to leave because they will view it as two schools, just like they do at P-W. Likely more so, because there will be more kids per grade, so less sense of community across each grade.

DP but it's clear from the PP's comment that they these are families IB for Maury who always intended to attend Maury for K-5, but who couldn't get PK spots (which happens a lot for Maury IB families). Then they went to Miner for PK, enjoyed their experience, and are now at their IB school (Maury) for upper grades, where they are also happy.

In other words, this PP is describing families who are essentially already having the "cluster experience" and are satisfied with it. Not people who started at Miner and fled, but people who utilized it for it's good ECE program when they couldn't get spots at Maury, which cannot accommodate the current demand for PK from IB families.

There are reasons why those families didn't stay on at Miner past ECE. Maybe they preferred the shorter commute to their IB school. Maybe they perceived that Miner has extra challenges in the upper grades (that would not go away by just moving kids into a new building).

I am glad that Miner families and Maury families have both had good experiences with ECE at Miner. Truly. It sounds like a nice program. But the fact is that many more Maury families choose to send their kids to AppleTree for pre-K than to Miner -- for the reasons outlined above reasons or others. Those reasons are valid and important. And asking families to accept a massive change like this without any showing of how all of the students will be academically supported in this new environment, how it will work logistically, and how it will accomplish the goals it is supposed to (especially when the Peabody/Watkins cluster seems to suggest that it won't -- kids splinter off after Peabody, and Watkins ends up with a proportion of economically disadvantaged students that is double that of Peabody) is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am IB for Maury but have my child at Miner PreK b/c I couldn't get into Prek at Maury. I do not agree with the above sentiments and our experience at Miner thus far has been less than stellar. So much so that we've agreed we would move to Maury ECE if a spot opened up midway through this year despite the level of disruption it may cause my child and our family. A lot of our negative experience comes down to the teacher situation we have and I understand that it is the teachers that are most impactful to your experience, especially at this young of an age. All this to say that my family is opposed to the cluster idea and only opted into it b/c we couldn't get into Maury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m a Maury parent and don’t think relative crime rates have any place in this discussion.

This whole crime thing is a distraction. A sad distraction. There are a million other real issues with a cluster that aren’t being addressed. But we keep lapsing into “Maury parents are mean!” and the super unhelpful and offensive rejoinder, “Well, we might get shot!” instead of addressing anything real.

I’m not even sure half of you are real people, it’s so perfectly troll-like.

I am not personally that moved by the crime thing, and it is a very small proportion of the comments I am hearing (until people started spotlighting it on this thread), but it doesn't strike me offensive or totally unreasonable for people to have concerns about sending their kids to school in an objectively higher-crime area. You and others may not afford it a lot of weight personally (as I don't), but I'm not sure that goes to admissibility, as it were.

[Anonymous]

Of course crime has a place in this discussion. And the way I’ve seen so many on Capitol Hill downplay and gaslight about crime the last several years makes me suspicious that it should perhaps have a greater place.

[Anonymous]

Trying to catch up on this issue - can someone summarize the current state of play?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trying to catch up on this issue - can someone summarize the current state of play?

RTFF

[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.

I’m a Maury parent and don’t think relative crime rates have any place in this discussion.

This whole crime thing is a distraction. A sad distraction. There are a million other real issues with a cluster that aren’t being addressed. But we keep lapsing into “Maury parents are mean!” and the super unhelpful and offensive rejoinder, “Well, we might get shot!” instead of addressing anything real.

I’m not even sure half of you are real people, it’s so perfectly troll-like.

I’m 100% serious. You must not be paying attention to the crime - it’s real for me and it’s certainly real for all the families in the Miner neighborhood who have to deal with it. As much as some people want this weird omerta about crime, DC is in the middle of a horrific crime wave and unfortunately Miner is right in the middle of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like those families that were at Miner and had a great experience are no longer there. That's one of the primary concerns many people have with this and it is borne out at Peabody-Watkins. It's hard for all Hill elementaries to retain kids in the upper grades. Splitting between two campuses will make it easier for families to leave because they will view it as two schools, just like they do at P-W. Likely more so, because there will be more kids per grade, so less sense of community across each grade.

DP but it's clear from the PP's comment that they these are families IB for Maury who always intended to attend Maury for K-5, but who couldn't get PK spots (which happens a lot for Maury IB families). Then they went to Miner for PK, enjoyed their experience, and are now at their IB school (Maury) for upper grades, where they are also happy.

In other words, this PP is describing families who are essentially already having the "cluster experience" and are satisfied with it. Not people who started at Miner and fled, but people who utilized it for it's good ECE program when they couldn't get spots at Maury, which cannot accommodate the current demand for PK from IB families.

Going to Miner for PK is not the “cluster experience.” Obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trying to catch up on this issue - can someone summarize the current state of play?

Sure.

• DCPS wants to merge Maury Elementary School with Miner Elementary School.

• The schools are only a half mile apart but Maury is 21% black and Miner is 80% black.

• In terms of test scores, Maury has some of the best in the city and Miner has some of the worst.

• DCPS is concerned that, given the schools’ close proximity, the racial imbalance between the two schools suggests de facto segregation.

• Maury parents are concerned about how any merger might work and are concerned that DCPS hasn’t really thought the proposal out. They are also concerned about an inflow of low-performing students into Maury, especially given Maury’s significant academic improvement over the last decade or so. For instance, in the past eight years, Maury increased PARCC ELA proficiency from 44% to 74% and math proficiency from 44% to 65%. During this same timer period, Miner’s ELA proficiency rate decreased from 10% to 8% and math proficiency decreased from 21% to 9%. Maury parents are also worried about distance/commute/crime issues.

• Miner parents are in favor of the proposal because it will potentially improve education at Miner since whatever has been happening there for the last decade hasn’t worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course crime has a place in this discussion. And the way I’ve seen so many on Capitol Hill downplay and gaslight about crime the last several years makes me suspicious that it should perhaps have a greater place.

Exactly. The “we don’t talk about that!!” message makes me think … yeah we need to talk about that.