Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Discussion begins at 29:00. You can watch it on 1.25 speed if you like.

Just because someone wanted to clarify that they support diversity doesn’t make them the hypocrite you’re trying to portray. Invoking “diversity” as a policy goal is not some kind of irrefutable way to prove your policy should be enacted. What I and many others have pointed out is that this idea prioritizes diversity on paper over all other goals - including actually providing Miner kids with the education they deserve and need!

[Anonymous]

The comments were about as expected. Some people were willing to straight-up threaten to leave Maury.

I think the best thing for Miner would be an actual good principal who isn't schtupping anyone, but...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The comments were about as expected. Some people were willing to straight-up threaten to leave Maury.

I think the best thing for Miner would be an actual good principal who isn't schtupping anyone, but...

It’s not really a threat to leave because nobody cares, but I have to think many will leave. You can see a plan to deliberately make your child’s school worse and you stay?

[Anonymous]

I think this excerpt from this article speaks to some of the disconnect seen in the comments at the Maury meeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/opinion/abortion-dobbs-affirmation-action.html

"Atkinson and her co-authors pointed to growing support for women’s equality in both theory and practice, reporting on an analysis of four questions posed by the General Social Survey from the mid-1970s to 2004:

When asked whether women should let men run the country and whether wives should put their husbands’ careers first, the policy responses look nearly identical to women’s “equality mood.” The series trend in the liberal direction over time and reach a level of approximately 80 percent liberal responses by 2004.

But when asked whether it is better for women to tend the home and for men to work and whether preschool children suffer if their mothers work, the responses are far less liberal, and the slopes of the lines are less steep. While responses to these questions trend in the liberal direction during the 1970s and 1980s, by the mid-1990s, the series flattens out, with liberalism holding between 50 and 60 percent.

I asked Stimson to elaborate on this, and he emailed in reply:

We have long known that the mass public does not connect problem and solution in the way that policy analysts do. Thus, for example, most people would sincerely like to see a higher level of racial integration in schools, but the idea of putting their kids on a bus to achieve that objective is flatly rejected. I used to see that as hypocrisy. But I no longer do. I think the real issue is that they just do not make the connection between problem and solution. That is why affirmative action has such a troubled history. People are quite capable of supporting policy goals (e.g., racial balance in higher education) and rejecting the means."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this excerpt from this article speaks to some of the disconnect seen in the comments at the Maury meeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/opinion/abortion-dobbs-affirmation-action.html

"Atkinson and her co-authors pointed to growing support for women’s equality in both theory and practice, reporting on an analysis of four questions posed by the General Social Survey from the mid-1970s to 2004:

When asked whether women should let men run the country and whether wives should put their husbands’ careers first, the policy responses look nearly identical to women’s “equality mood.” The series trend in the liberal direction over time and reach a level of approximately 80 percent liberal responses by 2004.

But when asked whether it is better for women to tend the home and for men to work and whether preschool children suffer if their mothers work, the responses are far less liberal, and the slopes of the lines are less steep. While responses to these questions trend in the liberal direction during the 1970s and 1980s, by the mid-1990s, the series flattens out, with liberalism holding between 50 and 60 percent.

I asked Stimson to elaborate on this, and he emailed in reply:

We have long known that the mass public does not connect problem and solution in the way that policy analysts do. Thus, for example, most people would sincerely like to see a higher level of racial integration in schools, but the idea of putting their kids on a bus to achieve that objective is flatly rejected. I used to see that as hypocrisy. But I no longer do. I think the real issue is that they just do not make the connection between problem and solution. That is why affirmative action has such a troubled history. People are quite capable of supporting policy goals (e.g., racial balance in higher education) and rejecting the means."

Well, I think it's more that the price logistically is higher than they're willing to pay. But also, they didn't think other people would be willing to ride the bus or commute farther, and that's the dynamic here at Maury as well. What reason is there to believe people will stick with Maury? Or perhaps the DME thinks some attrition and loss of performance at Maury is a price they're willing to pay. And if they're willing to provide more resources, why not provide those resources to Miner right now?

I don't really understand why they can't do the at-risk set-aside option for Maury. It seems like that would achieve their goal of more demographic integration without ruining everyone's commute.

[Anonymous]

Once you realize that making Maury worse is the goal, it will all make sense. You think they care about your commute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once you realize that making Maury worse is the goal, it will all make sense. You think they care about your commute?

I definitely do not think they care, because they're proposing to make it a miserable commute. But if having more at-risk kids at Maury is the goal, why not do the at-risk set-aside? Same outcome, less fussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this excerpt from this article speaks to some of the disconnect seen in the comments at the Maury meeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/opinion/abortion-dobbs-affirmation-action.html

"Atkinson and her co-authors pointed to growing support for women’s equality in both theory and practice, reporting on an analysis of four questions posed by the General Social Survey from the mid-1970s to 2004:

When asked whether women should let men run the country and whether wives should put their husbands’ careers first, the policy responses look nearly identical to women’s “equality mood.” The series trend in the liberal direction over time and reach a level of approximately 80 percent liberal responses by 2004.

But when asked whether it is better for women to tend the home and for men to work and whether preschool children suffer if their mothers work, the responses are far less liberal, and the slopes of the lines are less steep. While responses to these questions trend in the liberal direction during the 1970s and 1980s, by the mid-1990s, the series flattens out, with liberalism holding between 50 and 60 percent.

I asked Stimson to elaborate on this, and he emailed in reply:

We have long known that the mass public does not connect problem and solution in the way that policy analysts do. Thus, for example, most people would sincerely like to see a higher level of racial integration in schools, but the idea of putting their kids on a bus to achieve that objective is flatly rejected. I used to see that as hypocrisy. But I no longer do. I think the real issue is that they just do not make the connection between problem and solution. That is why affirmative action has such a troubled history. People are quite capable of supporting policy goals (e.g., racial balance in higher education) and rejecting the means."

Well, I think it's more that the price logistically is higher than they're willing to pay. But also, they didn't think other people would be willing to ride the bus or commute farther, and that's the dynamic here at Maury as well. What reason is there to believe people will stick with Maury? Or perhaps the DME thinks some attrition and loss of performance at Maury is a price they're willing to pay. And if they're willing to provide more resources, why not provide those resources to Miner right now?

I don't really understand why they can't do the at-risk set-aside option for Maury. It seems like that would achieve their goal of more demographic integration without ruining everyone's commute.

I disagree with the assessment as well, particularly in DC where I'd argue that more parents are going to make the connection between policy and implementation. It is actually Maury parents' primary concern with this approach. In a city with a choice model there needs to be sufficient information about a program to encourage parents to buy in. Parents are skeptical that this proposal will achieve the desired outcome. I think most parents support the at-risk set aside, because it is better tailored to achieve that outcome. The cluster is a wild card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this excerpt from this article speaks to some of the disconnect seen in the comments at the Maury meeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/opinion/abortion-dobbs-affirmation-action.html

"Atkinson and her co-authors pointed to growing support for women’s equality in both theory and practice, reporting on an analysis of four questions posed by the General Social Survey from the mid-1970s to 2004:

When asked whether women should let men run the country and whether wives should put their husbands’ careers first, the policy responses look nearly identical to women’s “equality mood.” The series trend in the liberal direction over time and reach a level of approximately 80 percent liberal responses by 2004.

But when asked whether it is better for women to tend the home and for men to work and whether preschool children suffer if their mothers work, the responses are far less liberal, and the slopes of the lines are less steep. While responses to these questions trend in the liberal direction during the 1970s and 1980s, by the mid-1990s, the series flattens out, with liberalism holding between 50 and 60 percent.

I asked Stimson to elaborate on this, and he emailed in reply:

We have long known that the mass public does not connect problem and solution in the way that policy analysts do. Thus, for example, most people would sincerely like to see a higher level of racial integration in schools, but the idea of putting their kids on a bus to achieve that objective is flatly rejected. I used to see that as hypocrisy. But I no longer do. I think the real issue is that they just do not make the connection between problem and solution. That is why affirmative action has such a troubled history. People are quite capable of supporting policy goals (e.g., racial balance in higher education) and rejecting the means."

Well, I think it's more that the price logistically is higher than they're willing to pay. But also, they didn't think other people would be willing to ride the bus or commute farther, and that's the dynamic here at Maury as well. What reason is there to believe people will stick with Maury? Or perhaps the DME thinks some attrition and loss of performance at Maury is a price they're willing to pay. And if they're willing to provide more resources, why not provide those resources to Miner right now?

I don't really understand why they can't do the at-risk set-aside option for Maury. It seems like that would achieve their goal of more demographic integration without ruining everyone's commute.

For those more familiar with Maury's enrollment, what percent of each grade comes from out of bounds? The at-risk set aside only applies to out of bound seats in the lottery. If there are not sufficient seats available, the at-risk set aside will not apply/it would be an empty gesture. Since anybody inbounds will get in through the traditional in boundary preference, this applies to out of bound applicants and would give priority to at risk families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this excerpt from this article speaks to some of the disconnect seen in the comments at the Maury meeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/opinion/abortion-dobbs-affirmation-action.html

"Atkinson and her co-authors pointed to growing support for women’s equality in both theory and practice, reporting on an analysis of four questions posed by the General Social Survey from the mid-1970s to 2004:

When asked whether women should let men run the country and whether wives should put their husbands’ careers first, the policy responses look nearly identical to women’s “equality mood.” The series trend in the liberal direction over time and reach a level of approximately 80 percent liberal responses by 2004.

But when asked whether it is better for women to tend the home and for men to work and whether preschool children suffer if their mothers work, the responses are far less liberal, and the slopes of the lines are less steep. While responses to these questions trend in the liberal direction during the 1970s and 1980s, by the mid-1990s, the series flattens out, with liberalism holding between 50 and 60 percent.

I asked Stimson to elaborate on this, and he emailed in reply:

We have long known that the mass public does not connect problem and solution in the way that policy analysts do. Thus, for example, most people would sincerely like to see a higher level of racial integration in schools, but the idea of putting their kids on a bus to achieve that objective is flatly rejected. I used to see that as hypocrisy. But I no longer do. I think the real issue is that they just do not make the connection between problem and solution. That is why affirmative action has such a troubled history. People are quite capable of supporting policy goals (e.g., racial balance in higher education) and rejecting the means."

Well, I think it's more that the price logistically is higher than they're willing to pay. But also, they didn't think other people would be willing to ride the bus or commute farther, and that's the dynamic here at Maury as well. What reason is there to believe people will stick with Maury? Or perhaps the DME thinks some attrition and loss of performance at Maury is a price they're willing to pay. And if they're willing to provide more resources, why not provide those resources to Miner right now?

I don't really understand why they can't do the at-risk set-aside option for Maury. It seems like that would achieve their goal of more demographic integration without ruining everyone's commute.

For those more familiar with Maury's enrollment, what percent of each grade comes from out of bounds? The at-risk set aside only applies to out of bound seats in the lottery. If there are not sufficient seats available, the at-risk set aside will not apply/it would be an empty gesture. Since anybody inbounds will get in through the traditional in boundary preference, this applies to out of bound applicants and would give priority to at risk families.

Maury did make some K offers, which would have been for OOB kids. Last year they made offers for 1st and 2nd graders as well. But yes, I do think the plan would be to crowd Maury a little bit. Or to shrink the zone slightly.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/aaron2446/viz/MSDCSeatsandWaitlistOfferData_draft/MSDCPublicDisplay

[Anonymous]

There are ways they could make room for an at-risk set-aside. Eliminate or cut back PK3, for one. Reduce the boundary slightly. Accept some less-than-optimal renovations or a trailer unit. It's a question of which option to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this excerpt from this article speaks to some of the disconnect seen in the comments at the Maury meeting. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/opinion/abortion-dobbs-affirmation-action.html

"Atkinson and her co-authors pointed to growing support for women’s equality in both theory and practice, reporting on an analysis of four questions posed by the General Social Survey from the mid-1970s to 2004:

When asked whether women should let men run the country and whether wives should put their husbands’ careers first, the policy responses look nearly identical to women’s “equality mood.” The series trend in the liberal direction over time and reach a level of approximately 80 percent liberal responses by 2004.

But when asked whether it is better for women to tend the home and for men to work and whether preschool children suffer if their mothers work, the responses are far less liberal, and the slopes of the lines are less steep. While responses to these questions trend in the liberal direction during the 1970s and 1980s, by the mid-1990s, the series flattens out, with liberalism holding between 50 and 60 percent.

I asked Stimson to elaborate on this, and he emailed in reply:

We have long known that the mass public does not connect problem and solution in the way that policy analysts do. Thus, for example, most people would sincerely like to see a higher level of racial integration in schools, but the idea of putting their kids on a bus to achieve that objective is flatly rejected. I used to see that as hypocrisy. But I no longer do. I think the real issue is that they just do not make the connection between problem and solution. That is why affirmative action has such a troubled history. People are quite capable of supporting policy goals (e.g., racial balance in higher education) and rejecting the means."

Well, I think it's more that the price logistically is higher than they're willing to pay. But also, they didn't think other people would be willing to ride the bus or commute farther, and that's the dynamic here at Maury as well. What reason is there to believe people will stick with Maury? Or perhaps the DME thinks some attrition and loss of performance at Maury is a price they're willing to pay. And if they're willing to provide more resources, why not provide those resources to Miner right now?

I don't really understand why they can't do the at-risk set-aside option for Maury. It seems like that would achieve their goal of more demographic integration without ruining everyone's commute.

For those more familiar with Maury's enrollment, what percent of each grade comes from out of bounds? The at-risk set aside only applies to out of bound seats in the lottery. If there are not sufficient seats available, the at-risk set aside will not apply/it would be an empty gesture. Since anybody inbounds will get in through the traditional in boundary preference, this applies to out of bound applicants and would give priority to at risk families.

Maury did make some K offers, which would have been for OOB kids. Last year they made offers for 1st and 2nd graders as well. But yes, I do think the plan would be to crowd Maury a little bit. Or to shrink the zone slightly.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/aaron2446/viz/MSDCSeatsandWaitlistOfferData_draft/MSDCPublicDisplay

I think the best way for parents to challenge the proposal is with specific questions challenging the merits of the proposal. For example "provide data / case studies supporting the cluster approach?"

And then providing counterproposals so that the DME can look like they've done something in the event this cluster doesn't happen. Best option IMO would be to shrink the Maury boundary in order to provide some set aside at-risk OOB spots in each grade. And then funnel all the money they would've needed to retrofit Maury and / or Miner schools for the cluster to better support Miner. Priority number 1, find a way to send a top tier principal who knows how to turn a school around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are ways they could make room for an at-risk set-aside. Eliminate or cut back PK3, for one. Reduce the boundary slightly. Accept some less-than-optimal renovations or a trailer unit. It's a question of which option to choose.

They could also introduce attractive programming at Miner -- like a language program -- that could help to attract IB families and other nearby high SES families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are ways they could make room for an at-risk set-aside. Eliminate or cut back PK3, for one. Reduce the boundary slightly. Accept some less-than-optimal renovations or a trailer unit. It's a question of which option to choose.

Also, there is currently a (great, IMHO) plan to make a separate ECE center at Miner. That could solve some of Maury’s pre-k and over-capacity issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are ways they could make room for an at-risk set-aside. Eliminate or cut back PK3, for one. Reduce the boundary slightly. Accept some less-than-optimal renovations or a trailer unit. It's a question of which option to choose.

Also, there is currently a (great, IMHO) plan to make a separate ECE center at Miner. That could solve some of Maury’s pre-k and over-capacity issues.

Yes. Maury could give up PK3 entirely, and get IB status at the separate ECE center. That would mean they can add a K classroom.