Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

From what I understand that new facility at Miner is for ages one to three. Initial language may have indicated PK grades, but it seems the focus has shifted, so it would not impact school attendance at all. https://dcps.dc.gov/page/infant-and-toddler-child-development-centers-dcps

From the way the at-risk set aside is being talked about across the city, it would only be applied if there are out of bound seats available, so if parents are saying that by choosing that option, it would have the same impact on the huge disparity of at-risk population at the two schools, I do not think it would have that much of an impact on Maury's numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

From what I understand that new facility at Miner is for ages one to three. Initial language may have indicated PK grades, but it seems the focus has shifted, so it would not impact school attendance at all. https://dcps.dc.gov/page/infant-and-toddler-child-development-centers-dcps

From the way the at-risk set aside is being talked about across the city, it would only be applied if there are out of bound seats available, so if parents are saying that by choosing that option, it would have the same impact on the huge disparity of at-risk population at the two schools, I do not think it would have that much of an impact on Maury's numbers.

This is helpful- thank you. I admit my understand was wrong— I thought it was a pre-k center but it looks like this would go through pre-k 3, but not higher.

I agree that Maury (and other schools) need to do something else (such as shrinking the boundary, getting rid of pre-k, etc) for the set aside to make a meaningful impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

From what I understand that new facility at Miner is for ages one to three. Initial language may have indicated PK grades, but it seems the focus has shifted, so it would not impact school attendance at all. https://dcps.dc.gov/page/infant-and-toddler-child-development-centers-dcps

From the way the at-risk set aside is being talked about across the city, it would only be applied if there are out of bound seats available, so if parents are saying that by choosing that option, it would have the same impact on the huge disparity of at-risk population at the two schools, I do not think it would have that much of an impact on Maury's numbers.

It's a judgment call how many OOB seats a school makes available. If Maury is willing to accept slightly larger class sizes, they can do it (within their building cap and WTU contract). Or they can get a trailer.

It also would not mean the new kids would come from Miner-- they could come from anywhere. So it might change Maury's stats but not Miner's.

[Anonymous]

Look, I think the cluster idea is half-baked at best and also that at the proposed timeline for it is insane, but the way people are talking about an at-risk set aside as an alternative on this thread is, IMO, worse.

Like when you say "let's shrink the boundary" to make room for more OOB kids, consider that will have a real impact on actual families who will suddenly no longer be IB for Maury. If they are now zoned for Miner, but nothing is done to improve Miner, this plan instantly makes their education options significantly worse. If instead they shrink the zone on the western edge, presumably those families would go to LT. I'm sure a lot of families would be fine with that, but this then causes issues for LT, in terms of crowding and diversity.

Additionally, as people have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the OOB spots designated for at-risk kids would come from the Miner boundary, unless there was some kind of preference there, and I think that would be hard to accomplish because the proximity of Maury and Miner means that very few families would qualify for proximity preference, which means a new, special preference would have to be created for Miner-zoned families. That is not going to happen.

Finally, since this means that the OOB students could come from anywhere in the city (many would likely come from across the river because of the appeal of having a school that is generally on a commuting route into downtown), this proposal actually undermines one of the things many parents like most about Maury, which is that it is a true neighborhood school. If the school is going bring in more at-risk kids, I feel they should ideally come from the many at-risk kids who already live in the surrounding neighborhood. Both because it preserves the neighborhood feel of the school, a huge asset, and because I think the school would do a better job of meeting the needs of at risk children when their families are part of the same community -- I truly think this can help with issues like truancy and communication between the school and families that often become issues for at risk kids. You would also get more participation in community events from at risk families who live nearby, and the community events on weeknights and weekends is a major part of how Maury builds that neighborhood feel.

So if you asked me right now to choose between the cluster and what y'all are proposing with an at risk preference for OOB spots, my response would be "maybe we can do the cluster but with a longer lead time to implementation, more actual planning to address community concerns about issues like facilities, family and teacher retention, split commutes, and how best to serve the needs of a more diverse student body, especially in upper grades?"

I mean, if the goal is more diversity and to better serve the needs of at risk students, without compromising the quality of education of current Maury families, I think the cluster proposal actually makes more sense than this at-risk preference idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

From what I understand that new facility at Miner is for ages one to three. Initial language may have indicated PK grades, but it seems the focus has shifted, so it would not impact school attendance at all. https://dcps.dc.gov/page/infant-and-toddler-child-development-centers-dcps

From the way the at-risk set aside is being talked about across the city, it would only be applied if there are out of bound seats available, so if parents are saying that by choosing that option, it would have the same impact on the huge disparity of at-risk population at the two schools, I do not think it would have that much of an impact on Maury's numbers.

It's a judgment call how many OOB seats a school makes available. If Maury is willing to accept slightly larger class sizes, they can do it (within their building cap and WTU contract). Or they can get a trailer.

It also would not mean the new kids would come from Miner-- they could come from anywhere. So it might change Maury's stats but not Miner's.

This is where some of the arbitrariness of this whole proposal gets me. There are lots of kids who go to schools with very low-SES populations or that have some of the same issues Miner has, and they're not less deserving of a break than Miner kids (and, to be clear, they all deserve to be going to high quality schools). Maury is not a bigger "problem" for SES diversity than JKLM, and Miner is not a bigger "problem" than many other schools, and the proximity and difference between Maury/Miner isn't the biggest on DME's list, they just decided to throw their hands up at the others.

An at-risk set aside/preference, if it is to be made available, should be made available at all schools in DCPS, so that it provides ample spots to kids from Miner and others. Sure you might not get Maury, but maybe you'll get Brent, or Payne, or Tyler, or Peabody/Watkins, or LT, etc. There's no magic to the Maury/Miner thing other than that DME pulled it out of a hat.

[Anonymous]

The preference is already available at a lot of other schools including some in W3, and at some charters. Interestingly, it tends not to fill up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, I think the cluster idea is half-baked at best and also that at the proposed timeline for it is insane, but the way people are talking about an at-risk set aside as an alternative on this thread is, IMO, worse.

Like when you say "let's shrink the boundary" to make room for more OOB kids, consider that will have a real impact on actual families who will suddenly no longer be IB for Maury. If they are now zoned for Miner, but nothing is done to improve Miner, this plan instantly makes their education options significantly worse. If instead they shrink the zone on the western edge, presumably those families would go to LT. I'm sure a lot of families would be fine with that, but this then causes issues for LT, in terms of crowding and diversity.

Additionally, as people have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the OOB spots designated for at-risk kids would come from the Miner boundary, unless there was some kind of preference there, and I think that would be hard to accomplish because the proximity of Maury and Miner means that very few families would qualify for proximity preference, which means a new, special preference would have to be created for Miner-zoned families. That is not going to happen.

Finally, since this means that the OOB students could come from anywhere in the city (many would likely come from across the river because of the appeal of having a school that is generally on a commuting route into downtown), this proposal actually undermines one of the things many parents like most about Maury, which is that it is a true neighborhood school. If the school is going bring in more at-risk kids, I feel they should ideally come from the many at-risk kids who already live in the surrounding neighborhood. Both because it preserves the neighborhood feel of the school, a huge asset, and because I think the school would do a better job of meeting the needs of at risk children when their families are part of the same community -- I truly think this can help with issues like truancy and communication between the school and families that often become issues for at risk kids. You would also get more participation in community events from at risk families who live nearby, and the community events on weeknights and weekends is a major part of how Maury builds that neighborhood feel.

So if you asked me right now to choose between the cluster and what y'all are proposing with an at risk preference for OOB spots, my response would be "maybe we can do the cluster but with a longer lead time to implementation, more actual planning to address community concerns about issues like facilities, family and teacher retention, split commutes, and how best to serve the needs of a more diverse student body, especially in upper grades?"

I mean, if the goal is more diversity and to better serve the needs of at risk students, without compromising the quality of education of current Maury families, I think the cluster proposal actually makes more sense than this at-risk preference idea.

Why can't a Miner boundary set aside for Maury be created specific to at-risk kids? Surely that is easier to implement than a half baked cluster?

Also, Miner has a significant OOB population already. Is there any data to show the split between IB and OOB at-risk kids at Miner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, I think the cluster idea is half-baked at best and also that at the proposed timeline for it is insane, but the way people are talking about an at-risk set aside as an alternative on this thread is, IMO, worse.

Like when you say "let's shrink the boundary" to make room for more OOB kids, consider that will have a real impact on actual families who will suddenly no longer be IB for Maury. If they are now zoned for Miner, but nothing is done to improve Miner, this plan instantly makes their education options significantly worse. If instead they shrink the zone on the western edge, presumably those families would go to LT. I'm sure a lot of families would be fine with that, but this then causes issues for LT, in terms of crowding and diversity.

Additionally, as people have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the OOB spots designated for at-risk kids would come from the Miner boundary, unless there was some kind of preference there, and I think that would be hard to accomplish because the proximity of Maury and Miner means that very few families would qualify for proximity preference, which means a new, special preference would have to be created for Miner-zoned families. That is not going to happen.

Finally, since this means that the OOB students could come from anywhere in the city (many would likely come from across the river because of the appeal of having a school that is generally on a commuting route into downtown), this proposal actually undermines one of the things many parents like most about Maury, which is that it is a true neighborhood school. If the school is going bring in more at-risk kids, I feel they should ideally come from the many at-risk kids who already live in the surrounding neighborhood. Both because it preserves the neighborhood feel of the school, a huge asset, and because I think the school would do a better job of meeting the needs of at risk children when their families are part of the same community -- I truly think this can help with issues like truancy and communication between the school and families that often become issues for at risk kids. You would also get more participation in community events from at risk families who live nearby, and the community events on weeknights and weekends is a major part of how Maury builds that neighborhood feel.

So if you asked me right now to choose between the cluster and what y'all are proposing with an at risk preference for OOB spots, my response would be "maybe we can do the cluster but with a longer lead time to implementation, more actual planning to address community concerns about issues like facilities, family and teacher retention, split commutes, and how best to serve the needs of a more diverse student body, especially in upper grades?"

I mean, if the goal is more diversity and to better serve the needs of at risk students, without compromising the quality of education of current Maury families, I think the cluster proposal actually makes more sense than this at-risk preference idea.

I think the idea of the set aside is that it could be implemented district-wide and wouldn't be a huge number of spots in any single school. The point is to manageably bring in a much smaller number of higher-need students than would flood the school in a cluster system -- and by the same token, even if they are coming from far away, it would be a small enough number not to undermine the neighborhood community of the school.

Whereas I don't actually think DCPS could ever adequately redress the problems I have with a cluster model; I am fundamentally opposed to the model itself, even aside with any challenges that would come with this proposal specifically (which I also fundamentally believe DCPS is not prepared to grapple with). We could cluster with Brent and I still wouldn't want to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I think the cluster idea is half-baked at best and also that at the proposed timeline for it is insane, but the way people are talking about an at-risk set aside as an alternative on this thread is, IMO, worse.

Like when you say "let's shrink the boundary" to make room for more OOB kids, consider that will have a real impact on actual families who will suddenly no longer be IB for Maury. If they are now zoned for Miner, but nothing is done to improve Miner, this plan instantly makes their education options significantly worse. If instead they shrink the zone on the western edge, presumably those families would go to LT. I'm sure a lot of families would be fine with that, but this then causes issues for LT, in terms of crowding and diversity.

Additionally, as people have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the OOB spots designated for at-risk kids would come from the Miner boundary, unless there was some kind of preference there, and I think that would be hard to accomplish because the proximity of Maury and Miner means that very few families would qualify for proximity preference, which means a new, special preference would have to be created for Miner-zoned families. That is not going to happen.

Finally, since this means that the OOB students could come from anywhere in the city (many would likely come from across the river because of the appeal of having a school that is generally on a commuting route into downtown), this proposal actually undermines one of the things many parents like most about Maury, which is that it is a true neighborhood school. If the school is going bring in more at-risk kids, I feel they should ideally come from the many at-risk kids who already live in the surrounding neighborhood. Both because it preserves the neighborhood feel of the school, a huge asset, and because I think the school would do a better job of meeting the needs of at risk children when their families are part of the same community -- I truly think this can help with issues like truancy and communication between the school and families that often become issues for at risk kids. You would also get more participation in community events from at risk families who live nearby, and the community events on weeknights and weekends is a major part of how Maury builds that neighborhood feel.

So if you asked me right now to choose between the cluster and what y'all are proposing with an at risk preference for OOB spots, my response would be "maybe we can do the cluster but with a longer lead time to implementation, more actual planning to address community concerns about issues like facilities, family and teacher retention, split commutes, and how best to serve the needs of a more diverse student body, especially in upper grades?"

I mean, if the goal is more diversity and to better serve the needs of at risk students, without compromising the quality of education of current Maury families, I think the cluster proposal actually makes more sense than this at-risk preference idea.

Why can't a Miner boundary set aside for Maury be created specific to at-risk kids? Surely that is easier to implement than a half baked cluster?

Also, Miner has a significant OOB population already. Is there any data to show the split between IB and OOB at-risk kids at Miner?

Because it would not be equitable, because the same set aside does not exist for at risk kids in other parts of the city to access successful nearby DCPS schools. There are at-risk set asides (I think mostly, if not entirely, at charters) but any at-risk student in the city can apply for them in the lottery. If they created a special set aside for at risk kids in the Miner boundary just for access to Maury, that's a special benefit that those kids get that no other similarly situation student in the city gets.

I can't speak to what percent of Miner's OOB students are at risk, but I do know the neighborhood well enough to know there are a significant number of at-risk kids living IB for Miner because I used to provide services to some of the low-income housing units in the neighborhood. But I also don't know what percent of these kids go to Miner -- those families also play the lottery and plenty send their kids to other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The preference is already available at a lot of other schools including some in W3, and at some charters. Interestingly, it tends not to fill up.

It is interesting that the at-risk preferences don't tend to fill. I have wondered this looking at lottery data.

I understand why for schools in upper NW -- it's a commute issue and it's unsurprising that families with at-risk kids might not have the resources needed to get their kid to the other side of town. But they also don't fill at charters on the east side, and I've always been curious as to why. I suppose a major reason is probably that at-risk families utilize the lottery less because a lot of the factors that make a student at-risk can also make it harder to have the resources to submit a lottery application, much less research schools outside your neighborhood and know what schools have at risk preferences and how to submit to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The preference is already available at a lot of other schools including some in W3, and at some charters. Interestingly, it tends not to fill up.

It is interesting that the at-risk preferences don't tend to fill. I have wondered this looking at lottery data.

I understand why for schools in upper NW -- it's a commute issue and it's unsurprising that families with at-risk kids might not have the resources needed to get their kid to the other side of town. But they also don't fill at charters on the east side, and I've always been curious as to why. I suppose a major reason is probably that at-risk families utilize the lottery less because a lot of the factors that make a student at-risk can also make it harder to have the resources to submit a lottery application, much less research schools outside your neighborhood and know what schools have at risk preferences and how to submit to them.

I think the hope is that as time goes on, more people will know about the at-risk lottery option and will make use of it. Also, there will be a natural follow-on effect as at-risk kids have siblings who enter the new school either through the at-risk preference or just on regular sibling preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I think the cluster idea is half-baked at best and also that at the proposed timeline for it is insane, but the way people are talking about an at-risk set aside as an alternative on this thread is, IMO, worse.

Like when you say "let's shrink the boundary" to make room for more OOB kids, consider that will have a real impact on actual families who will suddenly no longer be IB for Maury. If they are now zoned for Miner, but nothing is done to improve Miner, this plan instantly makes their education options significantly worse. If instead they shrink the zone on the western edge, presumably those families would go to LT. I'm sure a lot of families would be fine with that, but this then causes issues for LT, in terms of crowding and diversity.

Additionally, as people have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the OOB spots designated for at-risk kids would come from the Miner boundary, unless there was some kind of preference there, and I think that would be hard to accomplish because the proximity of Maury and Miner means that very few families would qualify for proximity preference, which means a new, special preference would have to be created for Miner-zoned families. That is not going to happen.

Finally, since this means that the OOB students could come from anywhere in the city (many would likely come from across the river because of the appeal of having a school that is generally on a commuting route into downtown), this proposal actually undermines one of the things many parents like most about Maury, which is that it is a true neighborhood school. If the school is going bring in more at-risk kids, I feel they should ideally come from the many at-risk kids who already live in the surrounding neighborhood. Both because it preserves the neighborhood feel of the school, a huge asset, and because I think the school would do a better job of meeting the needs of at risk children when their families are part of the same community -- I truly think this can help with issues like truancy and communication between the school and families that often become issues for at risk kids. You would also get more participation in community events from at risk families who live nearby, and the community events on weeknights and weekends is a major part of how Maury builds that neighborhood feel.

So if you asked me right now to choose between the cluster and what y'all are proposing with an at risk preference for OOB spots, my response would be "maybe we can do the cluster but with a longer lead time to implementation, more actual planning to address community concerns about issues like facilities, family and teacher retention, split commutes, and how best to serve the needs of a more diverse student body, especially in upper grades?"

I mean, if the goal is more diversity and to better serve the needs of at risk students, without compromising the quality of education of current Maury families, I think the cluster proposal actually makes more sense than this at-risk preference idea.

Why can't a Miner boundary set aside for Maury be created specific to at-risk kids? Surely that is easier to implement than a half baked cluster?

Also, Miner has a significant OOB population already. Is there any data to show the split between IB and OOB at-risk kids at Miner?

Because it would not be equitable, because the same set aside does not exist for at risk kids in other parts of the city to access successful nearby DCPS schools. There are at-risk set asides (I think mostly, if not entirely, at charters) but any at-risk student in the city can apply for them in the lottery. If they created a special set aside for at risk kids in the Miner boundary just for access to Maury, that's a special benefit that those kids get that no other similarly situation student in the city gets.

I can't speak to what percent of Miner's OOB students are at risk, but I do know the neighborhood well enough to know there are a significant number of at-risk kids living IB for Miner because I used to provide services to some of the low-income housing units in the neighborhood. But I also don't know what percent of these kids go to Miner -- those families also play the lottery and plenty send their kids to other schools.

Advisory Committee member here - All of this back and forth is reason to log on next week, this will all be discussed. We previewed the web tools last night at our meeting and there will be lots of ways to interact and give feedback . As was said at previous meetings, the reason Miner and Maury were chosen for this potential idea was not out of a hat. Of all of the schools shared boundaries that had a large disparity between student populations, this was the only school pair that was not separated by either a river, a park, or a large traffic artery. (Ex Payne and Kimball ES or Ludlow and Walker Jones) for all of the parents on here complaining about commute and disruptions with drop off, the other school pairs would be much more difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I think the cluster idea is half-baked at best and also that at the proposed timeline for it is insane, but the way people are talking about an at-risk set aside as an alternative on this thread is, IMO, worse.

Like when you say "let's shrink the boundary" to make room for more OOB kids, consider that will have a real impact on actual families who will suddenly no longer be IB for Maury. If they are now zoned for Miner, but nothing is done to improve Miner, this plan instantly makes their education options significantly worse. If instead they shrink the zone on the western edge, presumably those families would go to LT. I'm sure a lot of families would be fine with that, but this then causes issues for LT, in terms of crowding and diversity.

Additionally, as people have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the OOB spots designated for at-risk kids would come from the Miner boundary, unless there was some kind of preference there, and I think that would be hard to accomplish because the proximity of Maury and Miner means that very few families would qualify for proximity preference, which means a new, special preference would have to be created for Miner-zoned families. That is not going to happen.

Finally, since this means that the OOB students could come from anywhere in the city (many would likely come from across the river because of the appeal of having a school that is generally on a commuting route into downtown), this proposal actually undermines one of the things many parents like most about Maury, which is that it is a true neighborhood school. If the school is going bring in more at-risk kids, I feel they should ideally come from the many at-risk kids who already live in the surrounding neighborhood. Both because it preserves the neighborhood feel of the school, a huge asset, and because I think the school would do a better job of meeting the needs of at risk children when their families are part of the same community -- I truly think this can help with issues like truancy and communication between the school and families that often become issues for at risk kids. You would also get more participation in community events from at risk families who live nearby, and the community events on weeknights and weekends is a major part of how Maury builds that neighborhood feel.

So if you asked me right now to choose between the cluster and what y'all are proposing with an at risk preference for OOB spots, my response would be "maybe we can do the cluster but with a longer lead time to implementation, more actual planning to address community concerns about issues like facilities, family and teacher retention, split commutes, and how best to serve the needs of a more diverse student body, especially in upper grades?"

I mean, if the goal is more diversity and to better serve the needs of at risk students, without compromising the quality of education of current Maury families, I think the cluster proposal actually makes more sense than this at-risk preference idea.

I think the idea of the set aside is that it could be implemented district-wide and wouldn't be a huge number of spots in any single school. The point is to manageably bring in a much smaller number of higher-need students than would flood the school in a cluster system -- and by the same token, even if they are coming from far away, it would be a small enough number not to undermine the neighborhood community of the school.

Whereas I don't actually think DCPS could ever adequately redress the problems I have with a cluster model; I am fundamentally opposed to the model itself, even aside with any challenges that would come with this proposal specifically (which I also fundamentally believe DCPS is not prepared to grapple with). We could cluster with Brent and I still wouldn't want to do it.

While I don't disagree about the cluster proposal, I will admit that it feels like you are saying that the important thing is to keep the presence of at-risk kids at Maury as minimal as possible. There are a lot of at-risk kids in DC, and if we want to distribute them more equally throughout the city (instead of having them concentrated at the same schools as they currently are at Miner), then public school families would have to shift their idea of what an "acceptable" level of at-risk kids at a school is.

Maury currently has 12% at-risk, Miner has over 60% at-risk. I think in order for the at-risk set aside to be a meaningful counterproposal to the cluster, Maury would have to be willing to double its at-risk population via lottery. That would require substantially shrinking the zone (you'd need to add over 60 spots).

Just speaking practically about this set-aside proposal. If you want to meaningfully address the issue of inequitable access to high quality schools, we're not talking about 12 or 15 kids, we're talking dozens of kids.

[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."

Come on. Maury *is* integrated. It’s not 1954. And you can’t claim that just because your policy on paper increases some measures of diversity that it’s a good policy.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Maury parents, but you’re about the get fcked. Hope you’re renting. Bad time to sell with interest rates, and your home equity is about to crater.