Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or why not provide carrots to get IB families to choose Miner at a higher rate or increase economic diversity of OOB students? Why is this *never* considered a possibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since when has DC cared about kids crossing the street? Come on. They could add crossing guards on H.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

Cool now do Brent and Tyler. I actually do believe that Maury was targeted in part because there is a well-known contingent of parents and former parents willing to accuse everyone of racism for not toeing the party line.

[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.

But wouldn't those factors also make it harder to get your kids to two different schools (or even three, depending on number of kids and ages) every day? I don't want to speak for anybody, but this strikes me as something that seems obviously much harder for lower SES families or people who may have less flexibility in terms of WFH or whatever. It would be harder for my family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But wouldn't those factors also make it harder to get your kids to two different schools (or even three, depending on number of kids and ages) every day? I don't want to speak for anybody, but this strikes me as something that seems obviously much harder for lower SES families or people who may have less flexibility in terms of WFH or whatever. It would be harder for my family.

Yes it would. Low SES parents are numbers on a page for DME. Notice zero discussion about how to close the learning gap - it’s all about making the school look less bad by diluting the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

Cool now do Brent and Tyler. I actually do believe that Maury was targeted in part because there is a well-known contingent of parents and former parents willing to accuse everyone of racism for not toeing the party line.

They explained in one of the meetings that it was based on amount of variation. Tyler is 41% at risk vs. Brent 6% - 35% difference. Maury (12%) and Miner (64%) are 52%. Not sure, but the fact that one of those schools is full immersion and one is not may also have been a reason not to try to pair those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

Maury is being targeted here. If DME wanted to make a difference, look at a system wide adjustment to equity preferences for OOB kids, not just those at Miner. Identify policies to address the learning needs of kids below grade level. Provide the necessary resources and support to a school that isn't performing (Miner in this case). Don't just combine two schools communities, saying "we'll figure out the details after" and call it a job well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

Maury is being targeted here. If DME wanted to make a difference, look at a system wide adjustment to equity preferences for OOB kids, not just those at Miner. Identify policies to address the learning needs of kids below grade level. Provide the necessary resources and support to a school that isn't performing (Miner in this case). Don't just combine two schools communities, saying "we'll figure out the details after" and call it a job well done.

Again, log on next week. The topic of OOB set asides is being talked about on a citywide level, along with many other school specific and policy level ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

Maury is being targeted here. If DME wanted to make a difference, look at a system wide adjustment to equity preferences for OOB kids, not just those at Miner. Identify policies to address the learning needs of kids below grade level. Provide the necessary resources and support to a school that isn't performing (Miner in this case). Don't just combine two schools communities, saying "we'll figure out the details after" and call it a job well done.

Again, log on next week. The topic of OOB set asides is being talked about on a citywide level, along with many other school specific and policy level ideas.

Has the modeling been done on how a set aside would impact Maury if it were not clustered? The at risk set aside was in the same scenario as the cluster, so I don't think that data was presented. That would be helpful information to inform this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

Maury is being targeted here. If DME wanted to make a difference, look at a system wide adjustment to equity preferences for OOB kids, not just those at Miner. Identify policies to address the learning needs of kids below grade level. Provide the necessary resources and support to a school that isn't performing (Miner in this case). Don't just combine two schools communities, saying "we'll figure out the details after" and call it a job well done.

Again, log on next week. The topic of OOB set asides is being talked about on a citywide level, along with many other school specific and policy level ideas.

Hon, people don't log on because we don't think DME actually cares about our input. You've decided you want to screw Maury, you don't care if you end up with two low-performing schools instead of one, and that's that.

Why don't you explain to us why the Peabody/Watkins cluster is such a smashing success. And you can also tell us why Lawrence Dance got fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, the argument that Maury is somehow being "targeted" and that there are lots of other school pairs with the same issue doesn't hold water. Maury and Miner are unusually close with a truly shared neighborhood (no natural division between the zones) and it is pretty rare for schools to be that close and have such disparate populations.

Maury is targeted because it is a good school that makes a bad school look worse. DCPS would much rather have two bad schools. They’ve shown this repeatedly for a decade.

[Anonymous]

Committee member, have you modeled what the continuing implosion of Two Rivers will do to Maury's enrollment and overcrowding? What makes you confident you can fit all the kids in the Maury/Miner cluster now that Two Rivers is basically a failure?

[Anonymous]

The people who honestly believe this is some kind of conspiracy against Maury or who think this is about "screwing" Maury families are not doing the community the favors they think they are.

I'm opposed to the cluster but I think we need to go about it an a mature, rational way. The plan as proposed:

(1) may not solve the problems the DME is trying to solve, especially because the proposal is based on current school populations and not on boundary populations, and does not account for likely attrition from Maury families and possibly buy-in from high-SES Miner-zoned families; and

(2) fails to address many logistical barriers to combining the schools (including allocation of grades to facilities, renovation of facilities to meet new needs, known challenges to the cluster model for families with children at both campuses, and how two populations with very disparate PARCC scores can be adequately served at the same time without compromising students who are either above or below grade level) while committing to an accelerated timeline.

It should not be difficult to outline these obvious flaws with the cluster plan without insulting Miner families and students, invoking dogwhistle references to crime, accusing people of targeting Maury (but apparently not Miner) based on imagined grudges, etc. This aspect of the discussion is not only unproductive, it actually makes it appear that the Maury community IS badly in need of greater racial and socioeconomic diversity, because much of this commentary reflects an insular, protectionist view that devalues equity in education. That is not my experience with Maury families at all, and it is very disappointing to see some of the comments in this thread and elsewhere.

[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.

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.

I take your point, and I confess I don't know a lot of the data here -- it would be really helpful and constructive if DME were to present more of the data that (one hopes) underpins all this. It is hard for me to imagine that a school with no formal tracking could absorb a huge population of students who are, by and large, somewhere between below grade level and way below grade level, without negatively impacting students who are at or above grade level. (Which isn't to say, of course, that every Maury student is at or above grade level, or that every Miner student is below -- just dealing with the average of the school populations here.) Would DC give the combined school the resources to, say, have much smaller class sizes to allow students (whether below or above grade level) the individualized attention they need? (Do they give this to Miner now and it hasn't worked?) Are there studies showing that merely mixing together a lower SES population with a higher SES population (without other interventions) results in gains for the lower SES students? Do the scores of the higher SES students gain too, stay the same, or drop? What about with other interventions? What are they, will DC do them, and have they done them already at Miner? I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, and my googling leads me to inconsistent results, so I'm left with my take which is that the proposed cluster (and any sudden infusion of a significant proportion of struggling students) is likely to negatively affect the academic experience of my child, that it won't in itself do much or maybe anything to help the Miner students who need it most, and that I do not trust DC to give the schools the resources and support to do this even a little bit right.

I don't know all the answers on inequitable access to high quality schools. It's a tough issue. Higher SES kids with more educated parents will always have pretty substantial advantages in academic performance, and school SES diversity in a "neighborhood" school system will always depend on housing diversity. Theoretically, I am against the lottery/charter system because it diverts resources from improving IB schools, and I think high-quality IB schools should be available to everyone. (But I totally get that, having failed to provide that to a lot of families, families want and deserve other options.) I'd like to know more about high-performing high-poverty schools (in DC or not) -- do they exist? How, specifically, do they do it? Has DCPS tried any of it?

Ultimately, I think it's better for the school system to improve each of the IB schools, and not to worry too much about getting the demographics of an individual school exactly right. Maybe that's a pipe dream, but there is a ton of money in our school system, and it seems to me that we should be able to offer high quality schools in every boundary. Ultimately (ideally), things will trickle up to middle and high school and will (again, ideally) greatly improve the diversity of those schools on the Hill. But one of the keys to that is upper SES buy-in. The whole thesis undergirding this proposal is that the presence of higher SES kids (even if just to reduce the amount of need in a single classroom) is important. So DME/DCPS also cannot ignore the importance of keeping higher SES families IB; it would be irresponsible to move forward with this without understanding (to the extent possible) what that will mean for the higher SES families; even those who aren't willing to or can't swing private are certainly able to try to lottery into other schools if they perceive that their kid won't be getting as good an experience (Maury already has a fair amount of attrition going into 5th grade, which is ultimately not great for EH). So I think even a small number of at-risk set asides could balance the desire to increase SES diversity with the school's ability to provide essentially the same benefits it does now, and with the need to keep the higher SES families in the school.

I don't know. These are tough questions. But I need to see a lot more before I would support this proposal, and I would never give DC the blank check of saying that this sounds great and I'm sure they'll work it out in a great way.