Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Honestly just stop. People have a variety of problems with this plan, and nobody gets to decide that there is only one set of acceptable complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The DME presentation showed that Miner's at-risk population IB is pretty much the same as the at-risk population in the school currently, so I'm not sure that part makes a big difference.

[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 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.

Miner does not need Maury to look bad. It is clear Miner has significant issues at several levels, and I think most people would draw that conclusion regardless of their familiarity with Maury.

I also think it is unfair to compare schools like this. Miner serves a much more high needs population. Their job is harder. That is not to diminish what is great about Maury, but it is much easier to create a successful school when you have few at-risk students and a relatively high-SES family community which has the resources to devote to improving the school.

There are also other good schools in DCPS, and other struggling schools. It is very easy to understand when looking at the numbers that the reason Maury and Miner were selected to explore a cluster was because of their proximity, shared neighborhood, and the extreme disparity in populations. There is no other school pair in DCPS that meets this criteria. The only one that comes close is Ludlow Taylor and JO Wilson, and as a committee member explained, their boundary is more natural as it runs along a major arterial road (H Street) whereas the boundary between Maury and Miner has no obvious natural obstacles.

Object to the proposal on the merits. Getting bogged down in "we're being unfairly targeted" is a dead end.

[Anonymous]

I did listen to the meeting recording, and I thought it was disappointing. Basically someone asked if the DME could point to any models of successful clusters, and she was like "Maybe I could find you one from a different city". Meanwhile we have a cluster right here, Peabody/Watkins, that's not successful. Or maybe the DME thinks it's successful because they're more willing to accept low performance, I dunno. But until the DME can explain why this will work better than it does at Watkins, it's a no go. And it's embarrassing that they didn't anticipate that obvious question.

[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 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.

Miner does not need Maury to look bad. It is clear Miner has significant issues at several levels, and I think most people would draw that conclusion regardless of their familiarity with Maury.

I also think it is unfair to compare schools like this. Miner serves a much more high needs population. Their job is harder. That is not to diminish what is great about Maury, but it is much easier to create a successful school when you have few at-risk students and a relatively high-SES family community which has the resources to devote to improving the school.

There are also other good schools in DCPS, and other struggling schools. It is very easy to understand when looking at the numbers that the reason Maury and Miner were selected to explore a cluster was because of their proximity, shared neighborhood, and the extreme disparity in populations. There is no other school pair in DCPS that meets this criteria. The only one that comes close is Ludlow Taylor and JO Wilson, and as a committee member explained, their boundary is more natural as it runs along a major arterial road (H Street) whereas the boundary between Maury and Miner has no obvious natural obstacles.

Object to the proposal on the merits. Getting bogged down in "we're being unfairly targeted" is a dead end.

I mean - refusing to consider an LT-JOW cluster “because of H st” is nonsensical! H st makes transit easier for dual dropoff, not harder, because of better access to buses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Honestly just stop. People have a variety of problems with this plan, and nobody gets to decide that there is only one set of acceptable complaints.

It's always okay to criticize an argument. People are making arguments like "Maury is being unfairly targeted" or "Miner is crime infested" and I think these are bad arguments. I've outlined why. If you think I'm wrong, by all means, make an argument.

"Just stop" is not an argument. You are trying to get me to be quiet because you know I am making more persuasive arguments than you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Honestly just stop. People have a variety of problems with this plan, and nobody gets to decide that there is only one set of acceptable complaints.

It's always okay to criticize an argument. People are making arguments like "Maury is being unfairly targeted" or "Miner is crime infested" and I think these are bad arguments. I've outlined why. If you think I'm wrong, by all means, make an argument.

"Just stop" is not an argument. You are trying to get me to be quiet because you know I am making more persuasive arguments than you are.

No, I think you have a vastly inflated sense of your own superiority in “crafting messaging.” This isn’t about that. There are a range of concerns and they include crime (no matter how much you are in denial about that) and serious questions about why this is being pushed on Maury. There’s a well-known person who fancies himself an educational equity advocate who was on the record last time pushing the Maury-Miner cluster. He’s at it again now, almost assuredly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Miner does not need Maury to look bad. It is clear Miner has significant issues at several levels, and I think most people would draw that conclusion regardless of their familiarity with Maury.

I also think it is unfair to compare schools like this. Miner serves a much more high needs population. Their job is harder. That is not to diminish what is great about Maury, but it is much easier to create a successful school when you have few at-risk students and a relatively high-SES family community which has the resources to devote to improving the school.

There are also other good schools in DCPS, and other struggling schools. It is very easy to understand when looking at the numbers that the reason Maury and Miner were selected to explore a cluster was because of their proximity, shared neighborhood, and the extreme disparity in populations. There is no other school pair in DCPS that meets this criteria. The only one that comes close is Ludlow Taylor and JO Wilson, and as a committee member explained, their boundary is more natural as it runs along a major arterial road (H Street) whereas the boundary between Maury and Miner has no obvious natural obstacles.

Object to the proposal on the merits. Getting bogged down in "we're being unfairly targeted" is a dead end.

I mean - refusing to consider an LT-JOW cluster “because of H st” is nonsensical! H st makes transit easier for dual dropoff, not harder, because of better access to buses.

Wut. No it does not. No one wants to walk a bunch of 3-10 year olds across H Street every day. I see what you are saying about parent commutes, but from a student safety perspective, the fact that JOW and LT are very close is undermined by the fact that H Street is super high traffic with tons of commuters, plus multiple bus lines, and the street car. Posting a crossing guard at H and 6th or H and 7th (and probably both) twice daily also sounds like a good way to create gridlock on H Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know you want to police what people say, but not wanting your kids’ school to get objectively worse is a good enough reason to oppose this. No one can claim with a straight face this won’t happen no matter how many equity bells and whistles are tied onto the proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Honestly just stop. People have a variety of problems with this plan, and nobody gets to decide that there is only one set of acceptable complaints.

It's always okay to criticize an argument. People are making arguments like "Maury is being unfairly targeted" or "Miner is crime infested" and I think these are bad arguments. I've outlined why. If you think I'm wrong, by all means, make an argument.

"Just stop" is not an argument. You are trying to get me to be quiet because you know I am making more persuasive arguments than you are.

No, I think you have a vastly inflated sense of your own superiority in “crafting messaging.” This isn’t about that. There are a range of concerns and they include crime (no matter how much you are in denial about that) and serious questions about why this is being pushed on Maury. There’s a well-known person who fancies himself an educational equity advocate who was on the record last time pushing the Maury-Miner cluster. He’s at it again now, almost assuredly.

There are no "serious questions" about why Maury AND Miner have been chosen for this study (it's interesting how the people who are convinced this is some conspiracy against Maury families act as though there is only one school implicated by this proposal). It has been explained multiple times.

I get it, you don't like Joe Weedon. He's not the DME and he didn't select Maury and Miner for this proposal. It is possible that his prior argument in favor of a cluster many years ago might have made it more likely that they be selected for this. Or it could be a reflection of the fact that this cluster makes more sense than other pairings, that multiple people looking at these issues in multiple points in time have reached the same conclusion.

But you are making it sound like some secret committee had a meeting and were like "let's stick it to those Maury parents, we hate them." It's crazy. It is a crazy argument. You sound crazy when you make this argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Miner does not need Maury to look bad. It is clear Miner has significant issues at several levels, and I think most people would draw that conclusion regardless of their familiarity with Maury.

I also think it is unfair to compare schools like this. Miner serves a much more high needs population. Their job is harder. That is not to diminish what is great about Maury, but it is much easier to create a successful school when you have few at-risk students and a relatively high-SES family community which has the resources to devote to improving the school.

There are also other good schools in DCPS, and other struggling schools. It is very easy to understand when looking at the numbers that the reason Maury and Miner were selected to explore a cluster was because of their proximity, shared neighborhood, and the extreme disparity in populations. There is no other school pair in DCPS that meets this criteria. The only one that comes close is Ludlow Taylor and JO Wilson, and as a committee member explained, their boundary is more natural as it runs along a major arterial road (H Street) whereas the boundary between Maury and Miner has no obvious natural obstacles.

Object to the proposal on the merits. Getting bogged down in "we're being unfairly targeted" is a dead end.

I mean - refusing to consider an LT-JOW cluster “because of H st” is nonsensical! H st makes transit easier for dual dropoff, not harder, because of better access to buses.

Wut. No it does not. No one wants to walk a bunch of 3-10 year olds across H Street every day. I see what you are saying about parent commutes, but from a student safety perspective, the fact that JOW and LT are very close is undermined by the fact that H Street is super high traffic with tons of commuters, plus multiple bus lines, and the street car. Posting a crossing guard at H and 6th or H and 7th (and probably both) twice daily also sounds like a good way to create gridlock on H Street.

difficulty in crossing the street seems like something wayyy down the list to consider, especially given that access to transit on that street is a counterbalancing positive the fact that *crossing the street* eliminated all consideration of one school pair is totally arbitrary and irrational. but I this whole idea is absurd so 🤷‍♀️

“We will consider totally taking apart 2 schools with no discussion of the practical issues involved! Except if that meant crossing H St. That is obviously unreasonable and the interests of diversity can never overcome the difficulties of … checks notes … crossing at a stoplight.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know you want to police what people say, but not wanting your kids’ school to get objectively worse is a good enough reason to oppose this. No one can claim with a straight face this won’t happen no matter how many equity bells and whistles are tied onto the proposal.

I am the PP and I agree with you, I think that's a totally reasonable response.

What I think is unreasonable is claiming that Maury is being targeted somehow, and I find some of the ways that Miner is being discussed offensive, especially given that it's a majority black school with a very high-needs population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Honestly just stop. People have a variety of problems with this plan, and nobody gets to decide that there is only one set of acceptable complaints.

It's always okay to criticize an argument. People are making arguments like "Maury is being unfairly targeted" or "Miner is crime infested" and I think these are bad arguments. I've outlined why. If you think I'm wrong, by all means, make an argument.

"Just stop" is not an argument. You are trying to get me to be quiet because you know I am making more persuasive arguments than you are.

No, I think you have a vastly inflated sense of your own superiority in “crafting messaging.” This isn’t about that. There are a range of concerns and they include crime (no matter how much you are in denial about that) and serious questions about why this is being pushed on Maury. There’s a well-known person who fancies himself an educational equity advocate who was on the record last time pushing the Maury-Miner cluster. He’s at it again now, almost assuredly.

There are no "serious questions" about why Maury AND Miner have been chosen for this study (it's interesting how the people who are convinced this is some conspiracy against Maury families act as though there is only one school implicated by this proposal). It has been explained multiple times.

I get it, you don't like Joe Weedon. He's not the DME and he didn't select Maury and Miner for this proposal. It is possible that his prior argument in favor of a cluster many years ago might have made it more likely that they be selected for this. Or it could be a reflection of the fact that this cluster makes more sense than other pairings, that multiple people looking at these issues in multiple points in time have reached the same conclusion.

But you are making it sound like some secret committee had a meeting and were like "let's stick it to those Maury parents, we hate them." It's crazy. It is a crazy argument. You sound crazy when you make this argument.

Do you understand how local politics work? I think we deserve to know who came up with this idea and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Miner does not need Maury to look bad. It is clear Miner has significant issues at several levels, and I think most people would draw that conclusion regardless of their familiarity with Maury.

I also think it is unfair to compare schools like this. Miner serves a much more high needs population. Their job is harder. That is not to diminish what is great about Maury, but it is much easier to create a successful school when you have few at-risk students and a relatively high-SES family community which has the resources to devote to improving the school.

There are also other good schools in DCPS, and other struggling schools. It is very easy to understand when looking at the numbers that the reason Maury and Miner were selected to explore a cluster was because of their proximity, shared neighborhood, and the extreme disparity in populations. There is no other school pair in DCPS that meets this criteria. The only one that comes close is Ludlow Taylor and JO Wilson, and as a committee member explained, their boundary is more natural as it runs along a major arterial road (H Street) whereas the boundary between Maury and Miner has no obvious natural obstacles.

Object to the proposal on the merits. Getting bogged down in "we're being unfairly targeted" is a dead end.

I mean - refusing to consider an LT-JOW cluster “because of H st” is nonsensical! H st makes transit easier for dual dropoff, not harder, because of better access to buses.

Wut. No it does not. No one wants to walk a bunch of 3-10 year olds across H Street every day. I see what you are saying about parent commutes, but from a student safety perspective, the fact that JOW and LT are very close is undermined by the fact that H Street is super high traffic with tons of commuters, plus multiple bus lines, and the street car. Posting a crossing guard at H and 6th or H and 7th (and probably both) twice daily also sounds like a good way to create gridlock on H Street.

difficulty in crossing the street seems like something wayyy down the list to consider, especially given that access to transit on that street is a counterbalancing positive the fact that *crossing the street* eliminated all consideration of one school pair is totally arbitrary and irrational. but I this whole idea is absurd so 🤷‍♀️

“We will consider totally taking apart 2 schools with no discussion of the practical issues involved! Except if that meant crossing H St. That is obviously unreasonable and the interests of diversity can never overcome the difficulties of … checks notes … crossing at a stoplight.”

There's also the fact that the disparities in racial composition and at-risk composition at JOW and LT, while still quite divided, are not as extreme as they are at Maury and Miner. I think the difference in at-risk population at the schools is around 40% more at JOW? Compare this to Maury and Miner, where Miner has almost 60% more at-risk kids.

I don't think LT/JOW was even considered for the study because the differences just aren't as stark. The committee member upthread said that LT/Walker-Jones were considered but they are much further apart than Maury/Miner, with not only H Street, but also North Capitol and Union Station between them.

It's obvious to see why Maury/Miner (.5 miles apart, 60% difference in at-risk populations) were chosen over either of those pairs.

Even if you ignore the

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know you want to police what people say, but not wanting your kids’ school to get objectively worse is a good enough reason to oppose this. No one can claim with a straight face this won’t happen no matter how many equity bells and whistles are tied onto the proposal.

I am the PP and I agree with you, I think that's a totally reasonable response.

What I think is unreasonable is claiming that Maury is being targeted somehow, and I find some of the ways that Miner is being discussed offensive, especially given that it's a majority black school with a very high-needs population.

Maury is targeted by dint of being a good school. It is not a conspiracy or something personal against Maury students or families.

DCPS has to close the achievement gap by pulling the top down, and this is the easiest way to accomplish that.