Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

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.

I do worry this would be the effect of the cluster. I also worry that Maury would see so much attrition from high-income families (with other options) that we'd never even find out if the cluster could meet the needs of both populations, because the high-SES population would disappear.

However I do actually think the goal of the DME and the advisory committee is to improve outcomes for at-risk kids. I don't think this is the way to do it (there might be a cluster plan with these two schools that WOULD do it, it's just this specific plan, which is barely a plan, is not it), but I do actually think that the people involved are well-intentioned. I definitely don't think their goal is to ruin Maury, though I worry that could be the outcome if they plow ahead against the vocal objection of many families.

[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.

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.

I do worry this would be the effect of the cluster. I also worry that Maury would see so much attrition from high-income families (with other options) that we'd never even find out if the cluster could meet the needs of both populations, because the high-SES population would disappear.

However I do actually think the goal of the DME and the advisory committee is to improve outcomes for at-risk kids. I don't think this is the way to do it (there might be a cluster plan with these two schools that WOULD do it, it's just this specific plan, which is barely a plan, is not it), but I do actually think that the people involved are well-intentioned. I definitely don't think their goal is to ruin Maury, though I worry that could be the outcome if they plow ahead against the vocal objection of many families.

I have yet to see any evidence that breaking up schools helps improve outcomes for at-risk kids. Meanwhile DCPS doesn’t have an official curriculum requirement to teach phonics AFAIK …

[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.

This assertion leads to the false narrative that a bunch of white liberal parents who *chose* to live in a very diverse part of DC, and are *already comfortable, even content* with both racial and economic diversity in their kids’ schools are all of a sudden “uncomfortable” with more of what they are already happy with. They could easily choose a private option, but they are choosing the public school system for a reason.

DC does not - as evidenced by any metric - support or provide enough resources for at-risk kids NOW. Anywhere in the city. They do NOT know how to improve the outcomes for these students. Look at the data for the at-risk and sped populations across the city, and you’ll discover that these kids largely continue to fall behind and stay behind.

And now, parents are expected to “trust the process” which literally involves nothing more than combining campuses, without any plan for adding the resources and designing a structure - both in and out of school - that would obviously be needed to ensure the city is properly serving/teaching the at-risk kids. Not to mention ensuring there are adequate services, like affordable after-care.

The reality is that the demographic and performance disparities at schools have nothing to do with any school’s resources, or quality of teachers or principals and staff, or funding. It’s all about the students - as they walk in the door. The city needs to address THAT. Until they do, they can mix up the system any way they can imagine, and nothing they do will improve outcomes. It’s a hard truth that no one is willing to admit out loud. People need to start having those hard conversations and holding the city accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I do worry this would be the effect of the cluster. I also worry that Maury would see so much attrition from high-income families (with other options) that we'd never even find out if the cluster could meet the needs of both populations, because the high-SES population would disappear.

However I do actually think the goal of the DME and the advisory committee is to improve outcomes for at-risk kids. I don't think this is the way to do it (there might be a cluster plan with these two schools that WOULD do it, it's just this specific plan, which is barely a plan, is not it), but I do actually think that the people involved are well-intentioned. I definitely don't think their goal is to ruin Maury, though I worry that could be the outcome if they plow ahead against the vocal objection of many families.

I have yet to see any evidence that breaking up schools helps improve outcomes for at-risk kids. Meanwhile DCPS doesn’t have an official curriculum requirement to teach phonics AFAIK …

I thought it was Heggerty? No?

[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.

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.

I do worry this would be the effect of the cluster. I also worry that Maury would see so much attrition from high-income families (with other options) that we'd never even find out if the cluster could meet the needs of both populations, because the high-SES population would disappear.

However I do actually think the goal of the DME and the advisory committee is to improve outcomes for at-risk kids. I don't think this is the way to do it (there might be a cluster plan with these two schools that WOULD do it, it's just this specific plan, which is barely a plan, is not it), but I do actually think that the people involved are well-intentioned. I definitely don't think their goal is to ruin Maury, though I worry that could be the outcome if they plow ahead against the vocal objection of many families.

DME has never stated that this is a goal. They said that the goal of the cluster is to achieve socio-economic balance between the 2 schools. That's it. By driving away the high-SES population at Maury, this goal will be accomplished faster. That is all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I do worry this would be the effect of the cluster. I also worry that Maury would see so much attrition from high-income families (with other options) that we'd never even find out if the cluster could meet the needs of both populations, because the high-SES population would disappear.

However I do actually think the goal of the DME and the advisory committee is to improve outcomes for at-risk kids. I don't think this is the way to do it (there might be a cluster plan with these two schools that WOULD do it, it's just this specific plan, which is barely a plan, is not it), but I do actually think that the people involved are well-intentioned. I definitely don't think their goal is to ruin Maury, though I worry that could be the outcome if they plow ahead against the vocal objection of many families.

DME has never stated that this is a goal. They said that the goal of the cluster is to achieve socio-economic balance between the 2 schools. That's it. By driving away the high-SES population at Maury, this goal will be accomplished faster. That is all.

+100. This is why DME hasn't been able to answer a single question about how the cluster would actually improve educational outcomes. They have not spent a single moment of the past 6 months even thinking about that question because that was never the goal. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these questions came as a total shock to them, and have zero idea how to answer them.

[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.

Thank you!
Just want to point out that
Miner is undergoing renovations currently and is slated to be moving the entire ECE to a separate building that is on campus. The building is currently receiving a full renovation. Walk by there Maury families-its not scary and it will be really nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I do worry this would be the effect of the cluster. I also worry that Maury would see so much attrition from high-income families (with other options) that we'd never even find out if the cluster could meet the needs of both populations, because the high-SES population would disappear.

However I do actually think the goal of the DME and the advisory committee is to improve outcomes for at-risk kids. I don't think this is the way to do it (there might be a cluster plan with these two schools that WOULD do it, it's just this specific plan, which is barely a plan, is not it), but I do actually think that the people involved are well-intentioned. I definitely don't think their goal is to ruin Maury, though I worry that could be the outcome if they plow ahead against the vocal objection of many families.

DME has never stated that this is a goal. They said that the goal of the cluster is to achieve socio-economic balance between the 2 schools. That's it. By driving away the high-SES population at Maury, this goal will be accomplished faster. That is all.

This question was raised by an Advisory Committee member at last nights meeting. (Paraphrasing) Besides blending the SES of the 2 schools what other issues is the cluster solving? Awkward silence ensued...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrible summary. Maury parents are concerned about it because DCPS shows no indication it can properly support the higher needs students and has no commitment to grade-level instruction. Not because of the higher needs students. DCPS has zero plan other than “mix the schools together.”

Miner parents of the “low performing kids” have had basically zero to say here. DCPS appears to just view them as demographic data points that are embarrassing and need to be hidden in a more “diverse” school.

To be fair, I am aware of Miner IB parent efforts to gin up support after the disasterous town hall yesterday, including on MOTH. The rationale on MOTH was just nakedly that Miner's IB parents should fight for their kids' interests (i.e., access to a better school).

That’s fair but they should just put in the work at Miner.

Hey-that parent posting on moth was me-you are speaking about me directly here. I am happy to discuss with you in person why your statement is completely unfair.
The biggest one: all students deserve access to a great education from the start.
For the record, I did get DCPS clearance, which included bloodwork for me and volunteered whenever I could. I ultimately moved my daughter, because believe it or not, I couldn’t do it alone.
So please, save your comments for something productive.

[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.

Thank you!
Just want to point out that
Miner is undergoing renovations currently and is slated to be moving the entire ECE to a separate building that is on campus. The building is currently receiving a full renovation. Walk by there Maury families-its not scary and it will be really nice.

I thought that building was for 1-3 year olds, not pre-K. If it is Pre-K, are there funds available to retrofit Miner for more pre-K classes and Maury for none? Is that in the Master Facilities Plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I do worry this would be the effect of the cluster. I also worry that Maury would see so much attrition from high-income families (with other options) that we'd never even find out if the cluster could meet the needs of both populations, because the high-SES population would disappear.

However I do actually think the goal of the DME and the advisory committee is to improve outcomes for at-risk kids. I don't think this is the way to do it (there might be a cluster plan with these two schools that WOULD do it, it's just this specific plan, which is barely a plan, is not it), but I do actually think that the people involved are well-intentioned. I definitely don't think their goal is to ruin Maury, though I worry that could be the outcome if they plow ahead against the vocal objection of many families.

DME has never stated that this is a goal. They said that the goal of the cluster is to achieve socio-economic balance between the 2 schools. That's it. By driving away the high-SES population at Maury, this goal will be accomplished faster. That is all.

This question was raised by an Advisory Committee member at last nights meeting. (Paraphrasing) Besides blending the SES of the 2 schools what other issues is the cluster solving? Awkward silence ensued...

Is there a recording of this meeting available?

[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.

Thank you!
Just want to point out that
Miner is undergoing renovations currently and is slated to be moving the entire ECE to a separate building that is on campus. The building is currently receiving a full renovation. Walk by there Maury families-its not scary and it will be really nice.

I thought that building was for 1-3 year olds, not pre-K. If it is Pre-K, are there funds available to retrofit Miner for more pre-K classes and Maury for none? Is that in the Master Facilities Plan?

The building IS for Miner ECE only. The current ECE wing of Miner is intended to be used for a new 1-3 year old childcare center.

[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.

Thank you!
Just want to point out that
Miner is undergoing renovations currently and is slated to be moving the entire ECE to a separate building that is on campus. The building is currently receiving a full renovation. Walk by there Maury families-its not scary and it will be really nice.

I thought that building was for 1-3 year olds, not pre-K. If it is Pre-K, are there funds available to retrofit Miner for more pre-K classes and Maury for none? Is that in the Master Facilities Plan?

The building IS for Miner ECE only. The current ECE wing of Miner is intended to be used for a new 1-3 year old childcare center.

Is this right? My understanding was that the separate building is slated to become the new Childhood Education Center and Preschool facility.

[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.

Thank you!
Just want to point out that
Miner is undergoing renovations currently and is slated to be moving the entire ECE to a separate building that is on campus. The building is currently receiving a full renovation. Walk by there Maury families-its not scary and it will be really nice.

I thought that building was for 1-3 year olds, not pre-K. If it is Pre-K, are there funds available to retrofit Miner for more pre-K classes and Maury for none? Is that in the Master Facilities Plan?

The building IS for Miner ECE only. The current ECE wing of Miner is intended to be used for a new 1-3 year old childcare center.

Is this right? My understanding was that the separate building is slated to become the new Childhood Education Center and Preschool facility.

It would be odd to have the toddlers with the upper grades and the ECE classes in a separate building.

[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.

Thank you!
Just want to point out that
Miner is undergoing renovations currently and is slated to be moving the entire ECE to a separate building that is on campus. The building is currently receiving a full renovation. Walk by there Maury families-its not scary and it will be really nice.

I thought that building was for 1-3 year olds, not pre-K. If it is Pre-K, are there funds available to retrofit Miner for more pre-K classes and Maury for none? Is that in the Master Facilities Plan?

I think this is a really good question I'd like to see answered. Especially given the DME's proposed timeline. ECE classrooms have special requirements that are not a quick fix (like bathrooms and sinks in the classroom, for starters). Miner had a playground renovation fairly recently and over half the playground is designed for K-5 kids. Meanwhile Maury's building is almost brand new and includes a suite of ECE classrooms that might not be the right size or outfitted in a way conducive to upper grade kids, plus the PK playground equipment at Maury would be wasted in a school with 2-5 graders.

The DME can't just hand waive questions like this away like "oh we'll figure it out" -- resources in DCPS are finite and one of the ways in which Maury was able to build such a strong school is that the renovation happened concurrently with investment in the school by families, such that the renovated school really reflects the communities needs. There was a real symbiosis to that process that greatly contributed to Maury succeeding. To say "oh we'll just throw these schools together and we'll kind of retrofit the campuses so it's good enough until we can do a bigger renovation later" is crazy. Especially since Maury won't be due for a full-scale renovation for many years since the school is still very new.

Physical plant matters to school success. It has to be a part of the plan and right now, it doesn't even seen like it's been looked at. I've seen quotes from the DME that indicated they don't even know which school would serve as upper or lower school yet. That's crazy!