Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

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.

As a current Miner ECE parent, we've been told more than once by the staff that the new separate building is for ECE and the old ECE wing is for the 1-3 yo childcare center.

[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.

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.

As a current Miner ECE parent, we've been told more than once by the staff that the new separate building is for ECE and the old ECE wing is for the 1-3 yo childcare center.

Has anyone explained the rationale for this? Why would they move kids back and forth between the buildings? Is it to build empathy in the upper grades through collaborative programming with the toddlers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

As a current Miner ECE parent, we've been told more than once by the staff that the new separate building is for ECE and the old ECE wing is for the 1-3 yo childcare center.

Has anyone explained the rationale for this? Why would they move kids back and forth between the buildings? Is it to build empathy in the upper grades through collaborative programming with the toddlers?

Having never been inside Miner, could someone who has say how integrated the current ECE classrooms are with the rest of the school. I know at some schools they are quite separate, with their own wing and separate entrance (or sometimes even separate classroom entrances so pick up/drop off is done directly with the individual classroom). I also know at some schools the ECE classrooms open onto a separate ECE playground that is fenced off from the K-5 playground -- is this true at Miner?

If that's the set up, I kind of understand why it would make sense to put a daycare center in that existing wing and then design a new ECE set up in the other building. There would be little to no mixing between the 1-3 group and the rest of the building.

I can also start to see how that building might accommodate becoming a "lower school" in a split campus. You'd put PK and K in the ECE building and then you'd but 1-2 in the existing school building that now houses K-5. Or maybe the ECE building becomes PK only (so that you can accommodate the PK classes from both schools) and K-2 is in the main building, and you only have to ensure that the K classrooms have better bathroom access. Not a huge shift or big expenditure to do this.

Turning Maury into an upper school is trickier. I just think it's a waste of the existing ECE spaces at Maury. Would they rip out the ECE play structure? Those classrooms are also bigger, I think. Maybe they'd become specials classrooms? It's hard to imagine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

As a current Miner ECE parent, we've been told more than once by the staff that the new separate building is for ECE and the old ECE wing is for the 1-3 yo childcare center.

Has anyone explained the rationale for this? Why would they move kids back and forth between the buildings? Is it to build empathy in the upper grades through collaborative programming with the toddlers?

Having never been inside Miner, could someone who has say how integrated the current ECE classrooms are with the rest of the school. I know at some schools they are quite separate, with their own wing and separate entrance (or sometimes even separate classroom entrances so pick up/drop off is done directly with the individual classroom). I also know at some schools the ECE classrooms open onto a separate ECE playground that is fenced off from the K-5 playground -- is this true at Miner?

If that's the set up, I kind of understand why it would make sense to put a daycare center in that existing wing and then design a new ECE set up in the other building. There would be little to no mixing between the 1-3 group and the rest of the building.

I can also start to see how that building might accommodate becoming a "lower school" in a split campus. You'd put PK and K in the ECE building and then you'd but 1-2 in the existing school building that now houses K-5. Or maybe the ECE building becomes PK only (so that you can accommodate the PK classes from both schools) and K-2 is in the main building, and you only have to ensure that the K classrooms have better bathroom access. Not a huge shift or big expenditure to do this.

Turning Maury into an upper school is trickier. I just think it's a waste of the existing ECE spaces at Maury. Would they rip out the ECE play structure? Those classrooms are also bigger, I think. Maybe they'd become specials classrooms? It's hard to imagine.

I can't get over how bizarre it is to have babies in an elementary school. Do we think the babies are part of whole school morning meeting? (Though, as relevant to some of my other concerns, I guess that's pretty convenient if you have a baby!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

As a current Miner ECE parent, we've been told more than once by the staff that the new separate building is for ECE and the old ECE wing is for the 1-3 yo childcare center.

Has anyone explained the rationale for this? Why would they move kids back and forth between the buildings? Is it to build empathy in the upper grades through collaborative programming with the toddlers?

Having never been inside Miner, could someone who has say how integrated the current ECE classrooms are with the rest of the school. I know at some schools they are quite separate, with their own wing and separate entrance (or sometimes even separate classroom entrances so pick up/drop off is done directly with the individual classroom). I also know at some schools the ECE classrooms open onto a separate ECE playground that is fenced off from the K-5 playground -- is this true at Miner?

If that's the set up, I kind of understand why it would make sense to put a daycare center in that existing wing and then design a new ECE set up in the other building. There would be little to no mixing between the 1-3 group and the rest of the building.

I can also start to see how that building might accommodate becoming a "lower school" in a split campus. You'd put PK and K in the ECE building and then you'd but 1-2 in the existing school building that now houses K-5. Or maybe the ECE building becomes PK only (so that you can accommodate the PK classes from both schools) and K-2 is in the main building, and you only have to ensure that the K classrooms have better bathroom access. Not a huge shift or big expenditure to do this.

Turning Maury into an upper school is trickier. I just think it's a waste of the existing ECE spaces at Maury. Would they rip out the ECE play structure? Those classrooms are also bigger, I think. Maybe they'd become specials classrooms? It's hard to imagine.

I can't get over how bizarre it is to have babies in an elementary school. Do we think the babies are part of whole school morning meeting? (Though, as relevant to some of my other concerns, I guess that's pretty convenient if you have a baby!)

The point is that if the current ECE wing is very separate from the rest of the building, it would be like having them in a different building. Especially if they have a separate entrance.

I mean, I've worked in a bunch of buildings with daycares in them, and I've never thought "It's so weird there are babies in this building! Will they be coming to the morning staff meeting? What's going on with the babies?" I never saw them except occasionally at the beginning or end of the day when parents would be dropping off or picking up.

[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.

DME/DCPS already has 3-10yr olds crossing South Capitol St daily to get to their IB school so I doubt this argument will cause them to bat an eye.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

As a current Miner ECE parent, we've been told more than once by the staff that the new separate building is for ECE and the old ECE wing is for the 1-3 yo childcare center.

Has anyone explained the rationale for this? Why would they move kids back and forth between the buildings? Is it to build empathy in the upper grades through collaborative programming with the toddlers?

Having never been inside Miner, could someone who has say how integrated the current ECE classrooms are with the rest of the school. I know at some schools they are quite separate, with their own wing and separate entrance (or sometimes even separate classroom entrances so pick up/drop off is done directly with the individual classroom). I also know at some schools the ECE classrooms open onto a separate ECE playground that is fenced off from the K-5 playground -- is this true at Miner?

If that's the set up, I kind of understand why it would make sense to put a daycare center in that existing wing and then design a new ECE set up in the other building. There would be little to no mixing between the 1-3 group and the rest of the building.

I can also start to see how that building might accommodate becoming a "lower school" in a split campus. You'd put PK and K in the ECE building and then you'd but 1-2 in the existing school building that now houses K-5. Or maybe the ECE building becomes PK only (so that you can accommodate the PK classes from both schools) and K-2 is in the main building, and you only have to ensure that the K classrooms have better bathroom access. Not a huge shift or big expenditure to do this.

Turning Maury into an upper school is trickier. I just think it's a waste of the existing ECE spaces at Maury. Would they rip out the ECE play structure? Those classrooms are also bigger, I think. Maybe they'd become specials classrooms? It's hard to imagine.

I can't get over how bizarre it is to have babies in an elementary school. Do we think the babies are part of whole school morning meeting? (Though, as relevant to some of my other concerns, I guess that's pretty convenient if you have a baby!)

The point is that if the current ECE wing is very separate from the rest of the building, it would be like having them in a different building. Especially if they have a separate entrance.

I mean, I've worked in a bunch of buildings with daycares in them, and I've never thought "It's so weird there are babies in this building! Will they be coming to the morning staff meeting? What's going on with the babies?" I never saw them except occasionally at the beginning or end of the day when parents would be dropping off or picking up.

See I would be thinking about the babies all of the time and DELIGHTED if they started coming to meetings, but that is maybe a biological problem with me.

But sure, I've used daycares that are in office buildings. I guess I've just never seen a school that is laid out like that.

[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.

DME/DCPS already has 3-10yr olds crossing South Capitol St daily to get to their IB school so I doubt this argument will cause them to bat an eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a disingenuous bases for the clustering to begin with. If we are going to discuss shared boundaries, especially in the context of SES and at-risk populations, we need to look at IB Miner and Maury attending and non-attending public school students. Miner's student population is 74% OB and skew the data heavily away from the actual IB community. So much so that the 52pp (12%-64%) difference, the red boundary adjacency map that is used to rationalize the cluster, is actually a 45pp (15%-60%) difference when looking at IB students, whether attending Miner/Maury or not. It is reasonable to conclude that had the color difference between Miner and Maury been green we wouldn't be exploring a cluster.

After listening to the Advisory Committee meeting last night, I am concerned that the Miner/Maury cluster is too 'baked in' to the data set of 'Scenario 3' for the system wide strategies. I hope there is an option to toggle on/off the Miner/Maury cluster in order to validate the at-risk set aside impact system wide. Then to view any additional impact of a Miner/Maury cluster separately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It will eventually be uploaded on the 2023 Advisory Committee on Student Assignment and Boundaries - Meeting 8 (December 5, 2023) webpage... located here: https://dme.dc.gov/node/1686206

[Anonymous]

Miner’s ece is attached to the building, but in separate wing. There is a separate playground. The wing is closed to the older students, the pre-k students leave the wing for gym.
The pre-k students arrive and leave from their wing, separate from the older students.
Pre-k students take spanish and art, the teachers come to the classrooms. They eat breakfast and lunch in classroom.
The classrooms for the older students are located on the 2nd level, downstairs has gym/library/caf etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a disingenuous bases for the clustering to begin with. If we are going to discuss shared boundaries, especially in the context of SES and at-risk populations, we need to look at IB Miner and Maury attending and non-attending public school students. Miner's student population is 74% OB and skew the data heavily away from the actual IB community. So much so that the 52pp (12%-64%) difference, the red boundary adjacency map that is used to rationalize the cluster, is actually a 45pp (15%-60%) difference when looking at IB students, whether attending Miner/Maury or not. It is reasonable to conclude that had the color difference between Miner and Maury been green we wouldn't be exploring a cluster.

After listening to the Advisory Committee meeting last night, I am concerned that the Miner/Maury cluster is too 'baked in' to the data set of 'Scenario 3' for the system wide strategies. I hope there is an option to toggle on/off the Miner/Maury cluster in order to validate the at-risk set aside impact system wide. Then to view any additional impact of a Miner/Maury cluster separately.

Had no idea about this. The whole premise of their list was that they were looking at differences of 50% and up. That's crazy.

[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.

This is a disingenuous bases for the clustering to begin with. If we are going to discuss shared boundaries, especially in the context of SES and at-risk populations, we need to look at IB Miner and Maury attending and non-attending public school students. Miner's student population is 74% OB and skew the data heavily away from the actual IB community. So much so that the 52pp (12%-64%) difference, the red boundary adjacency map that is used to rationalize the cluster, is actually a 45pp (15%-60%) difference when looking at IB students, whether attending Miner/Maury or not. It is reasonable to conclude that had the color difference between Miner and Maury been green we wouldn't be exploring a cluster.

After listening to the Advisory Committee meeting last night, I am concerned that the Miner/Maury cluster is too 'baked in' to the data set of 'Scenario 3' for the system wide strategies. I hope there is an option to toggle on/off the Miner/Maury cluster in order to validate the at-risk set aside impact system wide. Then to view any additional impact of a Miner/Maury cluster separately.

Had no idea about this. The whole premise of their list was that they were looking at differences of 50% and up. That's crazy.

50pp not 50% but you know what I mean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Miner’s ece is attached to the building, but in separate wing. There is a separate playground. The wing is closed to the older students, the pre-k students leave the wing for gym.
The pre-k students arrive and leave from their wing, separate from the older students.
Pre-k students take spanish and art, the teachers come to the classrooms. They eat breakfast and lunch in classroom.
The classrooms for the older students are located on the 2nd level, downstairs has gym/library/caf etc

Thanks, that's useful.

Obviously the daycare kids wouldn't use the gym, so it sounds like they could pretty easily wall that off and covert it to a daycare center. I don't totally understand why they decided to build the separate building for ECE instead of making THAT the daycare center and upgrading the existing ECE wing, but I'm guessing it had to do with space and also the fact that they'd need somewhere to put ECE kids while renovating. School renovations are always a challenge for that reason.

It really does sound like Miner lends itself pretty well to becoming an ECE+ school -- PK and K-1st or 2nd. So from that angle I understand the thinking of the cluster plan a bit more.

Looking at Maury, the facilities plan is much fuzzier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miner’s ece is attached to the building, but in separate wing. There is a separate playground. The wing is closed to the older students, the pre-k students leave the wing for gym.
The pre-k students arrive and leave from their wing, separate from the older students.
Pre-k students take spanish and art, the teachers come to the classrooms. They eat breakfast and lunch in classroom.
The classrooms for the older students are located on the 2nd level, downstairs has gym/library/caf etc

Thanks, that's useful.

Obviously the daycare kids wouldn't use the gym, so it sounds like they could pretty easily wall that off and covert it to a daycare center. I don't totally understand why they decided to build the separate building for ECE instead of making THAT the daycare center and upgrading the existing ECE wing, but I'm guessing it had to do with space and also the fact that they'd need somewhere to put ECE kids while renovating. School renovations are always a challenge for that reason.

It really does sound like Miner lends itself pretty well to becoming an ECE+ school -- PK and K-1st or 2nd. So from that angle I understand the thinking of the cluster plan a bit more.

Looking at Maury, the facilities plan is much fuzzier.

What's sort of weird to me is that, with the field space and frankly better facility layout (i.e., separate gym and cafeteria, cafeteria with stage for performances, etc.), Miner seems to be the better location of the two for older kids.