New opposition petition to the Maury-Miner boundary proposal from DME

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do the parents at Miner actually want, aside from the possibility of a cluster?

They want what everyone wants -- a functioning school for their kids to attend. But despite years of efforts by IB families to make Miner that school, there are institutionalized issues that are not being addressed.

When you have parents who will stay at a school for 4-5 years (so through K 1st and even 2nd) before giving up, you cannot argue that the problem is IB families are insufficiently committed. There have been many committed families over the years who have worked to build up the school, create community, attract IB families, raise money, etc. Yet the test scores remain in the pits, outcomes for at risk kids continue to be very poor, and the school continues to bleed IB families after ECE grades.

I would never suggest they are insufficiently committed-- I personally have met them and think they are great. But I don't feel like I have a good grasp of what the "institutionalized issues" are and how they might be remedied.

Do you? Can they be remedied? If committed parents can work at turning around a school for years and years with zero improvement (and we're talking about new sets of committed parents coming in every year and trying to make that difference, over a decade or more, so it's not like it's 3 people trying for 2 years here) then maybe the problem cannot be remedied this way.

And during that time the school has also had several principals. And the school is Title 1 and gets extra funding that way. The school got a new playground recently as well. And yet year after year, Miner doesn't get any better.

Do you really think the problem is that the PTO at Miner is just well-meaning but misinformed? Really? Or could it be that the problems run too deep and that drastic action must be taken, to either shut this school down or combine it with a more successful neighboring school?

I don't think the PTO is misinformed at all, not sure where you got that idea. I think that there must be some serious problems, that the PTO is likely aware of, but I'm not sure what those problems actually are and whether the cluster would fix them or whether there are other solutions available that DCPS could implement if it had the will. If you know what the specific problems are, why not tell us?

A change of principal won't help if the person is not skillful and doesn't last. It's not just about a different warm body in the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

That's untrue. The pentacle is at 15th and Benning. You could just extend LT's boundary to include G street through gales and 16th street. In turn you could shrink part of the LT boundary on the east side, have it start at 10th or 11th and have those families rerouted to Miner.

So you'd run a single block long zone an additional 6 blocks past the rest of the boundary to capture one particular apartment building and you actually think this would be something DCPS would do & would have any actual effect on Miner? Come on. Also, a family at 10th & G would retain proximity preference to LT... which they would use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

That's untrue. The pentacle is at 15th and Benning. You could just extend LT's boundary to include G street through gales and 16th street. In turn you could shrink part of the LT boundary on the east side, have it start at 10th or 11th and have those families rerouted to Miner.

So you'd run a single block long zone an additional 6 blocks past the rest of the boundary to capture one particular apartment building and you actually think this would be something DCPS would do & would have any actual effect on Miner? Come on. Also, a family at 10th & G would retain proximity preference to LT... which they would use.

The fact that Maury folks are arguing that you should create the most gerrymandered IB in the entire district to capture one apartment building and that that is somehow preferable to/more likely to set Miner up for success than the cluster is what makes it hard to take them seriously. Just own that you don't want your own school to be experimented on in a way that's likely to make it substantially worse. Don't claim that you have a better solution and then offer... this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

That's untrue. The pentacle is at 15th and Benning. You could just extend LT's boundary to include G street through gales and 16th street. In turn you could shrink part of the LT boundary on the east side, have it start at 10th or 11th and have those families rerouted to Miner.

So you'd run a single block long zone an additional 6 blocks past the rest of the boundary to capture one particular apartment building and you actually think this would be something DCPS would do & would have any actual effect on Miner? Come on. Also, a family at 10th & G would retain proximity preference to LT... which they would use.

The fact that Maury folks are arguing that you should create the most gerrymandered IB in the entire district to capture one apartment building and that that is somehow preferable to/more likely to set Miner up for success than the cluster is what makes it hard to take them seriously. Just own that you don't want your own school to be experimented on in a way that's likely to make it substantially worse. Don't claim that you have a better solution and then offer... this.

If you go back and read the thread, this isn't being proposed as a better solution. This is answering pp's questions and responding to claims that LT is not near Miner's boundary.

[Anonymous]

To the above in-bound for Maury but currently at preK at Miner poster, stay for K 2025-2026 at Miner. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

I love how dc wants to make educational opportunities better by destroying one of the few good schools east of the park. Great job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t now anything about these schools, but why people do not support this? Is it because it will increase the at risk % at their school?

Why have one bad school when you can have two and split your children between both of them for an even worse drop off pickup schedule?

Yes better to have one good school and one absolutely terrible school, as long as your kid attends the good school.

There are ways to make it less terrible

1) Good principal who isn't slapping the kids or sleeping with anyone who works there.
2) More money

I know it sounds crazy.

And adjust the boundaries to fix the > 50 percentage point difference in SES between the two?

This. Money and a good principal are not going to address the huge disparities in SES between the two schools. Money in particular is a silly suggestion because why would you continue to throw more money at a school that is dysfunctional, failing to retain IB families, and producing such awful test scores. What is the money for??

I also think people really overestimate what a single principal can do. Even at Maury, the shift that started moving the school in a positive direction did not start with the principal. It's just that the principal did not stand in the way. That's it. The principal didn't actually make anything happen -- change has to come from within the community. And not just parents, teachers and all staff too. Miner has shown that even when you have dedicated families who really want the school to succeed and stick with it through tough years, it doesn't change anything if the teaching staff and a significant number of families want things to stay as they are.

The idea is having a principal who isn't engaged in any sort of misconduct that gets them fired. So there would be continuity. That's what I'm saying-- they need a principal who won't stand in the way.

Money is not a silly suggestion, it can pay for tutoring or additional staff. A bad leader will spend money badly, a good leader will spend it well. Changing the demographics of Miner will mean LESS money. How will that help?

The recent situation with the last principal is more complicated than you might have heard. It was rumored he had an improper relationship with someone on staff, but then later I heard this rumor was spread by teachers and staff who were unhappy with him. Then fact that he was quickly moved to an AP role at a well-regarded DCPS middle school indicates that there was not obvious evidence of misconduct. I don't know the truth, but the assumption that he was just a bad egg might be false -- Miner has some seriously dysfunctional issues in their teaching staff that are longstanding. One reason the school has cycled through principals is that there is a lot of resistance to change among the teaching staff, especially in the upper grades (i.e. the PARCC grades).

I also think DCPS is now at a point where it struggles to place principals at Miner because of the dysfunction in the staff there.

Miner's problems go deeper than who is sitting in the principal chair.

I agree that Miner's problems are deep and are not only due to the principals, but that particular person is someone I know from his prior job at McKinley Middle and I find it very, very easy to believe that he is part of the problem.

I'm sure there are some problem teachers, but it's not their fault Andrea Mial slapped a kid.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-principal-facing-allegation-of-slapping-second-grade-student

I'm not defending any principals here. But when you have a school that has has a series of principals who leave under questionable or controversial circumstances, I guarantee you there is deeper rot at the school. Because even a mediocre principal can do fine at a school with a well-functioning staff and decent culture. Look at LT -- their current principal is not well liked but it doesn't really matter because the school has a great culture and a good staff.

Miner doesn't. It needs total overhaul. A great principal and some cash will not fix it.

I'm not sure what "total overhaul" would involve, do you mean an intervention per the Every Student Succeeds Act? Turning it over to a charter?

I'm saying for DCPS to stop screwing Miner with really terrible principals would be a good starting point.

So your solution is to just merge it with Maury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly if I were a Miner parent, I'm not sure I'd be super enthused about this. The logistics problems are real. Miner itself will probably get *less* money due to demographics. Then you get to (or rather, have to) go to Maury, but not Maury as it currently exists, instead it'll be Maury with worse test scores and worse behaviors. Sure, just about anything's better than Miner, but right now, Miner parents stand a good chance of lotterying into Ludlow-Taylor and Watkins in upper grades, or any number of other schools. Even Brent makes a few offers. By-right access to a worse version of Maury doesn't really feel like an upgrade over what's currently de facto available, considering the other disadvantages of the Cluster proposal.

It's funny how making changes to Miner to help with basic functioning, performance, and retention is not on the table here at all.

Nice try, but no. Just as I can see why Maury families would oppose this plan, it's pretty obvious that the cluster stands to be an upgrade for both current Miner families and families IB for Miner who have younger kids. Even just as a potential option.

Right now I don't know a single Miner IB family who is actually enthusiastic about the idea of sending them to Miner's upper grades. ECE is fine, upper grades not so much. Every one of them would prefer a cluster to that option. And the lottery exists as an alternative no matter what happens. It's not like they lose the option to lottery if the cluster goes through.

Why would Miner families assume the cluster will provide a good by-right school in the upper grades? Both Miner and Maury lose kids in the top grades and a cluster is sure to exacerbate that with a clear break between upper and lower schools. Look at Peabody-Watkins. Peabody is around 70% IB and Watkins is 30%.

This is a short-sighted approach for Miner families, because Eliot-Hine is getting increased IB participation, but if IB families start leaving the upper grades due to the cluster it will set E-H back years. A good middle school is harder to find than elementary.

Agree except Eliot Hine isn’t a good middle school yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

No, you could draw it from Benning to Gales to include the Pentacle. This is no more infeasible than *dismantling two whole schools.* If you reject that then it’s pretty clear your goal is to force the cluster specifically with Maury, not to rebalance the Hill schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

FWIW your point about the Pentacle being equidistant from LT and Maury is exactly the point... It is not possible to extend the Maury boundary to capture the Pentacle because of where it is relative to Miner; the same thing is true for LT. You cannot re-boundary your way out of the issue. Yes, you obviously could cluster LT and Miner instead of Maury and Miner, but logistically & equity-wise, that's obviously an inferior option. So other than pure what-about-ism, which Maury posters seem great at, what better solution are you actually advocating for?

The Pentacle is about as far from Maury as it is from LT. there’s absolutely to reason to declare this an “inferior option” unless you have a goal specifically to teach Maury a lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

That's untrue. The pentacle is at 15th and Benning. You could just extend LT's boundary to include G street through gales and 16th street. In turn you could shrink part of the LT boundary on the east side, have it start at 10th or 11th and have those families rerouted to Miner.

So you'd run a single block long zone an additional 6 blocks past the rest of the boundary to capture one particular apartment building and you actually think this would be something DCPS would do & would have any actual effect on Miner? Come on. Also, a family at 10th & G would retain proximity preference to LT... which they would use.

The fact that Maury folks are arguing that you should create the most gerrymandered IB in the entire district to capture one apartment building and that that is somehow preferable to/more likely to set Miner up for success than the cluster is what makes it hard to take them seriously. Just own that you don't want your own school to be experimented on in a way that's likely to make it substantially worse. Don't claim that you have a better solution and then offer... this.

That’s not much to own. Every parent would want that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

Not necessarily, one of the low income housing units on either side of Miner could be carved out into the L-T or the Maury boundary.

Not unless you literally snaked around the school. There is zero chance that will happen. People are really missing the point that Miner is not uniquely bad in DCPS. They aren't going to create a ridiculously gerrymandered boundary just to get one housing project out of the zone. Not least of all because that wouldn't fix Miner at all. The OOB kids don't look different than the IB kids, so while you'd get one building's worth of kids into one particular other school, you wouldn't actually do anything for Miner. Also, there is zero reason to believe that those particularl families particularly want to go to their new school and they'd retain proximity preference for the school that is literally across the road from them, so maybe you'd end up moving 50% of one building's worth of kids?

You’re a joke. So a boundary that “snakes around a school” is a bridge to far for equity; but a cluster totally disrupting two schools is not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there anybody on DCUM who lives in bounds for Miner and has spoken up?

We're in bounds for Miner and so we support.

Do your kids go to Miner? We are currently enrolled in prek at Miner, inbounds for Maury.

My observations are that those who are supporting this are inbounds to Miner and are either not enrolled there yet, have enrolled their kids elsewhere or are just in the beginning of their Miner journey (ECE). I have found it notable that none of the "booster" Miner parents I know who have kids in the older grades are supporting this proposal.

They're probably hoping to lottery into the existing Maury.

The Miner "booster" parents I know aren't on either list. They may also feel like their views are represented by the joint Miner-Maury PTO letter & that taking a "side" would undermine that (which it would). I don't see most of the Maury leadership on the con-list either.

There are quite a few parents who are IB for Miner and have lotteried their kids in elsewhere on the pro-list. But lots of them are parents who stuck with Miner longer than most (parents with kids now in 2nd-5th grade, who left in/after COVID year). Those parents' kids are too old to benefit from a combined school anyway, so I think they are actually just voting out of experience with how broken Miner is in the hopes of helping future families.

Not at either school (or IB for either) but we have several friends who fall into the group described by the bolded (I corrected the typo of Maury to Miner because I know that's what you meant).

There is general frustration among Miner IB parents because I know many who enrolled in PK thinking that with involvement and dedication, they could do for Miner what other families have done for Maury or L-T. They met road blocks that didn't exist at those other schools, and wound up leaving by 2nd/3rd grade. We know multiple families who were at Miner for 4-5 years but ultimately left because they saw zero improvement at the school in that time. That's a significant effort. They are supporting the merger because they do not think there are better options available to Miner, and I'm inclined to defer to them because I think they would know.

I totally get why Maury families are opposed, I probably would be too. But I've had enough conversations with former Miner families that I can really see the argument in favor. Unless there is some other way to turn things around at Miner, it really seems like the school needs something drastic.

This is wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that outcomes of a paired school will be better, or that people will stick around in the upper grades. Look at Billingsville-Cotswold (the Charlotte school pairing that is the DME's current model) or Peabody-Watkins.

The issue is two-fold. First, the data shows that the combined school *is better* than the worse of the two paired schools, so it still makes sense for Miner families to support. Second, Miner isn't going to get some magical extra money investment from DCPS that no other bad/failed school gets. Miner isn't uniquely bad, it's just uniquely bad next to a very good school; it's the side-by-side pairing with a neighborhood that isn't distinct for those on the borders of the two schools that's unique. So unless Miner families leverage what *is* unique (their proximity to Maury), they aren't going to get anything better from DCPS. I think this plan is horrendously unfair to Maury families and bad precedent. It would also 100% support it if I were IB for Miner.

Why is it on Maury to improve Miner? Miner also shares a boundary border with Ludlow Taylor. Have they looked at Ludlow's boundaries? Shouldn't there be more done to improve Miner than simply combine it with the higher performing nearby school?

It's not "on Maury." They are part of the same school system. Maury is much closer to Miner than L-T is. That's it. Why would you combine Miner with L-T when Maury is so much closer? It makes no sense.

The point is that they should consider something beyond just simply combing two nearby schools and assuming it'll work out.

What specifically should they consider? You are the one who raised the shared boundary between Ludlow and Miner. How would shifting that boundary improve the situation at Miner?

Well for one, I think they should consider more than one solution, which the community has repeatedly asked DME to analyze and they have yet to come back with. I think they could increase the at-risk set asides at Maury and either eliminate Prek or shrink the Maury boundary. I think they should simultaneously also find a way to create more buy-in from the IB Miner families. That could be through specialized programming like dual-language, or Montessori. And DCPS should find a way to send one of its strongest administrators to Miner who can actually provide the leadership that school and community deserves.

And Ludlow Taylor isn't that much further from Miner than Maury.

Ludlow Taylor is further away and Miner’s IB families are considerably further away from the school still. LT and Miner share a several block border and, if you shifted it, you’d just shift the wealthiest part of the Miner zone into LT. Maury and Miner share an extremely long boundary and many families live basically equidistant to both. No Miner families live closer to LT or even close to equidistant from both schools. Also, the demographic differences between LT and Miner didn’t even reach the threshold for DME’s consideration. So, all of that.

You sound like the DME. The threshold is fake, and the LT boundary could be extended far enough east to absorb one of the low income buildings. The Pentacle is barely any further from LT than Maury. You cannot both claim that equity is so important as to justify the huge logistical leap of a cluster, and then act like extending the LT border is somehow completely infeasible.

You would need to extend the LT boundary *through* Miner to reach the low income buildings. Do you really not see why that wouldn't happen?

That's untrue. The pentacle is at 15th and Benning. You could just extend LT's boundary to include G street through gales and 16th street. In turn you could shrink part of the LT boundary on the east side, have it start at 10th or 11th and have those families rerouted to Miner.

So you'd run a single block long zone an additional 6 blocks past the rest of the boundary to capture one particular apartment building and you actually think this would be something DCPS would do & would have any actual effect on Miner? Come on. Also, a family at 10th & G would retain proximity preference to LT... which they would use.

The fact that Maury folks are arguing that you should create the most gerrymandered IB in the entire district to capture one apartment building and that that is somehow preferable to/more likely to set Miner up for success than the cluster is what makes it hard to take them seriously. Just own that you don't want your own school to be experimented on in a way that's likely to make it substantially worse. Don't claim that you have a better solution and then offer... this.

this is ALL gerrymandering bro!! clearly you feel good about making a point about Maury.

[Anonymous]

Y'all, can we just drop the LT discussion? Maury is much closer to Miner than LT is. There is no proposed cluster between LT and Miner. If they wanted to cluster LT with another school, wouldn't JOW be the obvious option?

I just don't understand why this is even a discussion. You can oppose the cluster without suggesting nonsensical alternatives that make not logistical sense.