Maury Capitol Hill

[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:This a whole process stinks of why folks governing with no skin in the game is a bad idea.

City wide metric improves, high priority goal achieved. High fives all around, job done.

Miner and Maury improving? Not a high priority, wont ever matter for the advisory committee.

Precisely.

I find it really interesting that instead of looking at how to attract higher SES families to Miner, the only thing they can think of is forcing the schools together. Also that SWS is apparently exempt from the clustering conversation. SWS is a 12 minute walk from Miner down F St. If they turned Miner into SWS at Miner and allowed IB Miner students preference, that would actually almost instantaneously create SES balance.

Hey, leave SWS out of this mess!

Do city-wide DCPS already have an at-risk set aside? If not, does anyone know if one is being contemplated as part of this study?

SWS already has the EA preference.

Only for PK3 and PK4 though. The idea would be to make it more grades, maybe all grades, and set aside rather than give a preference.

I would support this but it will have zero impact on kids at Miner and likely little impact generally because SWS is such a small school. I imagine the reason they have the preference for PK grades but not upper grades is that they have so few lottery spots available for upper grades as to make it pointless. Even if you agreed that 100% of available lottery spots for upper grades at SWS were EA set asides, you're talking a handful of spots per grade, sometimes none. Plus I'm not even sure that's the best thing for a kid who is genuinely at risk -- SWS can be insular and hard to adjust to for UMC white kids on the Hill if they are entering at 2nd or 3rd. It would be extra challenging for a child with genuine issues, and I'd worry that the curriculum would not do a good job at addressing deficiencies -- SWS is not very academically rigorous but relies heavily on the fact that most of it's population is high income and so kids are getting a ton of support/enrichment at home.

Plus those EA spots would be available on a city wide basis, not just to kids in the Miner boundary, so we're talking about helping like 0-5 Miner IB kids. Yay? It's meaningless.

The idea is that Miner would also become a citywide SWS with IB preference for Miner boundary kids to go to either campus; or split the campuses into upper and lower schools. SWS already feeds EH so no need to change that.

PP here. Okay that makes more sense. But SWS is a Reggio Emilio school. When it was started as part of the original CH Cluster, teachers at Peabody/Watkins actually took it upon themselves to develop the curriculum, get training/certifications, etc. As SWS became its own thing and eventually cluster kids lost their IB preference for it, the approach really diverged. Especially in upper grades (Peabody does retain some of the fundamentals of Reggio, and actually JO Wilson's ECE also follows a Reggio approach I believe -- it's a pretty popular approach for ECE but not common at all for upper elementary, especially in public schools).

So what happens to Miner teachers who don't buy into the Reggio approach? The only way to bill Miner as a SWS campus is to adopt that fully, which means you HAVE to get educators on board. This would essentially mean clearing house at Miner. I think many of the ECE teachers would be interested but I have a hard time believing ANY of the 1st-5th teachers would be willing to do the training/certifications, and many of them would be fully opposed to the way Reggio handles things like homework, discipline and conflicts in class, and some the self-exploration and self-guided elements of Reggio.

Also, even if you give IB preference to Miner kids the same way CH cluster kids got boundary preference for SWS for a time, you still need a by-right school for those kids. Even with preference, not all will get spots, and some families will not want spots -- they will want a more traditional DCPS program, just as not all CH cluster families bought into SWS and many preferred Peabody/Watkins. So what would their by-right DCPS IB be? Even if you shift some of the zone to Payne, the obvious answer for at least half the existing zone is: Maury. Whoops.

That's fine with me. All I want is to be able to use my neighborhood school and not literally walk past it every day to deliver one of my children to a different school much farther away. Build Maury up to the sky. Bring all the kids in. Just let my kids go to the same elementary school.

Do you have kids at Maury now? Because if you do, you'd know that it's already overcrowded. Building it to the sky is stupid.

This, I don't understand the PP's comment (other than not anting to commute to Miner, which I get). There is not room at Maury to absorb even a quarter or a third of Miner's zone, especially since the option of attending Maury by right would instantly be a big draw for those families. Maury cannot absorb another 100 kids, that's nuts.

The idea is to make the younger kids all go to Miner. That frees up space.

That's the idea of the cluster. The PP is opposed to the cluster (does not want to take younger kids to Miner) but is saying she would be fine with a plan to make Miner another SWS all-city campus, and then assign part of the existing Miner zone to Maury.

And while I get the opposing the cluster part of that, I don't think the rest of it makes sense. Maury can't absorb even a portion of Miner's IB families, it's not clear there is demand for SWS-style education in the specific population that is currently being underserved by Miner (there is obviously high demand for SWS among UMC parents in the city based on their waitlists, but the needs of UMC parents are not viewed as important for this study), and it sounds somehow even more half-baked than the cluster plan, which is saying something.

I think people are just so frustrated at this point that they are grasping at any alternative to the proposed cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will be interesting to see what happens at the LSAT/PTA meeting.

One of the biggest mysteries to me is how staff feels about this plan. Their support will be absolutely critical to making it work.

apparently staff would all have to reapply for their jobs so I guess they are NOT in favor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our 7-yr old DD is not a guinea pig to be sacrificed for some half baked left-wing experiment, especially one that has already failed before. This is so rushed and poorly thought out.

It’s the failing existing cluster that truly makes this a cluster f. what are they thinking, truly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Maury specifically, I hate to say it but I see a pretty big exit coming if the cluster is formed.

1) The current 4th grade class has an overwhelming number of oldest siblings. They don't have an older sibling to pull them into Latin/Basis. Many will strike out in the lottery. Maybe E-H would be a viable option...

But combine that with...

2) The Cluster making Maury a less desirable school for younger siblings.

There are going to be a lot of homes for sale in the current Maury zone this spring. And they won't fetch top dollar for being in-bounds for Maury.

One thing I've noticed about Maury families is that there are a surprising number that can't afford to move. Especially if mortgage rates stay as high as they are.

[Anonymous]

Why does literally no one in all of the city and school and DME meetings seem to be talking about educational outcomes? It’s a third rail I guess, but it is schools we are talking about, after all.

Isn’t this the question: does it help or hurt a student to go from a classroom where the vast majority of students are meeting grade-level goals, to then suddenly go to a classroom where less than half are meeting those goals? Let’s be honest about the educational impact this will have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does literally no one in all of the city and school and DME meetings seem to be talking about educational outcomes? It’s a third rail I guess, but it is schools we are talking about, after all.

Isn’t this the question: does it help or hurt a student to go from a classroom where the vast majority of students are meeting grade-level goals, to then suddenly go to a classroom where less than half are meeting those goals? Let’s be honest about the educational impact this will have.

And the corollary - is it a given that merely dropping under-served students into a more socioeconomically mixed setting solves all problems? Where is the data on how all this impacts kids? Or do we have no idea and we are simply fumbling in the dark?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Maury specifically, I hate to say it but I see a pretty big exit coming if the cluster is formed.

1) The current 4th grade class has an overwhelming number of oldest siblings. They don't have an older sibling to pull them into Latin/Basis. Many will strike out in the lottery. Maybe E-H would be a viable option...

But combine that with...

2) The Cluster making Maury a less desirable school for younger siblings.

There are going to be a lot of homes for sale in the current Maury zone this spring. And they won't fetch top dollar for being in-bounds for Maury.

I don't understand this. Miner also feeds into E-H. Why would E-H be a viable option if Miner isn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Maury specifically, I hate to say it but I see a pretty big exit coming if the cluster is formed.

1) The current 4th grade class has an overwhelming number of oldest siblings. They don't have an older sibling to pull them into Latin/Basis. Many will strike out in the lottery. Maybe E-H would be a viable option...

But combine that with...

2) The Cluster making Maury a less desirable school for younger siblings.

There are going to be a lot of homes for sale in the current Maury zone this spring. And they won't fetch top dollar for being in-bounds for Maury.

One thing I've noticed about Maury families is that there are a surprising number that can't afford to move. Especially if mortgage rates stay as high as they are.

I have no idea if that is true or not, but I don't personally expect a big exodus from the neighborhood. Some, for sure, but not a big one.

I think the shift would be more gradual. Families are all in different situations regarding siblings and ages, as well as MS plans and options. A family with a 4th grader and an older kid in MS will view the situation very differently than a family with a 1st grader and an incoming PK3 child. Some will try to lottery out. Some will rent out their Maury house and rent IB for LT or Brent as a temporary fix. Some will give the cluster a try. Some will go private.

Some will sell and move, but I actually think this will be the smallest contingent because now is a very unfavorable time to do that and also: where will they go? Upper NW, suburbs? Trying to buy elsewhere on the Hill just doesn't make economic sense -- you will pay way more at higher rates just to get a few years of elementary school in a different community before facing the same MS/HS challenges you faced at Maury. The juice is not worth the squeeze. But not everyone wants to move out of the city or to Ward 3. They live on the Hill for a reason. Moving exclusively for schools when you genuinely like where you live (and when your kids like where you live) sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Maury specifically, I hate to say it but I see a pretty big exit coming if the cluster is formed.

1) The current 4th grade class has an overwhelming number of oldest siblings. They don't have an older sibling to pull them into Latin/Basis. Many will strike out in the lottery. Maybe E-H would be a viable option...

But combine that with...

2) The Cluster making Maury a less desirable school for younger siblings.

There are going to be a lot of homes for sale in the current Maury zone this spring. And they won't fetch top dollar for being in-bounds for Maury.

Yes, but there are now 2 Latins. Plus the Maury contingent that is going to E-H no matter what. There will be more lottery spots available than you think.

[Anonymous]

You have to look at it from the DME standpoint: There is lots of literature about the problems/disadvantages associated with schools that have a high concentration of poverty. It even includes things like greater difficulties associated with attracting high quality leadership and staff and less PTO money/engagement. There is literature that economically disadvantaged students do better academically in schools when the majority of their peers are not similarly disadvantaged. The district focused on best serving all students would probably prefer to have most of its schools be 25-50% economically disadvantaged. Demographics do not often shake out like that in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Maury specifically, I hate to say it but I see a pretty big exit coming if the cluster is formed.

1) The current 4th grade class has an overwhelming number of oldest siblings. They don't have an older sibling to pull them into Latin/Basis. Many will strike out in the lottery. Maybe E-H would be a viable option...

But combine that with...

2) The Cluster making Maury a less desirable school for younger siblings.

There are going to be a lot of homes for sale in the current Maury zone this spring. And they won't fetch top dollar for being in-bounds for Maury.

One thing I've noticed about Maury families is that there are a surprising number that can't afford to move. Especially if mortgage rates stay as high as they are.

I have no idea if that is true or not, but I don't personally expect a big exodus from the neighborhood. Some, for sure, but not a big one.

I think the shift would be more gradual. Families are all in different situations regarding siblings and ages, as well as MS plans and options. A family with a 4th grader and an older kid in MS will view the situation very differently than a family with a 1st grader and an incoming PK3 child. Some will try to lottery out. Some will rent out their Maury house and rent IB for LT or Brent as a temporary fix. Some will give the cluster a try. Some will go private.

Some will sell and move, but I actually think this will be the smallest contingent because now is a very unfavorable time to do that and also: where will they go? Upper NW, suburbs? Trying to buy elsewhere on the Hill just doesn't make economic sense -- you will pay way more at higher rates just to get a few years of elementary school in a different community before facing the same MS/HS challenges you faced at Maury. The juice is not worth the squeeze. But not everyone wants to move out of the city or to Ward 3. They live on the Hill for a reason. Moving exclusively for schools when you genuinely like where you live (and when your kids like where you live) sucks.

Maybe this is what will turn 2 Rivers around.

[Anonymous]

Former Maury parent here. We moved rather than sending our oldest to EH. This was before interest rates went up and before crime got so crazy on the hill.

We loved our community and were sad that the lottery forced our hand. But with interest rates making moving less affordable snd crime making the hill less attractive, I just feel incredibly lucky that we left when we did. After all the hard work that Maury parents invested in turning that school around a decade plus ago, now trying to undermine that by combining with miner just seems to be salt in the wound for families already facing a lot of unanticipated obstacles to affording quality education for their kids. Maury families do not tend to be “rich” by dc standards. But generally well educated hard working people who want the best for their kids. And now their housing values will be further diminished by losing Maury. What dcps is proposing to do to these families is almost cruel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former Maury parent here. We moved rather than sending our oldest to EH. This was before interest rates went up and before crime got so crazy on the hill.

We loved our community and were sad that the lottery forced our hand. But with interest rates making moving less affordable snd crime making the hill less attractive, I just feel incredibly lucky that we left when we did. After all the hard work that Maury parents invested in turning that school around a decade plus ago, now trying to undermine that by combining with miner just seems to be salt in the wound for families already facing a lot of unanticipated obstacles to affording quality education for their kids. Maury families do not tend to be “rich” by dc standards. But generally well educated hard working people who want the best for their kids. And now their housing values will be further diminished by losing Maury. What dcps is proposing to do to these families is almost cruel.

The irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at it from the DME standpoint: There is lots of literature about the problems/disadvantages associated with schools that have a high concentration of poverty. It even includes things like greater difficulties associated with attracting high quality leadership and staff and less PTO money/engagement. There is literature that economically disadvantaged students do better academically in schools when the majority of their peers are not similarly disadvantaged. The district focused on best serving all students would probably prefer to have most of its schools be 25-50% economically disadvantaged. Demographics do not often shake out like that in the real world.

If I were looking at this from the DME standpoint, I'd notice that the Watkins boundary is full of high SES families, and yet Watkins went from non-Title 1 back to Title 1 very recently. What makes them think this won't happen at Maury as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Maury specifically, I hate to say it but I see a pretty big exit coming if the cluster is formed.

1) The current 4th grade class has an overwhelming number of oldest siblings. They don't have an older sibling to pull them into Latin/Basis. Many will strike out in the lottery. Maybe E-H would be a viable option...

But combine that with...

2) The Cluster making Maury a less desirable school for younger siblings.

There are going to be a lot of homes for sale in the current Maury zone this spring. And they won't fetch top dollar for being in-bounds for Maury.

I don't understand this. Miner also feeds into E-H. Why would E-H be a viable option if Miner isn't?

Maybe you try E-H and gamble that Walls or another acceptable HS is a possibility. But when you combine that WITH a diminished elementary for the younger siblings, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Hello..... Fairfax.