Maury Capitol Hill

[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.

Depending on the size and condition of the house, being in the North or South side of D Street NE is a $300K-$500K difference in value. Developers from Virginia or wherever that use comps from a couple blocks away but don't understand the school boundaries routinely over-pay for shells in the Miner side, by a LOT.

[Anonymous]

Watkins is heavily OOB and way too far away from Peabody but it is also socioeconomically diverse and its test scores etc. are overall pretty good. Title 1 is not exactly the same thing as a true high poverty school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It probably will happen and it will be filled with a bunch of OOB seats. Michelle Rhee wanted neighborhood buy-in for elementary schools with the long but hard path to buy-in for middle and high school. And it's starting to happen with E-H. And it's all going to be pissed away for some short sighted idea that won't provide the intended benefit.

[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.

This is precisely what Howard County schools do. The redistrict frequently with the goal of rebalancing boundaries in order to spread around lower income families. It's unpopular in certain pockets of the county, but people are largely very happy with the quality of schools from elementary to high school, and while there are sometimes controversy about specific boundary shifts, most of the time it's accepted and people move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is precisely what Howard County schools do. The redistrict frequently with the goal of rebalancing boundaries in order to spread around lower income families. It's unpopular in certain pockets of the county, but people are largely very happy with the quality of schools from elementary to high school, and while there are sometimes controversy about specific boundary shifts, most of the time it's accepted and people move on.

HoCo is very different geographically - people drive and bus to school. Also I wonder if the redistricting is that frequent for elementary there; or is it more MS and HS? It’s easier to keep a balance in a bigger school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is precisely what Howard County schools do. The redistrict frequently with the goal of rebalancing boundaries in order to spread around lower income families. It's unpopular in certain pockets of the county, but people are largely very happy with the quality of schools from elementary to high school, and while there are sometimes controversy about specific boundary shifts, most of the time it's accepted and people move on.

If we accept we are talking about race, it’s not possible to rebalance the white kids in DC. They only make up 10% of the kids. In HoCo white and asian kids are 50%. DME is fiddling on the deck of the Titantic when it acts like “we just need to spread the white kids around, that will fix it!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is precisely what Howard County schools do. The redistrict frequently with the goal of rebalancing boundaries in order to spread around lower income families. It's unpopular in certain pockets of the county, but people are largely very happy with the quality of schools from elementary to high school, and while there are sometimes controversy about specific boundary shifts, most of the time it's accepted and people move on.

Yup, Howard County demographics are just like DC. Ha! HoCo is the prime example of people that didn't want to live in DC because of the schools and accepted a long commute and/or people that moved out of DC because of the schools. Comparing to DC demographics is a fool's errand.

[Anonymous]

Right now, approximately 46% of DCPS students are categorized as at-risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right now, approximately 46% of DCPS students are categorized as at-risk.

And that proportion grows every time MC or UMC families flee the system.

[Anonymous]

Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

Because the Watkins IB participation is so low, it’s not clear that this will happen.

[Anonymous]

Is this going to have the effect of displacing some OOB students from Miner? What is the equity impact of that?

If you're wondering who DGAF about Miner, it's the DME and DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

Miner inbound parent, MC, here: for what it is worth I would love the commute to Minor and Maury-we walk past these schools nearly daily anyways. Also, I would keep my child in-bound if the schools were combined and while the information has not been formally shared with the Miner inbound community, many parents in the same situation I am in feel the same.

I have always hoped my kids would get the chance to go to Maury-but after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of Maury families during the DME meetings, my sentiments are changing. I am sad that this is how my neighbors talk about the children in their neighborhood and community. The entitlement is frankly outrageous and just snobbish. To the poster worried if you combine schools “Our homes won’t fetch top dollar”: let me remind you-this is about children and not home values!!!

Many if not most Miner families have to drive out of my neighborhood for school (which pointed out by another poster on this thread is tragic for in bound Maury, but acceptable for Miner inbound). If Miner got the community/family support that other schools receive, the school would be a much better place, but unfortunately it does not.
That being said: We as a community can be better! We can combine these children and create an inclusive, nurturing, and educational environment that is more equitable for our community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure why no one considered the impact of the cluster on potential buy-in from the Miner side. If the cluster goes through, many Miner families that would have planned to move or lottery out will instead stay IB. That would in turn help maintain an academically enriched environment for the Maury side while including more disadvantaged kids too. This could trickle up to E-H with the combination of Maury and Miner kids - as more of those higher performing kids will strike out in the lottery and go there for MS. That’s how I see it. It’s been pretty clearly through this thread and with how the plan has been discussed that the Miner view point has been completely ignored and dismissed. There are 2 schools involved here, not one.

What makes you think that when matriculation from Peabody to Watkins is so poor?

I'm not a Miner parent, but if I were, I would seriously hate this commute. I would much rather have the DME make improvements to Miner such that more people want to attend. Is this just a problem of residential segregation, or is it also a disparity due to Miner's poor IB capture rate?

Miner inbound parent, MC, here: for what it is worth I would love the commute to Minor and Maury-we walk past these schools nearly daily anyways. Also, I would keep my child in-bound if the schools were combined and while the information has not been formally shared with the Miner inbound community, many parents in the same situation I am in feel the same.

I have always hoped my kids would get the chance to go to Maury-but after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of Maury families during the DME meetings, my sentiments are changing. I am sad that this is how my neighbors talk about the children in their neighborhood and community. The entitlement is frankly outrageous and just snobbish. To the poster worried if you combine schools “Our homes won’t fetch top dollar”: let me remind you-this is about children and not home values!!!

Many if not most Miner families have to drive out of my neighborhood for school (which pointed out by another poster on this thread is tragic for in bound Maury, but acceptable for Miner inbound). If Miner got the community/family support that other schools receive, the school would be a much better place, but unfortunately it does not.
That being said: We as a community can be better! We can combine these children and create an inclusive, nurturing, and educational environment that is more equitable for our community.

Another parent here in-bounds for Miner, though my kids are now in HS: totally agree with this. I always thought Maury would have been the ideal school for our kids, and I put it first on the lottery form way back in 2010. We didn’t get in, of course. The way people are taking on here as if their precious school will be infected by Miner kids is gross. Miner and Maury are so close together that a cluster makes much more sense than Peabody/Watkins. Also, don’t pretend that Miner families would be inconvenienced by the “commute.” Lots of Miner families have a shorter walk to Maury than to Miner, my own family included. And for pretty much everyone else, it’s a toss-up.