Reply to New DME slide deck about Maury/Miner, with maps!

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "New DME slide deck about Maury/Miner, with maps!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Advisory Committee's current draft recommendation has moved the "earliest" date up to 2026.

"DCPS shall explore the feasibility of this [pairing] policy for Maury ES and Miner ES, that has a 52-percentage point different in at risk enrollment while located three blocks of one another.  Pairing the schools could provide additional PK classrooms for Maury (where in boundary demand exceeds available seats) and improve the utilization at Miner ES in addition to the socioeconomic benefits.  Community feedback has been mixed, and universally families want implementation information to understand the potential impact on each of the schools, including staffing, leadership, funding and Title 1 status, and extracurricular offerings.  DCPS should launch a Maury-Miner Community Working Group consisting of a diverse body of PTO, LSAT, and community members no earlier than SY2026-27 to help facilitate whether it is feasible to implement this policy at these two schools and, if so, determine the logistics to do so.  This timeline takes into account two school years of consistent leadership at both schools."

[/quote]

As someone who has followed this closely for months, the text above is what’s going to be in the final recommendation. The deck presented at the beginning of this thread is out of date- it’s from Feb 6, not tonight. And, if you’ve been following the trajectory of this plan, you would know that the DME never seriously considered any boundary changes to Maury or Miner. The “options” in the Feb 6 slide deck were inserted in response to community feedback criticizing DME for not showing the community that they even tried boundary revisions. DME gave short shrift to those boundary revisions when they were presented for the first time on Feb 6 - they basically just ran through them quickly and told the community why none of them were good options.

It’s going to be a working group starting no earlier than 26-27 to study feasibility. The battle against the pairing just gets kicked down the road by 2-3 years. [/quote]

So if the working group starts in 2026 - 2027 at the earliest, what is the earliest the paired model can be started? Assuming SY 2027 - 2028, but they would have to make that official before the lottery in March 2027, right? Who is the ultimate deciding authority on this issue? The mayor? [/quote]

2027 is surely way too early, right? I thought everyone agreed this thing is DOA if it doesn't have community support, and it will take years to build up community buy-in if they ever do decide to do this.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics