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

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.  [/quote]

It wasn't the principals that asked, it was an idea that DME came up with to just give them time but in retrospect it was too much time (2027) and they seem to now want to propose just a one year delay (for the working group).   The current Miner principal is an interim one, so she has no stake, but it does make sense to push out the working group a little bit for the new Miner pricinipal (assuming one will come in next year).  That new principal, however, would not need until 2027.[/quote]

2027 makes sense if you want to see how the at-risk set aside plays out, or if you want to try anything else less disruptive than pairing two schools, but for people who have glommed on to this idea and want to implement it come hell or high water, it is too much time.[/quote]

This is true to an extent.  The at-risk set aside does not immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner - that is the main reason there is a certain sense of urgency.[/quote]

a CLUSTER does not “immediately address the ongoing needs at Miner.” I repeat, merging Maury and Miner does ZERO to improve academics at Miner. This is not an academic support plan for Miner (or even for the high risk kids at Maury). It is 100% an exercise in optics and ideology. [/quote]

Thats fair, the cluster does not immediately address the Miner problems, but what I meant was that its a start.  And the start is bringing the working group back to an earlier date.  2027 is dangerously far away and Miner can't afford that.[/quote]

But this is where I'm confused.  Some people seem to be under the impression that the working group is a precursor to the cluster actually happening, whereas others seem to be under the impression that it's basically a death knell for the idea. I have no idea what's going on.[/quote]

I think it could go either way. Kicking things to a committee is a traditional way to climb down from an idea without publicly renouncing it. So it's kind of a way for the DME to distance itself from their botched roll-out. If the at-risk preference at Maury brings in enough kids, the case for the cluster is weakened (especially if they're Miner kids). And if Miner gets a good permanent principal (LOL, I know, as if that's gonna happen), then that person will be able to either implement the cluster or it won't be needed because Miner will improve/gentrify. It's unclear how much demographic change is needed to get DME off this idea.[/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