Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

They're not marginal if they affect the quality of your kids' school. And your snide little dismissal is irrelevant: the entire plan hinges on parents going along with it and not lotterying out, moving, or doing private school. So the worse you think they are, well, there goes the plan.

Like I said, it makes sense and the haves don't want it because it takes away their privileges. Glib, snide, sure. We all self-justify.

Nothing is being taken away from me. My zoned schools aren't good. I just don't hate the idea that somewhere, someone is getting something I'm not.

What exactly changes on Option 4? Trying to compare maps and my eyes are watering.

Anonymous wrote:This says it was presented at a Miner PTO meeting. The map section starts on slide 17. I think these maps would be so much easier to read with non-residential space such as soccer fields grayed out. But Option 4 is intriguing.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary_Study_School%20Meetings%20Miner_2.06.2024%20POSTING.pdf

Socioeconomic segregation?

Now do the NW schools such as Janney with 2% at risk, 6 times more than Maury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

They're not marginal if they affect the quality of your kids' school. And your snide little dismissal is irrelevant: the entire plan hinges on parents going along with it and not lotterying out, moving, or doing private school. So the worse you think they are, well, there goes the plan.

Like I said, it makes sense and the haves don't want it because it takes away their privileges. Glib, snide, sure. We all self-justify.

Why don't you tell us why the Miner PTO didn't support it? And do also fill us in on why a cluster is better than a boundary adjustment plus at-risk preference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

They're not marginal if they affect the quality of your kids' school. And your snide little dismissal is irrelevant: the entire plan hinges on parents going along with it and not lotterying out, moving, or doing private school. So the worse you think they are, well, there goes the plan.

Like I said, it makes sense and the haves don't want it because it takes away their privileges. Glib, snide, sure. We all self-justify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This says it was presented at a Miner PTO meeting. The map section starts on slide 17. I think these maps would be so much easier to read with non-residential space such as soccer fields grayed out. But Option 4 is intriguing.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary_Study_School%20Meetings%20Miner_2.06.2024%20POSTING.pdf

Option 4 seems (specific quibbles aside) like a much more sensible approach than the pairing plan. That said, it doesn't include the initially proposed Brent border changes, so I wonder if they've given up on those entirely. I still can't believe they didn't even consider eliminating the Peabody/Watkins cluster, but I guess they couldn't admit that was a total disaster if they were proposing another one.

I don't think they can really eliminate that cluster. The Peabody building is too small to be a freestanding school.

Could be a freestanding ECE only a la Stevens. Watkins is plenty big enough to take om ECE-K given its massive population decrease in the last few years. You'd need minor renovations, but that's it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This says it was presented at a Miner PTO meeting. The map section starts on slide 17. I think these maps would be so much easier to read with non-residential space such as soccer fields grayed out. But Option 4 is intriguing.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary_Study_School%20Meetings%20Miner_2.06.2024%20POSTING.pdf

Option 4 seems (specific quibbles aside) like a much more sensible approach than the pairing plan. That said, it doesn't include the initially proposed Brent border changes, so I wonder if they've given up on those entirely. I still can't believe they didn't even consider eliminating the Peabody/Watkins cluster, but I guess they couldn't admit that was a total disaster if they were proposing another one.

I don't think they can really eliminate that cluster. The Peabody building is too small to be a freestanding school.

Anonymous wrote:This says it was presented at a Miner PTO meeting. The map section starts on slide 17. I think these maps would be so much easier to read with non-residential space such as soccer fields grayed out. But Option 4 is intriguing.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary_Study_School%20Meetings%20Miner_2.06.2024%20POSTING.pdf

Option 4 seems (specific quibbles aside) like a much more sensible approach than the pairing plan. That said, it doesn't include the initially proposed Brent border changes, so I wonder if they've given up on those entirely. I still can't believe they didn't even consider eliminating the Peabody/Watkins cluster, but I guess they couldn't admit that was a total disaster if they were proposing another one.

I wonder if the other boundary options are drawn to a majority of Maury families could be drawn into Miner’s district. So the question would become, do you want a cluster or do you want to roll the dice and end up in Miner’s district full time?

Because it looks like they are making a chance one way or another.

At least this would give affected people time to sell their houses.

Anonymous wrote:This says it was presented at a Miner PTO meeting. The map section starts on slide 17. I think these maps would be so much easier to read with non-residential space such as soccer fields grayed out. But Option 4 is intriguing.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary_Study_School%20Meetings%20Miner_2.06.2024%20POSTING.pdf

I think they are covering quite a bit when they talk about some school's utilization rates being affected. For instance, JOW is relatively underfilled and yet this shrinks the boundary seemingly just to get some more at risk kids to LT... But it seems to increase the size of LT's boundary a lot, which would drop the lottery spots available a ton, which is where lots of their existing at risk population comes from. So I'm not sure that change actually makes sense even in terms of its actual motivation even if it technically diversifies the IB population a bit. That said, the changes on the south side of that boundary seem like they'd make sense, because those are blocks where lots of kids go to LT via proximity preference already.

I also wonder if they've considered the proximity preference issue that has been such a problem for Watkins. It looks to me like some of the folks getting zoned out of their old IBs into Miner would likely end up with proximity preference to their old IB, which they'd presumably take, thus solving no actual problems.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

Oh FFS, they couldn't get the Miner PTO on board and lots of Miner parents had questions that the DME couldn't answer. So you can stop with your snide little attitude.

It seems to me that shrinking the Maury boundary plus an at-risk preference for all grades at Maury would get the desired reduction in segregation without the problems that come with a cluster.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

They're not marginal if they affect the quality of your kids' school. And your snide little dismissal is irrelevant: the entire plan hinges on parents going along with it and not lotterying out, moving, or doing private school. So the worse you think they are, well, there goes the plan.

I'm not from this part of the city. Seeing the map makes me realize how tied to segregation this situation is. It's definitely one thing to send kids across the city, but I can see how they're making a push for changes that are literally marginal - just across boundary lines. It seems like a combined boundary would be useful for the city. I am sure the haves can think of a reason to disagree, of course.

This says it was presented at a Miner PTO meeting. The map section starts on slide 17. I think these maps would be so much easier to read with non-residential space such as soccer fields grayed out. But Option 4 is intriguing.

https://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary_Study_School%20Meetings%20Miner_2.06.2024%20POSTING.pdf