Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner.

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

Despite what many think, it's rare to find a school that is failing on all fronts. Without a doubt, Miner has a very high at-risk population. If proficiency is the main measure, Miner and other schools with a high proportion of at-risk students generally have lower levels of proficiency. There are differences with how students enter school and with how they are resourced (and exposed and educated) outside of school. How well are Miner and Maury growing the students that they have? OSSE publishes both "Growth to Proficiency" and "Median Growth Percentile" in reading and math to show how well schools are [i]growing proficiency the students they have. Maury has very high growth to proficiency in reading/ELA and Miner is also above average (though not as high as Maury) compared to other public schools. In Math, Miner's growth is above Maury's. This may not matter to you if your child is already performing at grade level or above but it does matter for students who aren't at grade level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

You mean what PP is OVERreacting to. Fine, I see they said in their previous comment that if a principal stayed for two years it would be the second-longest serving principal. I actually do not think even that is true -- it is only in the last 10 years that Miner has had this revolving door of principals.

But then the PP went on to attack the poster of the previous comment, telling them not to "take it personally", and accusing them of "taking out their frustrations" on Maury parents.

Agains, all they said was that Miner had a long-serving principal fairly recently and that the school benefitted from that consistent leaders. They also noted that Miner generally does not get the support it needs from DCPS, and didn't even under that principal. Is this not what the Maury families who oppose the cluster have been saying all along, that DCPS should focus on helping fix Miner instead of dragging Maury into it? How is anything the poster said inconsistent with that position.

Some of you Maury families who continue to have public meltdowns over this proposal need to take a long hard look at your own behavior. Not just on this board -- I have watched this unfold on MOTH as well and I'm honestly embarrassed on some of y'alls behalf.

You are accusing someone who just stated a simple fact about Miner of "taking out their frustrations" on you. But they are not the ones taking their frustrations out on their neighbors. That behavior is definitely happening though, and many of us (including those of us who don't have kids at either school) have noticed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

New DP, but I think maybe what PP is reacting to is that PP didn’t say Miner has never had a long-serving principal. They said if a principal lasts through this working group, “they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.” None of that is contradicted by what the person who replied to them said, despite the accusation “that is not true.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner.

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

I'm the PP and you have it exactly right—I've lived in the neighborhood for 20+ years, and I was pointing out that this is a somewhat recent (if persistent) phenomenon for Miner. People come and go in this city and you may or may not know the history of a place. This instability at Miner coincided with a shift in the neighborhood demographics and economic tensions. It's more a reminder that things ebb and flow in a city, but there is also a lot of pride in neighborhood schools and their history—even if a family chooses not to send their kids there. Test scores never tell the whole story. The disdain and impatience is with anyone who doesn't regard Miner as a "failing school" is just a sh*tty premise to start a respectful discussion.

Combining any two schools is going to be a tough sell. I think it's even tougher when a school has been struggling with a leadership vacuum. Thankfully, I don't have a dog in this fight anymore, but I know both schools have challenges and benefits, and I hope there's a positive way forward that doesn't tear either community down.

What kind of community pride is there in a school rejected by 75% of the IB population? Come on. The revealed preference is clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

I'm the PP and you have it exactly right—I've lived in the neighborhood for 20+ years, and I was pointing out that this is a somewhat recent (if persistent) phenomenon for Miner. People come and go in this city and you may or may not know the history of a place. This instability at Miner coincided with a shift in the neighborhood demographics and economic tensions. It's more a reminder that things ebb and flow in a city, but there is also a lot of pride in neighborhood schools and their history—even if a family chooses not to send their kids there. Test scores never tell the whole story. The disdain and impatience is with anyone who doesn't regard Miner as a "failing school" is just a sh*tty premise to start a respectful discussion.

Combining any two schools is going to be a tough sell. I think it's even tougher when a school has been struggling with a leadership vacuum. Thankfully, I don't have a dog in this fight anymore, but I know both schools have challenges and benefits, and I hope there's a positive way forward that doesn't tear either community down.

Anonymous wrote:DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

DP, and not a Miner parent (nor IB for Miner, just live in the neighborhood), but you are the one taking this personally.

The PP was simply saying that's it's not true that Miner has never had a long-serving principal, and then noted that their last long-serving principal was a stabilizing force for the school. The PP isn't even advocating for the cluster (if anything, they are pointing out that what Miner needs is consistency and stability).

But you interpret any defense of Miner as an attack on you, personally, because as a Maury parent you are highly defensive about the fact that you absolutely do not want your kids to go to Miner (or even to own a home IB for Miner). You are the one up in your feelings here, so it's pretty ironic that you are lecturing the entire Miner school community for being too emotional.

You are the one taking out your frustrations on someone pointing out a fact about Miner (that it has benefitted in the past from long-serving leadership).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

What exactly isn’t true? It sounds like maybe you disagree that it would be “shocking,” but that’s different from the other poster actually saying something false.

Your post is symbolic of how the Miner community has handled this whole situation. You’re taking it personally. Don’t! It’s not personal! Miner’s a failing school - that’s not an attack, it’s a fact! Among other jarring stats, 75% of the students who live in bounds for Miner choose not to attend Miner. It’s unreasonable for in-bounds Miner parents to get all hot and bothered about Maury parents not wanting to send their kids to Miner when 75% of the population in-bounds for Miner also doesn’t want to send their kids to Miner[i].

Stop taking your frustrations about Miner out on Maury parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.

This is not true. Miner had an amazing long-time principal who left in the 20-teens. She was a stabliizing force in a school that did not receive the support it deserved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not explicitly said, but I thought that it sounded like the principals had asked for the 2027 start date.

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.

Given Miner's history, it would actually be shocking if the same principal was there in 2027. Probably a 1 in 8 shot. If they then lasted throughout the life of the Working Group, they'd probably be the second longest serving Miner principal ever.