Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It's more than wanting free aftercare. As a parent of a child in an upper Maury grade, I want functional upper grades! The behavioral issues are to the point where my kid doesn't want to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It's more than wanting free aftercare. As a parent of a child in an upper Maury grade, I want functional upper grades! The behavioral issues are to the point where my kid doesn't want to go to school.

Right. That’s because the upper grades are in the donut hole where there are a significant number of high needs kids but no addk funding for them. Maybe the DME in its munificence could look at the absolutely shameful lack of support for behavioral concerns in elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

Not if they do the calculation separately. The combined upper grades would 100% be T1. The lower grades would likely not be if they split PK3-1st and likely would be if they split PK3-2nd; another reason actual specific proposals matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

doubtful. there are not that many “rich” families lotterying into Miner. In any event this is something the DME needs to be analyzing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

Not if they do the calculation separately. The combined upper grades would 100% be T1. The lower grades would likely not be if they split PK3-1st and likely would be if they split PK3-2nd; another reason actual specific proposals matter.

so 1/4 of the K class would be high needs with no extra funding in the crucial year when they need to learn to read. terrific idea guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

doubtful. there are not that many “rich” families lotterying into Miner. In any event this is something the DME needs to be analyzing.

Not many but Pk3 and PK4 are probably 50% at risk instead of 65%

[Anonymous]

Is title 1 status for Peabody and Watkins calculated separately or together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It's more than wanting free aftercare. As a parent of a child in an upper Maury grade, I want functional upper grades! The behavioral issues are to the point where my kid doesn't want to go to school.

+2. Maury has significant problems *right now.* This idea that DME wants to combine schools just to balance SES, instead of focusing its concern on educational achievement, makes no sense. Just because parents are rich/have education doesn't mean that their kids don't have behavioral issues. There are lots of "rich" parents that are at work all day and aren't addressing their kids' needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It’s not clear that the upper grades would retain Title 1 either. And losing it for PK-2nd would be a disaster.

Are you joking?? It's clear as day. A school only needs 35% of students in the poverty rate to be considered Title 1. Currently, Miner is at over 65% and Maury is at 12%. Let's say there were 100 kids total, 50 from Miner and 50 from Maury. That would be 33+12= 45/100 kids considered at risk, locking in the title 1 status. This is without taking into account that more Miner kids would remain in the cluster if this were to happen, effectively ensuring the title 1 status.

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/scorecard/Miner+Elementary+School

But Maury is bigger than Miner especially at the lower grades, so your math is wrong. It seems very likely Title 1 status would be lost. Is this something the geniuses in DME even thought about?

And that’s rich that depending on high SES Maury families walking would be necessary to maintain Title 1 when the whole point is diversity …

But Miner is richer at the lower grades because of so many families lotterying in for OOO. Miner's upper grades are probably closer to 85% at risk, which would even it out.

Not if they do the calculation separately. The combined upper grades would 100% be T1. The lower grades would likely not be if they split PK3-1st and likely would be if they split PK3-2nd; another reason actual specific proposals matter.

so 1/4 of the K class would be high needs with no extra funding in the crucial year when they need to learn to read. terrific idea guys.

...I hope you realize that this scenario of 1/4 of the K class being high needs is on the lower end of what the vast majority of schools can and do work with every day. Part of the purpose of if this study, is that as part of a larger school system, having isolated schools with concentrated resources is inequitable. Because if we are being honest, it is not just the Title 1 funding - affluent schools fundraise for extra teacher assistants, school programs, etc. A parent brought up in the chat last night the idea of PTAs sharing resources and having a fundraising cap. I don't think that is under the DME's control, but that would be a great way to curb some of the inequity across the city. Some places are already talking about this option
https://www.arlnow.com/2021/07/15/arlington-pta-leaders-consider-ways-to-distribute-funding-more-equitably/
https://families4equity.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It's more than wanting free aftercare. As a parent of a child in an upper Maury grade, I want functional upper grades! The behavioral issues are to the point where my kid doesn't want to go to school.

+2. Maury has significant problems *right now.* This idea that DME wants to combine schools just to balance SES, instead of focusing its concern on educational achievement, makes no sense. Just because parents are rich/have education doesn't mean that their kids don't have behavioral issues. There are lots of "rich" parents that are at work all day and aren't addressing their kids' needs.

It's more than just behavioral issues. Just because a family is rich doesn't mean that their kids are academically strong? Rich parents can afford more resources, but Maury seems to need more resources than its current "rich" parents can afford.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I ran the actual numbers using MySchool data (meaning I extrapolated raw numbers given population sizes and percentages, combined the schools raw data, and the derived the percentages based on actual populations for a fictional combined school with the same current populations). Here's how it looks, this assumes zero attrition and also no increased IB interest in Miner, as that's an unknown number:

Racial demographics
Miner now - 80% black, 13% white, 7% other
Maury now - 21% black, 58% white, 21% other
Combined school - 45% black, 46% white, 9% other

At risk, SpEd, and ESL
Miner now: 64% at risk, 21% SpEd, 2% ESL
Maury now - 12% at risk, 8% SpEd, 2% ESL
Combined school - 33% at risk, 13% SpEd, 2% ESL

IB percentage
Miner now - 62%
Maury now - 84%
Combined school - 75%

Looking at these numbers, the biggest argument against is that at risk number. Realistically, I think the combined school would retain Title 1 status with some attrition from high-SES families. But that 33% is on the edge and I would be concerned about losing Title 1 status for a combined school where at-risk kids are clustered into the upper grades and a lot of remedial reading assistance is needed. But it's on a knife's edge there.

Another issue that has not been raised but I see in this number is that the "other" demographic, which includes Latino, AAPI, and other racial demographics, actually declines to below 10% with the combined school, down from 21% at Maury. In terms of overall diversity, that might be an issue for Latino and AAPI families who want a critical mass of kids with a similar racial background at the school.

However, the overall diversity of the combined school is better than at either school now, especially Miner which is not at all diverse. I see the argument in favor of combining the populations because I do think diversity in both race and SES of students is genuinely beneficial to all students and to society at large.

I also definitely see the advantage in terms of serving the needs of at-risk and SpEd students. Currently Miner's percentages of both students are impossibly high -- it is not surprising that a school with those numbers has trouble bringing up test scores! I would encourage Maury families to consider what it means to have a school where two-thirds of the population is at risk. I understand why you are reluctant to give up the good thing you have going at Maury, but there actually are very strong arguments that spreading at-risk kids around in the school system benefits the system as a whole.

I really do see the argument for combining these schools even as I also see some real challenges and potential pitfalls. I don't think the combination would "ruin" Maury and I do think it would have the potential to greatly improve outcomes overall. But I'd worry about attrition torpedoing the stated goals of the cluster, and I'd worry about how Title 1 status would be impacted given that a combined school would need funds to accomplish its goals.

Personally I'd be pretty happy to send my (white, upper-SES) student to a school that had no racial majority (I'd love a truly diverse school) and where about a third of students were at risk. The high school I attended in another state was a bit less diverse than that but not much, and had similar numbers for SpEd and at-risk students, and I have long felt that experience gave me a much broader understanding of the world than many of my colleagues who attended more cloistered schools growing up. Racial and socioeconomic diversity really is a good thing, I wish people could see that.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the teachers in the upper grades aren't equipped to deal with those behavior issues.

What are these significant problems?
Fights? Bullying? That happens everywhere; it's the pre-teen hormones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a Maury kid at EH, I call shenanigans at whatever “neighborhood mom” is claiming people against the cluster are segregationists. I mean really, wtf. Maury parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to MS with Miner kids. And the reason they are doing this is because it’s the well-established model and because the EH administration actually knows how to handle MS kids from all kids of different backgrounds and provides opportunities for all, and has Title 1 resources to draw in.

The plan to cluster Maury and Miner has ZERO thoughtfulness about how to manage the changing academic and behavioral needs of the students, especially with the potential losw of Title 1 status in the proposed lower school - a disaster if the Miner kids lost resources needed for early literacy instruction!

You could argue that this would benefit Maury by bringing BACK Title 1 status to the upper grades. TBH Maury as is, is lower income and more racially diverse in the upper grades already, so naturally it would be even more so if combined with Miner. That extra money could go a long way. I know we'd all like free aftercare!

It's more than wanting free aftercare. As a parent of a child in an upper Maury grade, I want functional upper grades! The behavioral issues are to the point where my kid doesn't want to go to school.

+2. Maury has significant problems *right now.* This idea that DME wants to combine schools just to balance SES, instead of focusing its concern on educational achievement, makes no sense. Just because parents are rich/have education doesn't mean that their kids don't have behavioral issues. There are lots of "rich" parents that are at work all day and aren't addressing their kids' needs.

It's more than just behavioral issues. Just because a family is rich doesn't mean that their kids are academically strong? Rich parents can afford more resources, but Maury seems to need more resources than its current "rich" parents can afford.

Lol it's honestly a little funny to watch Maury parents go from crowing about their high test scores and terrific school to suddenly claiming they have critical unmet needs and that the cluster idea would harm already struggling kids.