Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

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

It looks that way per the DCPS profiles. https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Peabody+Elementary+School+(Capitol+Hill+Cluster)

[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 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.

This is no different from those who claim Eliot-Hine is a great place and those who wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

[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 …

Guys… this isn’t hard math…

According to the DCPS school profiles - There are 368 students at Miner of which 236 are at risk (64%); there are 527 students at Maury of which 64 are at risk (12%). A pure combination of the 2 schools would have a student population of 895 students with 299 at risk (33.4%), which is below the 35% threshold.

If the population of the schools is split in 2, the lower school would be almost assured of being well below the 35% threshold and if the cluster is a success (I’m not sure how DME is defining success, but I’m assuming it’s retention from lower school to upper school) then the upper school would also fall below the threshold in a year or two… so a successful clustering mean both schools would not receive title 1 funds… an unsuccessful clustering would mean that the lower school wouldn’t receive title 1 and the upper school would have a high percentage of at risk due to high SES families pulling out after finishing the lower school, which will have impacts for EH and Eastern for years to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

the point is that those higher needs schools ALSO get more money. Miner needs more resources not less. And the theory seems to be that the mere presence of higher SES kids (while reducing the budget) somehow is a magic bullet. I don’t think that has been shown to be true at all. And it is also an odd approach since the DME could just advocate for more funding for Miner instead of engaging in the magical thinking that all poor black kids need is more white kids in their classrooms.

[Anonymous]

I just realized in the Watkins link that the Title 1 check box is checked, yet the at risk population is way below 35%! So maybe the "at risk" metric is now what is used to establish Title 1 status, it's an even lower threshold.

[Anonymous]

https://profiles.dcps.dc.gov/Watkins+Elementary+School+(Capitol+Hill+Cluster)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

How nice that you think you can engineer the perfectly bespoke level of diversity that satisfies your self-image, without actual showing whether this benefits (or is desired) by anyone *at Miner*. Black kids are not visual props for you.

[Anonymous]

There’s been a ton of focus on Maury.

What does the Miner community think about all this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Miner’s SPED percentage is higher because it has self-contained classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just realized in the Watkins link that the Title 1 check box is checked, yet the at risk population is way below 35%! So maybe the "at risk" metric is now what is used to establish Title 1 status, it's an even lower threshold.

The issue is that it's a slightly different metric. "At risk" is a DCPS determination indicating that a student has specific additional needs beyond academics. It includes poverty, housing insecurity, a parent or family member who is in prison or in a substance abuse program, etc.

Title 1 is a federal determination based purely on poverty rates at the school. You'd think the "at risk" number would be higher than the poverty number, but not always. I think but can't remember, that Title 1 status is usually derived based on FARMs eligibility, and there are kids who qualify for FARMs who may not get an at risk designation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I know it is sort of irrelevant, but they're not proposing to spread the at-risk kids around in the school system. They are proposing to spread them just to one school, just because the boundaries abut. It is beyond frustrating that after this community struggled so hard to make Maury into a school with strong boundary participation -- and while we are working toward the same goal at Eliot Hine -- that DME would propose some hare-brained scheme that will almost certainly counteract a lot of the progress that has been made. Meanwhile the schools in the wealthy upper northwest are sitting pretty because they had the good sense to live in a larger rich(er) area, I guess.

[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 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.

If you talked to any Maury parents in the upper grades you would have heard this. It’s not a secret and it is recent - related to the pandemic and the school expansion in the upper grades post-renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How nice that you think you can engineer the perfectly bespoke level of diversity that satisfies your self-image, without actual showing whether this benefits (or is desired) by anyone *at Miner*. Black kids are not visual props for you.

Diversity in the classroom directly benefits students by enabling them to learn about the world from one another. It builds empathy and understanding and better prepares students for a diverse workplace and community:

https://tcf.org/content/report/how-racially-diverse-schools-and-classrooms-can-benefit-all-students/

[Anonymous]

Where would I find the % of Title 1 students in each school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How nice that you think you can engineer the perfectly bespoke level of diversity that satisfies your self-image, without actual showing whether this benefits (or is desired) by anyone *at Miner*. Black kids are not visual props for you.

Diversity in the classroom directly benefits students by enabling them to learn about the world from one another. It builds empathy and understanding and better prepares students for a diverse workplace and community:

https://tcf.org/content/report/how-racially-diverse-schools-and-classrooms-can-benefit-all-students/

Also, a school that is 45/45 split black and white means none of the kids are "props." Whereas a school that is 60% white actually does risk making its non-white students props because it gives the illusion of diversity while maintaining a predominantly white learning environment for white kids.