Maynard committee reworks handbook CRA language after parents warn eight-absence trigger risks court involvement

The Maynard School Committee spent more than an hour on concerns about the high school handbook’s Child Requiring Assistance (CRA) language, with parents and committee members urging explicit steps and stronger safeguards before the district would pursue a court filing.

Several emailed public comments read into the record warned that the handbook’s current wording — which allows school administration to submit a CRA petition if a student under 16 is absent more than eight times in a term — risks pushing families into the juvenile system prematurely. An email read from Kathleen Fitzgerald said the eight‑absence threshold “seems a very short time to resort to court intervention” and urged the district to require alternatives first.

Principal Liz York told the committee the CRA sentence is based on state statute and must remain in the handbook as a tool available for extreme cases. She described numerous interventions the district uses before a CRA: the school counselor brings cases to the building-based support team (BBST/MTSS); staff consult with the school psychologist and social‑work partners; the school resource officer and probation officer may be involved to connect families with community services; diversion meetings are used to avoid court; and district counsel is consulted before filing. York said the district has filed three CRA petitions in the past two years and that one was granted by the court.

"We don't need to have that second sentence" in the way it currently reads and "we need a sentence that says the school administration will work collaboratively with school support staff, the school resource officer and community services to avoid CRA at all costs," York said when summarizing what she planned to change.

Committee members, including School Committee member Hillary Griffiths, pressed for more specific handbook language documenting the typical steps taken before a CRA and for a requirement that staff attempt alternatives where appropriate. Citing district filing data from 2020–2023, Griffiths said, "in those three years of data 42% of the kids were minorities, 67% had IEPs and 83% were low income," a set of figures committee members said heightens equity concerns about how CRA is applied.

Committee members and parents asked York to draft revised language that (1) explicitly lists the interventions commonly used before a CRA, (2) clarifies that interventions are tailored case-by-case rather than mechanistically required in every matter, and (3) notes the district’s practice of consulting legal counsel before filing. York agreed to rework the paragraph and suggested returning to the committee quickly; the chair proposed a special meeting the week before school opens to consider final edits so parents receive the handbook at the start of the year.

The discussion did not result in a formal policy change at the meeting; rather, the committee directed staff to produce revised handbook wording that highlights the district’s multi-step approach to chronic absenteeism and the use of diversion and community services before court involvement. York emphasized the district’s stated goal of avoiding CRA where possible and of monitoring outcomes if language is changed.

Next steps: York will prepare revised draft language and circulate it for committee review; members asked to see quarterly monitoring results if the district adopts related procedural changes.