Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

the only other big difference is the disparity between WJ and Woodward. But in all options, WJ ends up with a lower FARMS rate than Woodward. They both have higher FARMS rates in Option 3, though.

Yeah they should really fix that. When the schools are so close together their farms rates should really not be that different.

Agree. I'm not certain why Woodward ends up with such a higher FARMS rate in all options, compared to WJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

the only other big difference is the disparity between WJ and Woodward. But in all options, WJ ends up with a lower FARMS rate than Woodward. They both have higher FARMS rates in Option 3, though.

Yeah they should really fix that. When the schools are so close together their farms rates should really not be that different.

Agree. I'm not certain why Woodward ends up with such a higher FARMS rate in all options, compared to WJ.

Because Tilden MS has a higher FARMS rate/more racial diversity than North Bethesda MS to begin with, and then they are adding Viers Mill ES and in at least one option also adding Wheaton Woods ES to Woodward. WJ gets Rosemary Hills/Chevy Chase ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:does levelling out FARMS rates actually improve the outcomes of the kids that is supposedly meant to help? Or is this just a box-checking feel-good thing on the part of the BOE?

It helps FARMS kids as long as it does not go above 20-25%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

I'm fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

I'm fine with that.

Well then that settles it

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

the magnets are lotteries...

you make no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes

the magnets don't improve educational outcomes? why have them, then? is that the reason they are reportedly getting phased out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

the magnets are lotteries...

you make no sense.

The high school magnets are not lotteries.

[Anonymous]

I’m personally not interested in spending time refining option 3, which is the farthest from good/acceptable for most families. I think option 2 is the best one to try to refine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

Basically you are creating a worse environment for the kids left behind. Either because they are not motivated or they can't make it work with work and/or sibling care commitments. It's really not a solution and one of the reasons why dcps is such a sh&t show