Cliff Notes summary of MCPS boundary study fight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

PP, they have been. You just couldn't hear it over all of the hollering about "FORCED BUSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"

Forced bussing is just a figment of the reactionary rights imagination and used as a scare tactic to fight change. Bottom line is things have changed a lot in the 40 years since these boundaries were updated. They need to be reviewed.

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

because they're racist?

Because they're worried about their property values.

oh because future buyers are racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

PP, they have been. You just couldn't hear it over all of the hollering about "FORCED BUSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"

Forced bussing is just a figment of the reactionary rights imagination and used as a scare tactic to fight change. Bottom line is things have changed a lot in the 40 years since these boundaries were updated. They need to be reviewed.

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

because they're racist?

Because they're worried about their property values.

.. which the BOE doesn't and shouldn't care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should do a reference boundary study without using diversity as a criterion, but only balancing school populations. Comparison of this reference map with actual proposed boundary changes will tell us if there is any forced (or unnecessary) busing being proposed.

That would be a waste of money since it is counter to the criteria that has already been voted on and approved..Beside they'll probably need every nickle for all the forced busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

PP, they have been. You just couldn't hear it over all of the hollering about "FORCED BUSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"

Forced bussing is just a figment of the reactionary rights imagination and used as a scare tactic to fight change. Bottom line is things have changed a lot in the 40 years since these boundaries were updated. They need to be reviewed.

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

because they're racist?

Because they're worried about their property values.

.. which the BOE doesn't and shouldn't care about.

Where do they think much of their funding comes from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should do a reference boundary study without using diversity as a criterion, but only balancing school populations. Comparison of this reference map with actual proposed boundary changes will tell us if there is any forced (or unnecessary) busing being proposed.

Here's what you need to do.

1. Run for a seat on the Board of Education.
2. Win.
3. Propose a change to MCPS policies/regulations on boundaries.
4. Get a majority of the other members to vote for it.

Until you've done that, MCPS boundary studies have four factors:

1. geography
2. demographics
3. facility utilization
4. stability of school assignments

and any analysis of boundaries that didn't include those four factors would be ridiculous (not to mention counter to MCPS policies/regulations).

The boundardystudy without the diversity criterion would be for informational purposes only. Such an informational study would not be counter to current MCPS policies. Maybe it would show that the use of the diversity criterion does not cause any significant increase in busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where do they think much of their funding comes from?

Serious question. Do you think that local governments should make all decisions based on the criterion of whether or not it increases affluent property owners' assesed property values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should do a reference boundary study without using diversity as a criterion, but only balancing school populations. Comparison of this reference map with actual proposed boundary changes will tell us if there is any forced (or unnecessary) busing being proposed.

Here's what you need to do.

1. Run for a seat on the Board of Education.
2. Win.
3. Propose a change to MCPS policies/regulations on boundaries.
4. Get a majority of the other members to vote for it.

Until you've done that, MCPS boundary studies have four factors:

1. geography
2. demographics
3. facility utilization
4. stability of school assignments

and any analysis of boundaries that didn't include those four factors would be ridiculous (not to mention counter to MCPS policies/regulations).

The boundardystudy without the diversity criterion would be for informational purposes only. Such an informational study would not be counter to current MCPS policies. Maybe it would show that the use of the diversity criterion does not cause any significant increase in busing.

We're already paying for a boundary analysis whose purpose is to provide the information that MCPS needs about school boundaries.

Now you want to pay for an additional boundary analysis, whose purpose would to provide only some of the information that MCPS needs about school boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should do a reference boundary study without using diversity as a criterion, but only balancing school populations. Comparison of this reference map with actual proposed boundary changes will tell us if there is any forced (or unnecessary) busing being proposed.

Here's what you need to do.

1. Run for a seat on the Board of Education.
2. Win.
3. Propose a change to MCPS policies/regulations on boundaries.
4. Get a majority of the other members to vote for it.

Until you've done that, MCPS boundary studies have four factors:

1. geography
2. demographics
3. facility utilization
4. stability of school assignments

and any analysis of boundaries that didn't include those four factors would be ridiculous (not to mention counter to MCPS policies/regulations).

The boundardystudy without the diversity criterion would be for informational purposes only. Such an informational study would not be counter to current MCPS policies. Maybe it would show that the use of the diversity criterion does not cause any significant increase in busing.

We're already paying for a boundary analysis whose purpose is to provide the information that MCPS needs about school boundaries.

Now you want to pay for an additional boundary analysis, whose purpose would to provide only some of the information that MCPS needs about school boundaries?

The additional boundary analysis would be **much** cheaper. It is a simple optimization problem where the capture radius of each school is expanded until it fills its capacity, or intersects another school radius, or intersects a county boundary.

It would be very helpful for families to help understand why they are being assigned to a particular school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should do a reference boundary study without using diversity as a criterion, but only balancing school populations. Comparison of this reference map with actual proposed boundary changes will tell us if there is any forced (or unnecessary) busing being proposed.

Here's what you need to do.

1. Run for a seat on the Board of Education.
2. Win.
3. Propose a change to MCPS policies/regulations on boundaries.
4. Get a majority of the other members to vote for it.

Until you've done that, MCPS boundary studies have four factors:

1. geography
2. demographics
3. facility utilization
4. stability of school assignments

and any analysis of boundaries that didn't include those four factors would be ridiculous (not to mention counter to MCPS policies/regulations).

The boundardystudy without the diversity criterion would be for informational purposes only. Such an informational study would not be counter to current MCPS policies. Maybe it would show that the use of the diversity criterion does not cause any significant increase in busing.

We're already paying for a boundary analysis whose purpose is to provide the information that MCPS needs about school boundaries.

Now you want to pay for an additional boundary analysis, whose purpose would to provide only some of the information that MCPS needs about school boundaries?

The additional boundary analysis would be **much** cheaper. It is a simple optimization problem where the capture radius of each school is expanded until it fills its capacity, or intersects another school radius, or intersects a county boundary.

It would be very helpful for families to help understand why they are being assigned to a particular school district.

or they could use that money for more forced busing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The additional boundary analysis would be **much** cheaper. It is a simple optimization problem where the capture radius of each school is expanded until it fills its capacity, or intersects another school radius, or intersects a county boundary.

It would be very helpful for families to help understand why they are being assigned to a particular school district.

In other words, yes, you do want to pay for an additional study.

And it wouldn't be helpful at all to understand families why they are being assigned to particular schools in the Montgomery County Public Schools district, because boundary decisions in MCPS are based on four factors: geography, facility utilization, stability of school assignments, and demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

or they could use that money for more forced busing

Forced busing, like the situation for students who are assigned to Lakewood ES even though they live in walking distance of Stone Mill ES? Is that what you're refering to?

[Anonymous]

This is a helpful site others have linked to before, but I thought it was worth revisiting. You can select Montgomery County to see a map of what it would look like if each neighborhood was assigned to the closest school (according to 2013 data):

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374/school-segregation-gerrymander-map

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The additional boundary analysis would be **much** cheaper. It is a simple optimization problem where the capture radius of each school is expanded until it fills its capacity, or intersects another school radius, or intersects a county boundary.

It would be very helpful for families to help understand why they are being assigned to a particular school district.

In other words, yes, you do want to pay for an additional study.

And it wouldn't be helpful at all to understand families why they are being assigned to particular schools in the Montgomery County Public Schools district, because boundary decisions in MCPS are based on four factors: geography, facility utilization, stability of school assignments, and demographics.

Yes, but *which* of the four factors are mainly responsible for a particular school boundary? By isolating the the effects of geography and school capacities, it would provide greater transparency to the public as to how decisions are made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The additional boundary analysis would be **much** cheaper. It is a simple optimization problem where the capture radius of each school is expanded until it fills its capacity, or intersects another school radius, or intersects a county boundary.

It would be very helpful for families to help understand why they are being assigned to a particular school district.

In other words, yes, you do want to pay for an additional study.

And it wouldn't be helpful at all to understand families why they are being assigned to particular schools in the Montgomery County Public Schools district, because boundary decisions in MCPS are based on four factors: geography, facility utilization, stability of school assignments, and demographics.

Yes, but *which* of the four factors are mainly responsible for a particular school boundary? By isolating the the effects of geography and school capacities, it would provide greater transparency to the public as to how decisions are made.

The whole thing about balancing the factors is that there is not one factor that is mainly responsible for a particular school boundary.

What's more, many of these school boundaries are DECADES old. The factor that is mainly responsible for those boundaries is inertia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a helpful site others have linked to before, but I thought it was worth revisiting. You can select Montgomery County to see a map of what it would look like if each neighborhood was assigned to the closest school (according to 2013 data):

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374/school-segregation-gerrymander-map

Thanks. I disagree with forced diversity, but the site does make a good case.