s/o Whatever happened to the redistricting/equity wars?

[Anonymous]

Someone in the recent Pyle/Westland thread pointed out that these days you no longer hear much of the angst-ridden debate over the district-wide boundary analysis and MCPS plans to give equity more weight in school redistricting decisions. Before the pandemic, that debate was raging for over a year.

Do people no longer care? Or is it that the school district has backed off these plans?

[Anonymous]

There never was a whole-district redistricting plan. That was a fantasy created by folks wanting drama, drama, drama on this board. What there was was a boundary analysis to understand current patterns and reasons for them. What there will be are specific boundary studies in a couple of years for the new Woodward and Crown High schools, and possibly Damascus and Poolesville HS additions.

[Anonymous]

+1 boundary analysis.

Moving forward, they will be looking at adjacent clusters when drawing boundaries, as they should've been from the start. There will be no "cross county" busing going on. Too expensive.

[Anonymous]

It was pre-pandemic, OP. Once COVID hit, people turned their attention to fighting about school closures. The plans are still moving forward, but now we have bigger fish to fry.

[Anonymous]

Reference information about this topic:

Good Summary article: https://bethesdamagazine.com/2021/05/17/a-look-back-at-the-mcps-countywide-boundary-analysis/

Final report: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/boundary-analysis/
with interactive explorer: https://interactiveboundaryexplorer.com/

List of current construction projects, many of which will require boundary studies: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/construction/project/projects.aspx
Current and recent boundary studies: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

[Anonymous]

Thanks immediate PP. Very helpful.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for reminding us! That was pre-Covid. I think most of us probably forgot about it.

[Anonymous]

Diversity is increasing in that area anyways. B-CC is up to 17% FARMS now and is projected to surpass 20% FARMS in 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Diversity is increasing in that area anyways. B-CC is up to 17% FARMS now and is projected to surpass 20% FARMS in 2 years.

which is still far below the county median

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity is increasing in that area anyways. B-CC is up to 17% FARMS now and is projected to surpass 20% FARMS in 2 years.

which is still far below the county median

That’s true, but it won’t be like a W-school anymore. More like QO/Northwest/Sherwood/etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity is increasing in that area anyways. B-CC is up to 17% FARMS now and is projected to surpass 20% FARMS in 2 years.

which is still far below the county median

That’s true, but it won’t be like a W-school anymore. More like QO/Northwest/Sherwood/etc

Nothing wrong with this one bit. My kids went to RM (not magnet), both are in excellent colleges now.
And the term "W-school" is just cringey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity is increasing in that area anyways. B-CC is up to 17% FARMS now and is projected to surpass 20% FARMS in 2 years.

which is still far below the county median

That’s true, but it won’t be like a W-school anymore. More like QO/Northwest/Sherwood/etc

Nothing wrong with this one bit. My kids went to RM (not magnet), both are in excellent colleges now.
And the term "W-school" is just cringey.

YOu mean it won't be a majority white school anymore.

[Anonymous]

I think it was a handful of bored trolls on DCUM, trying to rile up people.

I well remember the redistricting of Bethesda ES, where the families in the Silver Spring apartments being bused to Bethesda said they wanted a school that was closer, otherwise they couldn't participate in events/activities or have a sense of community, since most of them had no car and Bethesda was too far away. It was an eye-opener for the more affluent do-gooders, who had not imagined at all that the poors could ever want to participate or wish to build a community...

So to all of you rich people, please think twice before posting nonsense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity is increasing in that area anyways. B-CC is up to 17% FARMS now and is projected to surpass 20% FARMS in 2 years.

which is still far below the county median

That’s true, but it won’t be like a W-school anymore. More like QO/Northwest/Sherwood/etc

Nothing wrong with this one bit. My kids went to RM (not magnet), both are in excellent colleges now.
And the term "W-school" is just cringey.

YOu mean it won't be a majority white school anymore.

There is only one majority white HS in MCPS: Whitman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Diversity is increasing in that area anyways. B-CC is up to 17% FARMS now and is projected to surpass 20% FARMS in 2 years.

I'd expect even more change once they have to shift BCC's boundary for Woodward.

Rock on, obsessed DCUM poster who keeps insisting this is going to happen even though there is no plan to do that.

I find it funny how triggered this suggestion makes people. Regardless whether or not there is a plan now, it is inevitable and will probably be part of Phase 2 for Woodward.

In any event, back to the topic, the report included a number of inconvenient facts about specific communities that both had the largest disparities and also have long been given exceptional treatment. These are the obvious neighborhoods of Garrett Park, Kensington and Takoma Park. The result is that after the report was released, the BOE announced that they will not be taking up any of the recommendations and decided to make it disappear.

The report will not be used for any future boundary studies, because those studies will be done according to MCPS policy. The objective of the report was to look at boundaries across the whole county with an eye towards potential district-wide boundary changes that would address two goals: (i) alleviate overcrowding across neighboring boundaries and (ii) address racial disparities across adjoining boundaries.