Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:did boston try something like Option 3? As in, not just busing the poor kids to the rich neighborhood schools, but ALSO busing the rich kids to the poor neighborhood schools?

The research on busing seems to be largely about bringing black/brown kids from poor areas to richer, whiter areas. what's contemplated in option 3 is a bit different from that.

I grew up in Newton and the METCO program as voluntary and bussed students from Boston to our schools. Kids got on the bus super early and got home super late. They had limited ability to do after-school activities because there was no late bus.

There was no bussing suburban students into Boston.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this thread has lost the plot.

There isn't really that much to discuss. There are 4 initial options that aren't really going to be considered because they made zero effort to balance the 4 factors mandated by BOE policy. This is a nothingburger.

No surprise people started bickering instead.

I think it's an indication that Flo Analytics and the MCPS board are terrible at their jobs, by releasing maps that will just make people bicker and not try to reach and sort of workable solutions.

***My spouse is a management consultant (yes, I know, haha, but they advise in the industrial sector not human resources ie they don’t get people fired)… When I shared the boundary study info and options with them, they were astounded by the ineptitude. They said it’s wasting all stakeholders’ time and money to have concocted any options - preliminary or otherwise - that each optimize for only one of the four key factors. Period, full stop.

And now the thread has devolved into bickering about home values. Look what those a$$hat consultants and MCPS have made us do: We are turning on each other when instead we need to coalesce to lobby on behalf of MoCo children — our own kids and our neighbors’. Don’t let the bastards grind you down! <—“Handmaid’s Tale”

I agree! And I think the consultants must have known that. I have to think that MCPS told them to do it this way.

Yes. The ultimate study must follow the FAA policy. It’s really misleading to present options that do not.

I hope we get a reasonable time to provide comments after the next round, which hopefully reflect all (equally or pretty close). And solving behavioral problems or housing policy are not the policies.

What is the FAA policy?

See slides 5-6:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oj7Rb5lhcHi-zNmpMZ9XenrzakZg0BE0/view

recognizing this is a stupid question, what does "FAA" stand for?

It doesn't really stand for anything. Board policies all have letter codes, and section F policies cover facilities development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.

Racial inequities will not be solved by sending my student to BCC, instead of allowing them to walk to Northwood.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to organize an effort that urges the BOE to themselves or their consultants put a little more research into these options. They ought to (at a minimum) detail what each option will mean for the budget. Even if we do not have a child impacted, we all pay taxes and some options seems to cost the county less than other options. It would also be wise to ask them to evaluate the impact of earlier departures/later arrivals. Throwing these options up for community debate without substantive number crunching behind them makes it difficult to see the big picture. I hope we can all agree on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to organize an effort that urges the BOE to themselves or their consultants put a little more research into these options. They ought to (at a minimum) detail what each option will mean for the budget. Even if we do not have a child impacted, we all pay taxes and some options seems to cost the county less than other options. It would also be wise to ask them to evaluate the impact of earlier departures/later arrivals. Throwing these options up for community debate without substantive number crunching behind them makes it difficult to see the big picture. I hope we can all agree on that.

Options 2 and 3 are the top 2 budget wise because they utilize capacity the most efficiently. Option 2 has less bussing so it is probably the best. But the amount of split articulations in Option 2 is going to be a deal breaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to organize an effort that urges the BOE to themselves or their consultants put a little more research into these options. They ought to (at a minimum) detail what each option will mean for the budget. Even if we do not have a child impacted, we all pay taxes and some options seems to cost the county less than other options. It would also be wise to ask them to evaluate the impact of earlier departures/later arrivals. Throwing these options up for community debate without substantive number crunching behind them makes it difficult to see the big picture. I hope we can all agree on that.

Options 2 and 3 are the top 2 budget wise because they utilize capacity the most efficiently. Option 2 has less bussing so it is probably the best. But the amount of split articulations in Option 2 is going to be a deal breaker.

No, option 3 requires a massive amount of bussing. It: expensive.

[Anonymous]

Let me clarify. None of the options gives me enough information to adequately evaluate it other than "how does this affect my own family."

I can give them a knee jerk take or an emotional response but I want to know the option that makes the most sense for the county as a whole. Otherwise we'll be having this circular conversation again in 3 years when they want to redraw again, or realize they fumbled the estimates and we have overcrowding once more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me clarify. None of the options gives me enough information to adequately evaluate it other than "how does this affect my own family."

I can give them a knee jerk take or an emotional response but I want to know the option that makes the most sense for the county as a whole. Otherwise we'll be having this circular conversation again in 3 years when they want to redraw again, or realize they fumbled the estimates and we have overcrowding once more.

Also, if we spend all the money on balancing demographics under option 3, will it last? Study Clarksburg
/Neelesville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to organize an effort that urges the BOE to themselves or their consultants put a little more research into these options. They ought to (at a minimum) detail what each option will mean for the budget. Even if we do not have a child impacted, we all pay taxes and some options seems to cost the county less than other options. It would also be wise to ask them to evaluate the impact of earlier departures/later arrivals. Throwing these options up for community debate without substantive number crunching behind them makes it difficult to see the big picture. I hope we can all agree on that.

Options 2 and 3 are the top 2 budget wise because they utilize capacity the most efficiently. Option 2 has less bussing so it is probably the best. But the amount of split articulations in Option 2 is going to be a deal breaker.

No, option 3 requires a massive amount of bussing. It: expensive.

Buildings are more expensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.

Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to organize an effort that urges the BOE to themselves or their consultants put a little more research into these options. They ought to (at a minimum) detail what each option will mean for the budget. Even if we do not have a child impacted, we all pay taxes and some options seems to cost the county less than other options. It would also be wise to ask them to evaluate the impact of earlier departures/later arrivals. Throwing these options up for community debate without substantive number crunching behind them makes it difficult to see the big picture. I hope we can all agree on that.

Options 2 and 3 are the top 2 budget wise because they utilize capacity the most efficiently. Option 2 has less bussing so it is probably the best. But the amount of split articulations in Option 2 is going to be a deal breaker.

No, option 3 requires a massive amount of bussing. It: expensive.

Buildings are more expensive

What buildings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to organize an effort that urges the BOE to themselves or their consultants put a little more research into these options. They ought to (at a minimum) detail what each option will mean for the budget. Even if we do not have a child impacted, we all pay taxes and some options seems to cost the county less than other options. It would also be wise to ask them to evaluate the impact of earlier departures/later arrivals. Throwing these options up for community debate without substantive number crunching behind them makes it difficult to see the big picture. I hope we can all agree on that.

Options 2 and 3 are the top 2 budget wise because they utilize capacity the most efficiently. Option 2 has less bussing so it is probably the best. But the amount of split articulations in Option 2 is going to be a deal breaker.

Option 3 also has a ton of split articulations, combined with the greatly increased busing. It's a logistical nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.

Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.

And it sounds very problematic from a staffing standpoint

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.

How will option 3 affect you and the people you know?

I will not be affected by option 3 because I will not be in MCPS if that is the way they go. The extra commute is a deal breaker and going private offers quite a few additional benefits plus greater stability than I have seen from MCPS.

100% but it is upsetting that it has come to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.

Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.

It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.