Woodward HS boundary study - BCC, Blair, Einstein, WJ, Kennedy, Northwood, Wheaton, Whitman impacts

[Anonymous]

Periodic reminder that this thread is supposed to be about the "Woodward HS boundary study - BCC, Blair, Einstein, WJ, Kennedy, Northwood, Wheaton, Whitman impacts." Just in case that was no longer apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

True. 54% of respondents were from Bethesda, Potomac and Chevy Chase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

Every area of the county except one said they didn't care about diversity that much and prioritized proximity and stability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Then it sounds like you are looking for boundary changes since so many children are currently not attending the school closest to their home.

Unfortunately, back in 2018, the policy that determines boundaries was changed (without proper notice) to prioritize diversity. This DEprioritized the other 3 factors: proximity, stability, and capacity. So any boundary change done under that policy won't move kids to closer schools. And 95% of the county also said they didn't want to be moved for any reason because they valued stability so highly. The only factor people said didn't care about was the one factor the white progressives champion so vehemently: diversity.

Except of course for the numerous examples of boundary changes done under the current policy which have in fact moved kids to closer schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

True. 54% of respondents were from Bethesda, Potomac and Chevy Chase.

So, the survey only represents the feelings of people in wealthy areas whose kids attend the segregated schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Then it sounds like you are looking for boundary changes since so many children are currently not attending the school closest to their home.

Unfortunately, back in 2018, the policy that determines boundaries was changed (without proper notice) to prioritize diversity. This DEprioritized the other 3 factors: proximity, stability, and capacity. So any boundary change done under that policy won't move kids to closer schools. And 95% of the county also said they didn't want to be moved for any reason because they valued stability so highly. The only factor people said didn't care about was the one factor the white progressives champion so vehemently: diversity.

Except of course for the numerous examples of boundary changes done under the current policy which have in fact moved kids to closer schools.

PP is posting from 2019, so they don't know about those boundary changes, which hadn't happened yet in 2019... Maybe we can advise PP to buy stock in Zoom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Then it sounds like you are looking for boundary changes since so many children are currently not attending the school closest to their home.

Unfortunately, back in 2018, the policy that determines boundaries was changed (without proper notice) to prioritize diversity. This DEprioritized the other 3 factors: proximity, stability, and capacity. So any boundary change done under that policy won't move kids to closer schools. And 95% of the county also said they didn't want to be moved for any reason because they valued stability so highly. The only factor people said didn't care about was the one factor the white progressives champion so vehemently: diversity.

Except of course for the numerous examples of boundary changes done under the current policy which have in fact moved kids to closer schools.

PP is posting from 2019, so they don't know about those boundary changes, which hadn't happened yet in 2019... Maybe we can advise PP to buy stock in Zoom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Then it sounds like you are looking for boundary changes since so many children are currently not attending the school closest to their home.

Unfortunately, back in 2018, the policy that determines boundaries was changed (without proper notice) to prioritize diversity. This DEprioritized the other 3 factors: proximity, stability, and capacity. So any boundary change done under that policy won't move kids to closer schools. And 95% of the county also said they didn't want to be moved for any reason because they valued stability so highly. The only factor people said didn't care about was the one factor the white progressives champion so vehemently: diversity.

Except of course for the numerous examples of boundary changes done under the current policy which have in fact moved kids to closer schools.

You mean like in Clarksburg where a lot of kids are now bused past several closer schools to get to schools farther from home for diversity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

True. 54% of respondents were from Bethesda, Potomac and Chevy Chase.

So, the survey only represents the feelings of people in wealthy areas whose kids attend the segregated schools.

Most of the 46% who DON'T live in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase also don't want busing. Just one geographic area (Burtonsville) indicated that it might want busing but even they didn't feel too strongly about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

True. 54% of respondents were from Bethesda, Potomac and Chevy Chase.

So, the survey only represents the feelings of people in wealthy areas whose kids attend the segregated schools.

Most of the 46% who DON'T live in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase also don't want busing. Just one geographic area (Burtonsville) indicated that it might want busing but even they didn't feel too strongly about it.

There were no questions in the survey about MCPS providing bus service or about "busing" whatever TF you are pretending that means. Nearly two thirds of respondents felt that diversity is at least somewhat important. It's true that most respondents value proximity and stability more than diversity, but that doesn't mean they don't care about diversity at all. The BOE's policy and boundary studies since then have been consistent with these preferences by balancing these priorities. If diversity were the top priority, they would randomly assign each student in the County to a different school each year, and they have not done that nor would that be consistent with Policy FAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Then it sounds like you are looking for boundary changes since so many children are currently not attending the school closest to their home.

Unfortunately, back in 2018, the policy that determines boundaries was changed (without proper notice) to prioritize diversity. This DEprioritized the other 3 factors: proximity, stability, and capacity. So any boundary change done under that policy won't move kids to closer schools. And 95% of the county also said they didn't want to be moved for any reason because they valued stability so highly. The only factor people said didn't care about was the one factor the white progressives champion so vehemently: diversity.

Except of course for the numerous examples of boundary changes done under the current policy which have in fact moved kids to closer schools.

You mean like in Clarksburg where a lot of kids are now bused past several closer schools to get to schools farther from home for diversity?

No, I mean like in Clarksburg where a lot of kids are now walking to a new school instead of being bused to an overcrowded school, for proximity and capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

That PP to whom you replied.

No, I do not want bussing. I would prefer that MCPS, as a county-wide enterprise (we're not in Jersey), fulfill the societal objective to provide for reasonably equivalent educational experiences/opportunities to the student population across that county. That goes for facilities just as it goes for programs. From the perspecitve of this publicly funded common good, that equivalence shouldn't be broken based on a zip code or side of a street.

MCPS can't make things equal, and there are reasonable arguments that equality in detail should not be the objective (therefore, "reasonably equivalent"). However, where things are seen as, or can be projected as, not reasonably equivalent, it should do something to rectify the situation.

For facilities, that can include something long-range, like construction (new or addition), but shouldn't leave current populations to the inequity when boundary changes could provide either interim or, perhaps in combination with construction, more effective long-term relief.

Are you under the mistaken belief that west county schools are in better condition than east county? If so I encourage you to your Poolesville and Wootton. And are you also under the mistaken impression that west county schools get more money for operations that east county? If so you need to look at budgets that show school is poorer neighborhoods receive millions of dollars more PER year than schools in wealthier neighborhoods. That's on top of federal money for programs like title 1.

Again, that PP.

I did not make a west vs. east distinction, nor did I state that Poolesville or Wootton did not have needs. Eastern MS may be worse, however, and, on a relative need basis, I think its exceeded Wootton's.

PHS is getting work, albeit not the everything that was afforded to, say, Potomac ES. But, then again, thr Poolesville demographic isn't exactly the Potomac demographic, is it?

One could say the same thing when comparing work underway at SSIMS to that afforded to TPMS. Demographics are a bit different there, too.

Anecdotes, to be sure. Are you suggesting, however, that facilities decisions amd outcomes have favored lower-income and high-density older-development areas of MCPS? There's a bridge I'm selling, and I'm looking for a buyer...

As for the justification of differential funding, federal or otherwise, under Title 1 and other programs, the responses from others, here, have addressed that. The relevant metric when comparing these expenditures within the system is not the relative money spent, but the relative quality of educational experiences/programmatic opportunities afforded to students. Are we to understand from you that the NEC elementaries have been funded highly enough to provide the foundations for students similarly able to those in the most affluent BCC areas such that the IB program at Springbrook would, similar to BCC, routinely afford High Level classes instead of Standard Level? I hope, for your sake (and possibly those of your clients, if you're in a related industry), that you don't use such cursory analysis, based only on the 40,000 foot view of income statement, balance sheet and cash flows, when determining if a stock is a buy or a sell.

"Are we to understand from you that the NEC elementaries have been funded highly enough to provide the foundations for students similarly able to those in the most affluent BCC areas?" What you're describing is equity which is an illiberal and Marxist concept. It's also a fool's errand because there's no amount of money that can make up for meh parenting. I believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes.

Again, that PP.

What you are doing is drawing up something of a strawman while failing to recognize the nuance presented -- admittedly buried a bit and likely not obvious without more careful reading.

Equity is a concern, but in a broader and more neutral sense than that indicated by a Marxist boogeyman. Equality of outcomes is, indeed, a fool's errand when considered on an individual basis. It becomes less so on a meaningful basis across populations, unless one believes that there is inherent difference among those populations. Patenting engagement/style may be such a differentiator, but, if that difference is rooted in past discrimination, it's not too much of a reach to see the justification, even under a Hayek-rejecting, Block-ist Austrian School interpretation, for measures to level the playing field so as best to preserve individual autonomy in the aim of that intermediate outcome driving a realizable relative social optimun, even if politically-motivated modern interpretations of Rand might disagree. (Please feel free to rejoin this cursory take with some Jay-and-Silent-Bob-Strike-Back-esque "them apples" remark, but suggesting that money would not make, at the very least, differences on the margins has to be taken as disingenuous.)

The nuance was the set-up of comparing like students (as individuals or as a like, if smaller as a proportion of the relative general populations, cohort) when restricting the desired observation to those "similarly able to those in the most affluent BCC areas." If MCPS is supposed to be providing equality of opportunity, regardless of locale, how are these students equally served without the additional community supports that would tend to result in similar "community demand"-driven offerings like High Level IB courses (or similarly advanced foreign language, etc.)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

True. 54% of respondents were from Bethesda, Potomac and Chevy Chase.

So, the survey only represents the feelings of people in wealthy areas whose kids attend the segregated schools.

The Troll is strong in this one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.

Yes, but the only people who ever respond to those surveys all live in the segregated school boundaries. The people keep electing people to the board who prioritize diversity because that reflects the county's true priorities.

True. 54% of respondents were from Bethesda, Potomac and Chevy Chase.

So, the survey only represents the feelings of people in wealthy areas whose kids attend the segregated schools.

Most of the 46% who DON'T live in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase also don't want busing. Just one geographic area (Burtonsville) indicated that it might want busing but even they didn't feel too strongly about it.

There were no questions in the survey about MCPS providing bus service or about "busing" whatever TF you are pretending that means. Nearly two thirds of respondents felt that diversity is at least somewhat important. It's true that most respondents value proximity and stability more than diversity, but that doesn't mean they don't care about diversity at all. The BOE's policy and boundary studies since then have been consistent with these preferences by balancing these priorities. If diversity were the top priority, they would randomly assign each student in the County to a different school each year, and they have not done that nor would that be consistent with Policy FAA.

While there were no question about buses, how exactly do you think MCPS is going to drag kids to schools farther from home? They're going to use buses. And sure, no one in MoCo is going to say they don't care about diversity at all. They have to at least pretend they they value it. But "somewhat" isn't strong support is it? Meanwhile, everyone strongly supports proximity and stability which are directly at odds with diversity because of where people live. And no one wants to put their kid on a bus just to virtue signal.