Wootton or Churchill or RM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP here.. I was part of that study.

An ES aged student going a few miles further away is a lot different than a HS student going 5 miles away to HS.

There is a neighborhood in Gaithersburg that is zoned for Gaithersburg HS even though there is a HS much much closer. It's 20 min, almost 6 miles. TB area is about 5 miles from Churchill MCPS does this all the time.

If you were part of that study, then you know the optics of desegregating economically-segregated schools by putting the travel burden on the poor kids (and on families who don't own cars). They're not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go to Churchill and live in the neighboring houses. Lots of kids walking to school. Quiet neighborhood and safe and affordable.

This school produces Ivy grads. It’s up to the student to do the hard work and get noticed

The neighborhoods in Wootton and RM are also safe an even more affordable than churchill. I'm sure there are some who even go on to great universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP here.. I was part of that study.

An ES aged student going a few miles further away is a lot different than a HS student going 5 miles away to HS.

There is a neighborhood in Gaithersburg that is zoned for Gaithersburg HS even though there is a HS much much closer. It's 20 min, almost 6 miles. TB area is about 5 miles from Churchill MCPS does this all the time.

If you were part of that study, then you know the optics of desegregating economically-segregated schools by putting the travel burden on the poor kids (and on families who don't own cars). They're not good.

OK, sure, then send some Churchill students to RM. Better?

But no... there are currently poor neighborhoods that do have to travel. Gaithersburg HS is a just an example.

The reason TB ES wasn't split up was also due to the loss of Title 1 funding for that school. Neither RM nor Churchill have Title 1 funding.

[Anonymous]

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B894FY5336CA/$file/20190108%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

WHEREAS, There is significant evidence that greater racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools provides academic and social/emotional benefits for all students; and

WHEREAS, Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning,now permits the superintendent and Board of Education to consider boundary options that involve not only schools within a high school cluster, but also other adjacent schools to alleviate the need for additions and portable classrooms;

and

WHEREAS, The Board of Education revised Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning, to consider various factors when changing school boundaries, particularly developing options that maximize facility utilization and strive to create a diverse student body; now therefore be it

sounds to me like BOE is stressing diversity, and Churchill could have its boundary redrawn along with RM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to Churchill and live in the neighboring houses. Lots of kids walking to school. Quiet neighborhood and safe and affordable.

This school produces Ivy grads. It’s up to the student to do the hard work and get noticed

The neighborhoods in Wootton and RM are also safe an even more affordable than churchill. I'm sure there are some who even go on to great universities.

Actually more students go to ivies from RM than Churchill.

[Anonymous]

Aren't these schools more or less the same?

[Anonymous]

Who the Hell is Richard Montgomery? Sounds like a Porn Star name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B894FY5336CA/$file/20190108%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

WHEREAS, There is significant evidence that greater racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools provides academic and social/emotional benefits for all students; and

WHEREAS, Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning,now permits the superintendent and Board of Education to consider boundary options that involve not only schools within a high school cluster, but also other adjacent schools to alleviate the need for additions and portable classrooms;

and

WHEREAS, The Board of Education revised Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning, to consider various factors when changing school boundaries, particularly developing options that maximize facility utilization and strive to create a diverse student body; now therefore be it

sounds to me like BOE is stressing diversity, and Churchill could have its boundary redrawn along with RM.

Nope, diversity has always been a criteria when redrawing boundaries. They just added it on the BOE docs this time specifically the word, "strive" to ensure that it is always considered whenever possible. The fact is, it is only one of four factors and they all have equal weight. Diversity, geography, facility utilization, stability of school assignment. Received all this information during the Seneca Valley, Clarksburg, NW boundary study meeting.

[Anonymous]

The diversity bus is a commin'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who the Hell is Richard Montgomery? Sounds like a Porn Star name.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/rmhs/aboutus/whoisrm.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B894FY5336CA/$file/20190108%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

WHEREAS, There is significant evidence that greater racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools provides academic and social/emotional benefits for all students; and

WHEREAS, Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning,now permits the superintendent and Board of Education to consider boundary options that involve not only schools within a high school cluster, but also other adjacent schools to alleviate the need for additions and portable classrooms;

and

WHEREAS, The Board of Education revised Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning, to consider various factors when changing school boundaries, particularly developing options that maximize facility utilization and strive to create a diverse student body; now therefore be it

sounds to me like BOE is stressing diversity, and Churchill could have its boundary redrawn along with RM.

Nope, diversity has always been a criteria when redrawing boundaries. They just added it on the BOE docs this time specifically the word, "strive" to ensure that it is always considered whenever possible. The fact is, it is only one of four factors and they all have equal weight. Diversity, geography, facility utilization, stability of school assignment. Received all this information during the Seneca Valley, Clarksburg, NW boundary study meeting.

DP. I heard that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B894FY5336CA/$file/20190108%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

WHEREAS, There is significant evidence that greater racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools provides academic and social/emotional benefits for all students; and

WHEREAS, Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning,now permits the superintendent and Board of Education to consider boundary options that involve not only schools within a high school cluster, but also other adjacent schools to alleviate the need for additions and portable classrooms;

and

WHEREAS, The Board of Education revised Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning, to consider various factors when changing school boundaries, particularly developing options that maximize facility utilization and strive to create a diverse student body; now therefore be it

sounds to me like BOE is stressing diversity, and Churchill could have its boundary redrawn along with RM.

Nope, diversity has always been a criteria when redrawing boundaries. They just added it on the BOE docs this time specifically the word, "strive" to ensure that it is always considered whenever possible. The fact is, it is only one of four factors and they all have equal weight. Diversity, geography, facility utilization, stability of school assignment. Received all this information during the Seneca Valley, Clarksburg, NW boundary study meeting.

DP. I heard that too.

Why would they call this one tenant out over the others, and "strive" to achieve this? Yes, "whenever possible".. which, as I stated, means not sending kids from one side of the county to another but, as indicated on the BOE docs, looking at *neighboring* clusters to achieve balance, both in overcrowding and diversity. Churchill is a neighboring cluster to RM.

Of course BOE isn't going to state publicly that they want to focus on "diversity" more. People from wealthier clusters would be up in arms, just like BOE wouldn't say publicly that changing the magnet criteria wasn't about "diversity" (even though that's what Metis report focused on) it was about "peer cohort".

Whatever findings come out of the boundary report, you can be sure there will be focus on "diversity" just as the Metis report did, and just as the Metis report precipitated changes to the magnet acceptance, this boundary report will produce some changes to the wealthier clusters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why would they call this one tenant out over the others, and "strive" to achieve this? Yes, "whenever possible".. which, as I stated, means not sending kids from one side of the county to another but, as indicated on the BOE docs, looking at *neighboring* clusters to achieve balance, both in overcrowding and diversity. Churchill is a neighboring cluster to RM.

Of course BOE isn't going to state publicly that they want to focus on "diversity" more. People from wealthier clusters would be up in arms, just like BOE wouldn't say publicly that changing the magnet criteria wasn't about "diversity" (even though that's what Metis report focused on) it was about "peer cohort".

Whatever findings come out of the boundary report, you can be sure there will be focus on "diversity" just as the Metis report did, and just as the Metis report precipitated changes to the magnet acceptance, this boundary report will produce some changes to the wealthier clusters.

This is classic conspiracy-theory stuff.

Conspiracy theorist: [Conspiracy theory]
Somebody else: [A fact that counters the conspiracy theory]
Conspiracy theorist: See, that just proves that the conspiracy theory is true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would they call this one tenant out over the others, and "strive" to achieve this? Yes, "whenever possible".. which, as I stated, means not sending kids from one side of the county to another but, as indicated on the BOE docs, looking at *neighboring* clusters to achieve balance, both in overcrowding and diversity. Churchill is a neighboring cluster to RM.

Of course BOE isn't going to state publicly that they want to focus on "diversity" more. People from wealthier clusters would be up in arms, just like BOE wouldn't say publicly that changing the magnet criteria wasn't about "diversity" (even though that's what Metis report focused on) it was about "peer cohort".

Whatever findings come out of the boundary report, you can be sure there will be focus on "diversity" just as the Metis report did, and just as the Metis report precipitated changes to the magnet acceptance, this boundary report will produce some changes to the wealthier clusters.

This is classic conspiracy-theory stuff.

Conspiracy theorist: [Conspiracy theory]
Somebody else: [A fact that counters the conspiracy theory]
Conspiracy theorist: See, that just proves that the conspiracy theory is true!

Didn't they vote to prioritize diversity over the other criteria just a few months back? Like the PP said the diversity train/bus is a commin'. Accept it or get run over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would they call this one tenant out over the others, and "strive" to achieve this? Yes, "whenever possible".. which, as I stated, means not sending kids from one side of the county to another but, as indicated on the BOE docs, looking at *neighboring* clusters to achieve balance, both in overcrowding and diversity. Churchill is a neighboring cluster to RM.

Of course BOE isn't going to state publicly that they want to focus on "diversity" more. People from wealthier clusters would be up in arms, just like BOE wouldn't say publicly that changing the magnet criteria wasn't about "diversity" (even though that's what Metis report focused on) it was about "peer cohort".

Whatever findings come out of the boundary report, you can be sure there will be focus on "diversity" just as the Metis report did, and just as the Metis report precipitated changes to the magnet acceptance, this boundary report will produce some changes to the wealthier clusters.

This is classic conspiracy-theory stuff.

Conspiracy theorist: [Conspiracy theory]
Somebody else: [A fact that counters the conspiracy theory]
Conspiracy theorist: See, that just proves that the conspiracy theory is true!

I have quote BOE resolutions that clearly call out diversity when redrawing boundaries, and yet I'm throwing out conspiracy theories?

I bet you most Churchill and Wootton parents will say that the peer cohort criteria change for magnet admissions was mostly motivated by diversity, but BOE has repeatedly denied that.

So are these Churchill/Wootton parents also just claiming conspiracy theory stuff?

Read the thread on the BOE resolution. I'm willing to bet most of the negative comments are coming from W clusters.