First hearing on districtwide boundary study is tonight

[Anonymous]

Rezoning that occurs based on overcrowding and geography usually has less of impact on housing values because its clear to people when buying that they are on the edge of an area likely to be rezoned. The discount is built into the housing market. Areas that have better planning and financial management also forecast ahead and new developments are sold with clear future boundaries disclosed. Its frankly bizarre to me here that new developments pop up with no hard plan as to where kids will go and then it ends up being a crap shoot which one will get rezoned to the lower school.

Property values is a tangible thing to home owners and it should be to the county as well. The type of redistricting that MCPS is pursuing will destabilize the real estate market and at a time when MOCO is not doing very well. Someone in the county needs to be forecasting what this will cost the county in the long run and how they will make up the shortfall.

The other bizarre thing about all this is that the advocates seem to be white people living in lower performing schools and AA MCPS administrators and BOE members. The opposition is white people in high performing schools and asians. The hispanics who make up the largest demographic group in the system are no where to be seen or heard in any of these discussions. If you look at the county demographics, the hispanic residents are overwhelming younger and have more kids while the majority of white and AA residents are aging out of child bearing years so MCPS in the next 5-10 years is likely to reach 60% hispanic. Someone should ask the hispanic community what they want since they will be the primary population in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also MCCPTA is basing their decision on hope that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more?

MCCPTA is a joke these days. Lynne makes stuff up and testifies to whatever the students want (and frequently gives her limited testimony time to them).

Newsflash: these students don't have fully developed frontal lobes, cannot vote, do not own property in MC, and should have no bearing on any decisions. Unfortunately, none of the grownups are behaving like grownups. The Board needs to do actual oversite (and why hasn't the MCPS staff done their job on this either?): why are impoverished schools, that receive $4,000 more per student, still failing? And, what has solved this in other communities?Because while I am all for diversity of race and socio-economic make up in our schools, I do not believe that just changing the make up of a school will have an impact on impoverished students who are failing to thrive.

The Student BOE member gets a full vote. Which seems crazy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also MCCPTA is basing their decision on hope that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more?


MCCPTA is a joke these days. Lynne makes stuff up and testifies to whatever the students want (and frequently gives her limited testimony time to them).

MCCPTA started going down hill with Frances. The entire group is a mess and has been a mess for years. They have had a hard time fund raising ever since the treasurer from Silver Spring was arrested for embezzling 40K from MCCPTA. I think she was sentenced to five years for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think the county is actually going to spend millions on buses and bus drivers? When there aren't enough teachers, and classrooms and schools are overcrowded? And for all those who think there are enough empty seats, please do send your children to Poolesville and Damascus, especially if you live down county and are going against traffic. I'd like my children to walk to school thank you.

I'll give you an example where the county does this.

My kid lives 0.7 miles from one Middle School. Sidewalks all the way, and she could easily walk to school.

She is zoned for a MS 1.8 miles away and takes the bus.

It would make much more sense for my kid to attend the closer MS. The one we're zoned for is 'better', but it's much more inconvenient, and it requires MCPS to offer a bus. Plus an activity bus three days a week.

My kid lives in part of the DCC that doesn't have a high-school near it anymore. They're bussed to the closest high-school as are the 12345 kids that live in this part of the county. The kids who live across the street from the HS are bussed to another nearby HS because there's no room in the one that's close to them. Their bus ride however is much shorter than the bus ride my kids have. The point is being assigned to the closest HS isn't always the most sensible thing the county can do. It sometimes make more sense to look at the bigger picture.

We live in Kensington near Einstein but kids get bussed halfway across the county to Walter Johnson. We love it, but if the BoE rezones us for Einstein our property values will tank!!

And this is what it comes down to, really. It's not really about what's best for ALL the kids academically. Let's be honest here.

Of COURSE that's what this is about! These ridiculous dog whistle speeches about busing and not wanting to break up school communities is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard. Just be honest about it.

Yep totally agree.

I don't think anyone is dog-whistling about property values...they are saying it outright.

No.. some people are not outright about it. Most people publicly won't say that outright because it makes them look bad. Some people can't even admit to it privately.

Of course, as home owners, we care about property values. I care about my property value which at the moment is about $730K according to zillow. But do I think that's the most important thing? No. I think boundaries need to change to relieve overcrowding. And if they can draw boundaries that make sense in terms of all four factors, then they should.

The issue here is that not all four factors can be met in equal measure. One of them usually gives or takes a higher priority. And, as we we are seeing in FCPS as well as HCPS, balancing out FARMs rate is a high priority since studies have shown that lower income kids do better in schools with lower FARMs rate.

The overarching goal here is to alleviate overcrowding, so boundaries will need to be redrawn. Period. End of story.

So you live in a $730K house? Why not sell your home and move to a lower income neighborhood. There are lots of places where you could go. Take the extra money you have and bolster up the PTA. You'll feel great about it, and your kids will be fine! Why do you choose to stay in your $730K home?

Why should I do that? I already chose a diverse non W cluster. I don't need to do things to feel great about myself. I do think the BOE needs to alleviate over crowding, and if they can balance out FARMs across the clusters while not sacrificing the other factors too much, why is that a bad thing? There are four factors in drawing boundaries. Again, it's very difficult to address all four factors equally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. With restorative justice and the policy not to remove disruptive or dangerous students, this is becoming more important.

The other factor which wasn't addressed but seems to be very apparent in MCCPTA minds is getting access to more parent donations. High poverty schools have low to no PTA interactions, members paying dues to MCCPTA and donating for school activities. By balancing FARMS, MCCPTA is hoping that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more and give to them. You can make a case that the experience with POMS, new band uniforms, school dances, and other things that a PTA improves a child's experience in school but there has never been correlation let alone causation to a well funded POMS group and high school performance.

So, the disruptive and dangerous students get moved to the "good schools"? Everyone gets their own share of these students. Also MCCPTA is basing their decision on hope that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more? Okayyyyyyy.... it'll only take a few years to prove that assumption wrong. People donate to PTAs when it helps their own kids in some way, not otherwise.

Yes, their own kids would be attending the schools in question and would therefore benefit from those PTAs having greater membership.

mif my kids are forced to be bussed 6 ml away and my house lost 20-30% of its value, I will not be happy and my kids will not be able to participate after school activities. I will not join PTA . No money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also MCCPTA is basing their decision on hope that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more?

MCCPTA is a joke these days. Lynne makes stuff up and testifies to whatever the students want (and frequently gives her limited testimony time to them).

Newsflash: these students don't have fully developed frontal lobes, cannot vote, do not own property in MC, and should have no bearing on any decisions. Unfortunately, none of the grownups are behaving like grownups. The Board needs to do actual oversite (and why hasn't the MCPS staff done their job on this either?): why are impoverished schools, that receive $4,000 more per student, still failing? And, what has solved this in other communities?Because while I am all for diversity of race and socio-economic make up in our schools, I do not believe that just changing the make up of a school will have an impact on impoverished students who are failing to thrive.

This 100 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. With restorative justice and the policy not to remove disruptive or dangerous students, this is becoming more important.

The other factor which wasn't addressed but seems to be very apparent in MCCPTA minds is getting access to more parent donations. High poverty schools have low to no PTA interactions, members paying dues to MCCPTA and donating for school activities. By balancing FARMS, MCCPTA is hoping that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more and give to them. You can make a case that the experience with POMS, new band uniforms, school dances, and other things that a PTA improves a child's experience in school but there has never been correlation let alone causation to a well funded POMS group and high school performance.

So, the disruptive and dangerous students get moved to the "good schools"? Everyone gets their own share of these students. Also MCCPTA is basing their decision on hope that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more? Okayyyyyyy.... it'll only take a few years to prove that assumption wrong. People donate to PTAs when it helps their own kids in some way, not otherwise.

We are currently a walker, if they dare to bus my kids to another school, I won't even donate a penny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Studies actually do not show that low income students do better in wealthier schools. There was one study that showed slight gains in low income kids attending schools with 10% low income but those gains evaporated when the % of low income kids hit 20%. These studies also crossed districts where there were significant resource gaps between the low income and high income schools which is not the case in MCPS. MCPS knows that the achievement gap persists regardless of the wealth of the school. They already see the data that low income kids at Watkins Mills do better than low income kids at QO even though QO has much lower FAEMS. They know that low income kids do the worst at PBES even though PBES has the lowest FARMS in the entire DCC. Low income kids fail in the "vaulted" W schools too. This why schools like WJ and Wootton rank 8 rather than 10 on GS. MCPS own staff has done research into the nuances of poverty and school performance. Their own report showed that the wealth of the school was not a predictive factor for PARCC scores for low income kids. What they did fins as a predictive indicator was the number of persistent years a child lived in poverty. The more years a child was eligible for FARMS, the lower the score.

So its an entirely bull shit and misinformation to claim that balancing SES is to raise scores or academic for low income kids.

What is a factor though is school climate. MCPS found that school climate surveys from teachers were much lower in high poverty schools. School safety concerns were much higher. It was harder to retain experienced teachers and they did find a correlation between noice teachers and lower ELA scores. By bussing kids to achieve reduce the concentration of FARMS kids in any one school, MCPS is seeking to improve the school climate. With restorative justice and the policy not to remove disruptive or dangerous students, this is becoming more important.

The other factor which wasn't addressed but seems to be very apparent in MCCPTA minds is getting access to more parent donations. High poverty schools have low to no PTA interactions, members paying dues to MCCPTA and donating for school activities. By balancing FARMS, MCCPTA is hoping that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more and give to them. You can make a case that the experience with POMS, new band uniforms, school dances, and other things that a PTA improves a child's experience in school but there has never been correlation let alone causation to a well funded POMS group and high school performance.

This is actually one of the best explanations of WHY this might be useful. Someone needs to sticky this post and continue to post it.

To add on some of this is driven by wanting to avoid having schools that fall at the very bottom of the state ranking lists. Its embarrassing for MCPS to have schools near the bottom like Baltimore but they keep inching closer and closer to the bottom every year. If moving a bunch of UMC kids into a high poverty school can just bump the average scores up a bit more they can avoid a whole lotta accountability. I'd say that this is the #1 driver for MCPS and BOE members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also MCCPTA is basing their decision on hope that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more?

MCCPTA is a joke these days. Lynne makes stuff up and testifies to whatever the students want (and frequently gives her limited testimony time to them).

Newsflash: these students don't have fully developed frontal lobes, cannot vote, do not own property in MC, and should have no bearing on any decisions. Unfortunately, none of the grownups are behaving like grownups. The Board needs to do actual oversite (and why hasn't the MCPS staff done their job on this either?): why are impoverished schools, that receive $4,000 more per student, still failing? And, what has solved this in other communities?Because while I am all for diversity of race and socio-economic make up in our schools, I do not believe that just changing the make up of a school will have an impact on impoverished students who are failing to thrive.

This 100 percent.

Lynne is terrible. I stopped donating to the PTA this year. I give directly to the Staff Appreciation or Teacher fund that our PTA runs. But no way am I a PTA member. Plus, there were some fraud issues with the PTA anyway recently, IIRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Studies actually do not show that low income students do better in wealthier schools. There was one study that showed slight gains in low income kids attending schools with 10% low income but those gains evaporated when the % of low income kids hit 20%. These studies also crossed districts where there were significant resource gaps between the low income and high income schools which is not the case in MCPS. MCPS knows that the achievement gap persists regardless of the wealth of the school. They already see the data that low income kids at Watkins Mills do better than low income kids at QO even though QO has much lower FAEMS. They know that low income kids do the worst at PBES even though PBES has the lowest FARMS in the entire DCC. Low income kids fail in the "vaulted" W schools too. This why schools like WJ and Wootton rank 8 rather than 10 on GS. MCPS own staff has done research into the nuances of poverty and school performance. Their own report showed that the wealth of the school was not a predictive factor for PARCC scores for low income kids. What they did fins as a predictive indicator was the number of persistent years a child lived in poverty. The more years a child was eligible for FARMS, the lower the score.

So its an entirely bull shit and misinformation to claim that balancing SES is to raise scores or academic for low income kids.

What is a factor though is school climate. MCPS found that school climate surveys from teachers were much lower in high poverty schools. School safety concerns were much higher. It was harder to retain experienced teachers and they did find a correlation between noice teachers and lower ELA scores. By bussing kids to achieve reduce the concentration of FARMS kids in any one school, MCPS is seeking to improve the school climate. With restorative justice and the policy not to remove disruptive or dangerous students, this is becoming more important.

The other factor which wasn't addressed but seems to be very apparent in MCCPTA minds is getting access to more parent donations. High poverty schools have low to no PTA interactions, members paying dues to MCCPTA and donating for school activities. By balancing FARMS, MCCPTA is hoping that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more and give to them. You can make a case that the experience with POMS, new band uniforms, school dances, and other things that a PTA improves a child's experience in school but there has never been correlation let alone causation to a well funded POMS group and high school performance.

This is actually one of the best explanations of WHY this might be useful. Someone needs to sticky this post and continue to post it.

To add on some of this is driven by wanting to avoid having schools that fall at the very bottom of the state ranking lists. Its embarrassing for MCPS to have schools near the bottom like Baltimore but they keep inching closer and closer to the bottom every year. If moving a bunch of UMC kids into a high poverty school can just bump the average scores up a bit more they can avoid a whole lotta accountability. I'd say that this is the #1 driver for MCPS and BOE members.

Agree that this is likely true.

It is much harder to actually address the issues that are leading to students performing poorly in MCPS. Instead, the BOE wants to spend money (money that it doesn't have) on studying ways to make it look like the schools aren't doing as poorly as they are.

[Anonymous]

I also think its likely that MCPS will leave 2-3 schools alone so it can keep some top spots on state lists. Poolesville, Chuchill and Whitman will stay the same so MCPS gets to brag about having some top schools. The rest will be someone in the low bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Studies actually do not show that low income students do better in wealthier schools. There was one study that showed slight gains in low income kids attending schools with 10% low income but those gains evaporated when the % of low income kids hit 20%. These studies also crossed districts where there were significant resource gaps between the low income and high income schools which is not the case in MCPS. MCPS knows that the achievement gap persists regardless of the wealth of the school. They already see the data that low income kids at Watkins Mills do better than low income kids at QO even though QO has much lower FAEMS. They know that low income kids do the worst at PBES even though PBES has the lowest FARMS in the entire DCC. Low income kids fail in the "vaulted" W schools too. This why schools like WJ and Wootton rank 8 rather than 10 on GS. MCPS own staff has done research into the nuances of poverty and school performance. Their own report showed that the wealth of the school was not a predictive factor for PARCC scores for low income kids. What they did fins as a predictive indicator was the number of persistent years a child lived in poverty. The more years a child was eligible for FARMS, the lower the score.

So its an entirely bull shit and misinformation to claim that balancing SES is to raise scores or academic for low income kids.

What is a factor though is school climate. MCPS found that school climate surveys from teachers were much lower in high poverty schools. School safety concerns were much higher. It was harder to retain experienced teachers and they did find a correlation between noice teachers and lower ELA scores. By bussing kids to achieve reduce the concentration of FARMS kids in any one school, MCPS is seeking to improve the school climate. With restorative justice and the policy not to remove disruptive or dangerous students, this is becoming more important.

The other factor which wasn't addressed but seems to be very apparent in MCCPTA minds is getting access to more parent donations. High poverty schools have low to no PTA interactions, members paying dues to MCCPTA and donating for school activities. By balancing FARMS, MCCPTA is hoping that wealthier parents will open their pocketbooks more and give to them. You can make a case that the experience with POMS, new band uniforms, school dances, and other things that a PTA improves a child's experience in school but there has never been correlation let alone causation to a well funded POMS group and high school performance.

This is true.

So, what MCPS needs to do in institute a better disciplinary policy. Without regards to race.

The current focus on restorative justice and PBIS is useless. It doesn't help students who want to learn, and certainly least of all helps kids at lower income schools. Students learn that teachers are unable to implement any meaningful consequences.

My neighbor's DD is at Eastern and they've repeatedly considering taking her out of the Magnet for this very reason. Lunch and PE are a NIGHTMARE. Why does it have to be this way in lower income schools? Work on improving that, and it will go a long way in improving student performance. Guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think the county is actually going to spend millions on buses and bus drivers? When there aren't enough teachers, and classrooms and schools are overcrowded? And for all those who think there are enough empty seats, please do send your children to Poolesville and Damascus, especially if you live down county and are going against traffic. I'd like my children to walk to school thank you.

I'll give you an example where the county does this.

My kid lives 0.7 miles from one Middle School. Sidewalks all the way, and she could easily walk to school.

She is zoned for a MS 1.8 miles away and takes the bus.

It would make much more sense for my kid to attend the closer MS. The one we're zoned for is 'better', but it's much more inconvenient, and it requires MCPS to offer a bus. Plus an activity bus three days a week.

My kid lives in part of the DCC that doesn't have a high-school near it anymore. They're bussed to the closest high-school as are the 12345 kids that live in this part of the county. The kids who live across the street from the HS are bussed to another nearby HS because there's no room in the one that's close to them. Their bus ride however is much shorter than the bus ride my kids have. The point is being assigned to the closest HS isn't always the most sensible thing the county can do. It sometimes make more sense to look at the bigger picture.

We live in Kensington near Einstein but kids get bussed halfway across the county to Walter Johnson. We love it, but if the BoE rezones us for Einstein our property values will tank!!

And this is what it comes down to, really. It's not really about what's best for ALL the kids academically. Let's be honest here.

Of COURSE that's what this is about! These ridiculous dog whistle speeches about busing and not wanting to break up school communities is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard. Just be honest about it.

Yep totally agree.

I don't think anyone is dog-whistling about property values...they are saying it outright.

No.. some people are not outright about it. Most people publicly won't say that outright because it makes them look bad. Some people can't even admit to it privately.

Of course, as home owners, we care about property values. I care about my property value which at the moment is about $730K according to zillow. But do I think that's the most important thing? No. I think boundaries need to change to relieve overcrowding. And if they can draw boundaries that make sense in terms of all four factors, then they should.

The issue here is that not all four factors can be met in equal measure. One of them usually gives or takes a higher priority. And, as we we are seeing in FCPS as well as HCPS, balancing out FARMs rate is a high priority since studies have shown that lower income kids do better in schools with lower FARMs rate.

The overarching goal here is to alleviate overcrowding, so boundaries will need to be redrawn. Period. End of story.

So you live in a $730K house? Why not sell your home and move to a lower income neighborhood. There are lots of places where you could go. Take the extra money you have and bolster up the PTA. You'll feel great about it, and your kids will be fine! Why do you choose to stay in your $730K home?

Why should I do that? I already chose a diverse non W cluster. I don't need to do things to feel great about myself. I do think the BOE needs to alleviate over crowding, and if they can balance out FARMs across the clusters while not sacrificing the other factors too much, why is that a bad thing? There are four factors in drawing boundaries. Again, it's very difficult to address all four factors equally.

You should take some chips off the table before it crashes to low $600s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think its likely that MCPS will leave 2-3 schools alone so it can keep some top spots on state lists. Poolesville, Chuchill and Whitman will stay the same so MCPS gets to brag about having some top schools. The rest will be someone in the low bottom.

Yup...you can see just with the boundaries that a change will not make much of an impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think the county is actually going to spend millions on buses and bus drivers? When there aren't enough teachers, and classrooms and schools are overcrowded? And for all those who think there are enough empty seats, please do send your children to Poolesville and Damascus, especially if you live down county and are going against traffic. I'd like my children to walk to school thank you.

I'll give you an example where the county does this.

My kid lives 0.7 miles from one Middle School. Sidewalks all the way, and she could easily walk to school.

She is zoned for a MS 1.8 miles away and takes the bus.

It would make much more sense for my kid to attend the closer MS. The one we're zoned for is 'better', but it's much more inconvenient, and it requires MCPS to offer a bus. Plus an activity bus three days a week.

My kid lives in part of the DCC that doesn't have a high-school near it anymore. They're bussed to the closest high-school as are the 12345 kids that live in this part of the county. The kids who live across the street from the HS are bussed to another nearby HS because there's no room in the one that's close to them. Their bus ride however is much shorter than the bus ride my kids have. The point is being assigned to the closest HS isn't always the most sensible thing the county can do. It sometimes make more sense to look at the bigger picture.

We live in Kensington near Einstein but kids get bussed halfway across the county to Walter Johnson. We love it, but if the BoE rezones us for Einstein our property values will tank!!

And this is what it comes down to, really. It's not really about what's best for ALL the kids academically. Let's be honest here.

Of COURSE that's what this is about! These ridiculous dog whistle speeches about busing and not wanting to break up school communities is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard. Just be honest about it.

Yep totally agree.

I don't think anyone is dog-whistling about property values...they are saying it outright.

No.. some people are not outright about it. Most people publicly won't say that outright because it makes them look bad. Some people can't even admit to it privately.

Of course, as home owners, we care about property values. I care about my property value which at the moment is about $730K according to zillow. But do I think that's the most important thing? No. I think boundaries need to change to relieve overcrowding. And if they can draw boundaries that make sense in terms of all four factors, then they should.

The issue here is that not all four factors can be met in equal measure. One of them usually gives or takes a higher priority. And, as we we are seeing in FCPS as well as HCPS, balancing out FARMs rate is a high priority since studies have shown that lower income kids do better in schools with lower FARMs rate.

The overarching goal here is to alleviate overcrowding, so boundaries will need to be redrawn. Period. End of story.

So you live in a $730K house? Why not sell your home and move to a lower income neighborhood. There are lots of places where you could go. Take the extra money you have and bolster up the PTA. You'll feel great about it, and your kids will be fine! Why do you choose to stay in your $730K home?

Why should I do that? I already chose a diverse non W cluster. I don't need to do things to feel great about myself. I do think the BOE needs to alleviate over crowding, and if they can balance out FARMs across the clusters while not sacrificing the other factors too much, why is that a bad thing? There are four factors in drawing boundaries. Again, it's very difficult to address all four factors equally.

So you invested poorly in your real estate and hoping this boundary change will bail you out lol.