Just IN!!!! Youtube video of Boundary Analysis Discussion / Board of Education Jan. 9, 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

The board has an obligation to make sure each kid goes to the closest school? That's ludicrous, for all the reasons previously stated, unless you intend to do away with the concept of feeder patterns. .

There's an extended discussion earlier in this thread about how that data point is meaningless, and people who repeat it are either useful idiots or intent on deceiving others by raising it. Which are you?

I have to disagree. Their point is completely above board and direct. In fact, the data the county provided showed the closest school was assigned to only a fraction of people in the 30% range. Most people who are arguing for "local schools" are using this as code for defending 40-year-old boundaries that have resulted in schools being either good or bad schools.The BOE has an obligation to address this.

Incorrect. Around 30% DO NOT go their closest school. If you keep peddling misinformation, you will lose all credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

There's an extended discussion earlier in this thread about how that data point is meaningless, and people who repeat it are either useful idiots or intent on deceiving others by raising it. Which are you?

I have to disagree. Their point is completely above board and direct. In fact, the data the county provided showed the closest school was assigned to only a fraction of people in the 30% range. Most people who are arguing for "local schools" are using this as code for defending 40-year-old boundaries that have resulted in schools being either good or bad schools.The BOE has an obligation to address this.

Agreed. I think the boe has an obligation to demonstrate that we need to change boundaries because many of the boundaries are gerrymandered and it's creating overcrowding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dude. We are not arguing about the meaning of the word "especially." We are discussing what the word "especially" means, in the context of the 2,500 (or so) other words in the policy.

I'm still confused by what the word means to the BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All current board members are bound by current mcps board of ed policies, one of them being the FAA; which states that boundary decisions should especially strive for diverse student bodies. It doesn't matter who voted for it,when, and if those who voted for it are current members or past. It's the policy that mcps must adhere to..unless the current board decides to change it. It

That's actually not what the FAA states, though.

You get the point. It wasn't meant to be verbatim. Let's not pretend that the diversity factor is not prioritized.

We don't have to pretend. We just have to read the policy and listen to what was said at last week's meeting to know that no factor has a greater weight, but that all four factors are important considerations.

DP. That's how I read it, too. And how I've heard MCPS staff explain it.

Watch the video and read the policy. In the video, MCPS staff clearly states that boundary studies will view all 4 factors equally, meaning they will look at data under the same equal lens BUT (and this is a huge BUT)... the Board will VOTE based on the data presented by the staff AND the FAA policy. So.. I'm not sure if you guys got that. There's a difference on what MCPS staff has to do VS what the board will do. MCPS staff has to provide options that look at factors equally. All that means is that they will provide options that prioritize geography; options that prioritize demographics; options that provide utilization; and so on. What the Board will do though is to vote based on the data provided by MCPS staff AND the FAA policy. FAA policy has the words especially strive. AGAIN- just look at how they voted in the Clarksburg study whether you agree with the decision or not. Dr. Smith even said that it was the first study that was done under the new wording of the FAA.

It's a fact that the wording in the demographic factor of the FAA policy has "especially strive" instead of "strive."

It's also a fact that this was the first boundary study where the FAA policy has the words "especially strive" instead of "strive" in the demographic factor.

It is NOT a fact that the the word "especially" means that the demographic factor is more important than the other factors, or that the BoE believes that the demographic factor is more important than the other factors, or that the demographic factor was more important than the other factors in the upcounty boundary study.

And what exactly was the purpose of adding that word ESPECIALLY if it wasn't to amplify it's priority over the others? Again watch the board of Ed video on April 2018 , sep 13, 2018 and sep 24 2018. The words coming out of the Board of Ed members are truly eye opening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

The board has an obligation to make sure each kid goes to the closest school? That's ludicrous, for all the reasons previously stated, unless you intend to do away with the concept of feeder patterns. .

There's an extended discussion earlier in this thread about how that data point is meaningless, and people who repeat it are either useful idiots or intent on deceiving others by raising it. Which are you?

I have to disagree. Their point is completely above board and direct. In fact, the data the county provided showed the closest school was assigned to only a fraction of people in the 30% range. Most people who are arguing for "local schools" are using this as code for defending 40-year-old boundaries that have resulted in schools being either good or bad schools.The BOE has an obligation to address this.

Incorrect. Around 30% DO NOT go their closest school. If you keep peddling misinformation, you will lose all credibility.

Sorry but 60%+ do not attend the closest school according to the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

The board has an obligation to make sure each kid goes to the closest school? That's ludicrous, for all the reasons previously stated, unless you intend to do away with the concept of feeder patterns. .

There's an extended discussion earlier in this thread about how that data point is meaningless, and people who repeat it are either useful idiots or intent on deceiving others by raising it. Which are you?

I have to disagree. Their point is completely above board and direct. In fact, the data the county provided showed the closest school was assigned to only a fraction of people in the 30% range. Most people who are arguing for "local schools" are using this as code for defending 40-year-old boundaries that have resulted in schools being either good or bad schools.The BOE has an obligation to address this.

Incorrect. Around 30% DO NOT go their closest school. If you keep peddling misinformation, you will lose all credibility.

Sorry but 60%+ do not attend the closest school according to the county.

You are incorrect. Look at the images here and you can see it is 30-45%
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

The board has an obligation to make sure each kid goes to the closest school? That's ludicrous, for all the reasons previously stated, unless you intend to do away with the concept of feeder patterns. .

There's an extended discussion earlier in this thread about how that data point is meaningless, and people who repeat it are either useful idiots or intent on deceiving others by raising it. Which are you?

I have to disagree. Their point is completely above board and direct. In fact, the data the county provided showed the closest school was assigned to only a fraction of people in the 30% range. Most people who are arguing for "local schools" are using this as code for defending 40-year-old boundaries that have resulted in schools being either good or bad schools.The BOE has an obligation to address this.

Incorrect. Around 30% DO NOT go their closest school. If you keep peddling misinformation, you will lose all credibility.

Sorry but 60%+ do not attend the closest school according to the county.

I saw the data provided by the county last week. It was posted in another thread. Don't really get why the one parent keeps trying to deny it.

[Anonymous]

Tried to quote/ copy the PP's posting with gerrymandered maps of GHS and QO. These are exactly a result of past attempts to zone based on diversity and income. QO has the weird shape because MCPS did not want it to be entirely white and low FARMS. They included Brown Station and sent the Diamond elementary school to NW to balance out numbers in NW. If you rationalize QO then it becomes the next less than 10% FARMS school and NW becomes a high FARMS school.

GHS boundaries also represent trying to balance what was once the poor and MC areas of Gaithersburg. Believe it or not but Montgomery Village and the areas up to the north used to primarily non FARMs and white. The areas are now are much more low income but the weird section to the north is still MC/UMC white. Again if you rationalize GHS it stays low income and potentially increases.

Wootton's only strange boundary area is the small island up in RIO. Most people in Wootton don't even know that this small section zones to Wootton. No idea how it got into Wootton.

People in the west and upcountry would be perfectly fine with local boundaries in normal shapes but this is going to end up going in the opposite direction of racial balancing and diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And what exactly was the purpose of adding that word ESPECIALLY if it wasn't to amplify it's priority over the others? Again watch the board of Ed video on April 2018 , sep 13, 2018 and sep 24 2018. The words coming out of the Board of Ed members are truly eye opening.

It's like you're citing the Federalist Papers or something.

Policy FAA does not say that the demographic factor is the most important, regardless of what former Board of Education members may or may not have said in 2018.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tried to quote/ copy the PP's posting with gerrymandered maps of GHS and QO. These are exactly a result of past attempts to zone based on diversity and income. QO has the weird shape because MCPS did not want it to be entirely white and low FARMS. They included Brown Station and sent the Diamond elementary school to NW to balance out numbers in NW. If you rationalize QO then it becomes the next less than 10% FARMS school and NW becomes a high FARMS school.

GHS boundaries also represent trying to balance what was once the poor and MC areas of Gaithersburg. Believe it or not but Montgomery Village and the areas up to the north used to primarily non FARMs and white. The areas are now are much more low income but the weird section to the north is still MC/UMC white. Again if you rationalize GHS it stays low income and potentially increases.

Wootton's only strange boundary area is the small island up in RIO. Most people in Wootton don't even know that this small section zones to Wootton. No idea how it got into Wootton.

People in the west and upcountry would be perfectly fine with local boundaries in normal shapes but this is going to end up going in the opposite direction of racial balancing and diversity.

All of Wootton's boundary is strange. It's width is 4X it's height. These are boundaries are obviously gerrymandered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

The board has an obligation to make sure each kid goes to the closest school? That's ludicrous, for all the reasons previously stated, unless you intend to do away with the concept of feeder patterns. .

There's an extended discussion earlier in this thread about how that data point is meaningless, and people who repeat it are either useful idiots or intent on deceiving others by raising it. Which are you?

I have to disagree. Their point is completely above board and direct. In fact, the data the county provided showed the closest school was assigned to only a fraction of people in the 30% range. Most people who are arguing for "local schools" are using this as code for defending 40-year-old boundaries that have resulted in schools being either good or bad schools.The BOE has an obligation to address this.

Incorrect. Around 30% DO NOT go their closest school. If you keep peddling misinformation, you will lose all credibility.

Sorry but 60%+ do not attend the closest school according to the county.

I saw the data provided by the county last week. It was posted in another thread. Don't really get why the one parent keeps trying to deny it.

Here it is again, people. Note how the chart shows "total students who do not attend closest school" and the figures are all within the range of 37-45%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Tried to quote/ copy the PP's posting with gerrymandered maps of GHS and QO. These are exactly a result of past attempts to zone based on diversity and income. QO has the weird shape because MCPS did not want it to be entirely white and low FARMS. They included Brown Station and sent the Diamond elementary school to NW to balance out numbers in NW. If you rationalize QO then it becomes the next less than 10% FARMS school and NW becomes a high FARMS school.

GHS boundaries also represent trying to balance what was once the poor and MC areas of Gaithersburg. Believe it or not but Montgomery Village and the areas up to the north used to primarily non FARMs and white. The areas are now are much more low income but the weird section to the north is still MC/UMC white. Again if you rationalize GHS it stays low income and potentially increases.

Wootton's only strange boundary area is the small island up in RIO. Most people in Wootton don't even know that this small section zones to Wootton. No idea how it got into Wootton.

People in the west and upcountry would be perfectly fine with local boundaries in normal shapes but this is going to end up going in the opposite direction of racial balancing and diversity.


All of Wootton's boundary is strange. It's width is 4X it's height. These are boundaries are obviously gerrymandered.

The only thing odd about Wootton's boundaries is that Horizon Hills or Falls Grove don't go there but again those moves were down to send UMC white kids to schools to RM back when RM was much higher farms. You could argue that the Potomac kids south of Wootton's boundaries should go to Wootton not Churchill but the density is really, really low and its all wealthy white kids in that area anyway so there is nothing to gain from changing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All current board members are bound by current mcps board of ed policies, one of them being the FAA; which states that boundary decisions should especially strive for diverse student bodies. It doesn't matter who voted for it,when, and if those who voted for it are current members or past. It's the policy that mcps must adhere to..unless the current board decides to change it. It

That's actually not what the FAA states, though.

You get the point. It wasn't meant to be verbatim. Let's not pretend that the diversity factor is not prioritized.

We don't have to pretend. We just have to read the policy and listen to what was said at last week's meeting to know that no factor has a greater weight, but that all four factors are important considerations.

DP. That's how I read it, too. And how I've heard MCPS staff explain it.

Watch the video and read the policy. In the video, MCPS staff clearly states that boundary studies will view all 4 factors equally, meaning they will look at data under the same equal lens BUT (and this is a huge BUT)... the Board will VOTE based on the data presented by the staff AND the FAA policy. So.. I'm not sure if you guys got that. There's a difference on what MCPS staff has to do VS what the board will do. MCPS staff has to provide options that look at factors equally. All that means is that they will provide options that prioritize geography; options that prioritize demographics; options that provide utilization; and so on. What the Board will do though is to vote based on the data provided by MCPS staff AND the FAA policy. FAA policy has the words especially strive. AGAIN- just look at how they voted in the Clarksburg study whether you agree with the decision or not. Dr. Smith even said that it was the first study that was done under the new wording of the FAA.

It's a fact that the wording in the demographic factor of the FAA policy has "especially strive" instead of "strive."

It's also a fact that this was the first boundary study where the FAA policy has the words "especially strive" instead of "strive" in the demographic factor.

It is NOT a fact that the the word "especially" means that the demographic factor is more important than the other factors, or that the BoE believes that the demographic factor is more important than the other factors, or that the demographic factor was more important than the other factors in the upcounty boundary study.

And what exactly was the purpose of adding that word ESPECIALLY if it wasn't to amplify it's priority over the others? Again watch the board of Ed video on April 2018 , sep 13, 2018 and sep 24 2018. The words coming out of the Board of Ed members are truly eye opening.

Do you have link or the title and where to look for it? YouTube?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Tried to quote/ copy the PP's posting with gerrymandered maps of GHS and QO. These are exactly a result of past attempts to zone based on diversity and income. QO has the weird shape because MCPS did not want it to be entirely white and low FARMS. They included Brown Station and sent the Diamond elementary school to NW to balance out numbers in NW. If you rationalize QO then it becomes the next less than 10% FARMS school and NW becomes a high FARMS school.

GHS boundaries also represent trying to balance what was once the poor and MC areas of Gaithersburg. Believe it or not but Montgomery Village and the areas up to the north used to primarily non FARMs and white. The areas are now are much more low income but the weird section to the north is still MC/UMC white. Again if you rationalize GHS it stays low income and potentially increases.

Wootton's only strange boundary area is the small island up in RIO. Most people in Wootton don't even know that this small section zones to Wootton. No idea how it got into Wootton.

People in the west and upcountry would be perfectly fine with local boundaries in normal shapes but this is going to end up going in the opposite direction of racial balancing and diversity.


All of Wootton's boundary is strange. It's width is 4X it's height. These are boundaries are obviously gerrymandered.

The only thing odd about Wootton's boundaries is that Horizon Hills or Falls Grove don't go there but again those moves were down to send UMC white kids to schools to RM back when RM was much higher farms. You could argue that the Potomac kids south of Wootton's boundaries should go to Wootton not Churchill but the density is really, really low and its all wealthy white kids in that area anyway so there is nothing to gain from changing this.

LOL.. you think??? I guess if you only try you can see more then just that.

Take another GOOD look at the Wootton boundaries and ask yourself the following:
1. Where is the school located?
2. Is it centrally located within the boundaries to provide for optimal commute time and distance?
3. How in heaven this slice of boundary area that is not even connected to the rest of the boundary
belong to Wootton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Tried to quote/ copy the PP's posting with gerrymandered maps of GHS and QO. These are exactly a result of past attempts to zone based on diversity and income. QO has the weird shape because MCPS did not want it to be entirely white and low FARMS. They included Brown Station and sent the Diamond elementary school to NW to balance out numbers in NW. If you rationalize QO then it becomes the next less than 10% FARMS school and NW becomes a high FARMS school.

GHS boundaries also represent trying to balance what was once the poor and MC areas of Gaithersburg. Believe it or not but Montgomery Village and the areas up to the north used to primarily non FARMs and white. The areas are now are much more low income but the weird section to the north is still MC/UMC white. Again if you rationalize GHS it stays low income and potentially increases.

Wootton's only strange boundary area is the small island up in RIO. Most people in Wootton don't even know that this small section zones to Wootton. No idea how it got into Wootton.

People in the west and upcountry would be perfectly fine with local boundaries in normal shapes but this is going to end up going in the opposite direction of racial balancing and diversity.


All of Wootton's boundary is strange. It's width is 4X it's height. These are boundaries are obviously gerrymandered.

The only thing odd about Wootton's boundaries is that Horizon Hills or Falls Grove don't go there but again those moves were down to send UMC white kids to schools to RM back when RM was much higher farms. You could argue that the Potomac kids south of Wootton's boundaries should go to Wootton not Churchill but the density is really, really low and its all wealthy white kids in that area anyway so there is nothing to gain from changing this.

LOL.. you think??? I guess if you only try you can see more then just that.

Take another GOOD look at the Wootton boundaries and ask yourself the following:
1. Where is the school located?
2. Is it centrally located within the boundaries to provide for optimal commute time and distance?
3. How in heaven this slice of boundary area that is not even connected to the rest of the boundary
belong to Wootton?

What do the ES boundaries look like?