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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's far too much noise, here, about bussing. Until there's a concrete suggestion put out there saying otherwise, the kinds of elementary cluster reassingments that they are likely to consider are all on the margins. Something where one nearly equidistant Einstein feeder goes to BCC while a BCC feeder gets shifted to Whitman or Churchill once that gets the relief from Woodward.

That helps solve overcrowding, or at least spreads it out. Addressing differences among schools would almost certainly better be accomplished with differential supports to ensure individual students have similar experiences/opportunities wherever they might be assigned. That probably requires additional expenditures, and either higher taxes or higher prioritization of the MCPS budget from the County Council -- I don't think we can expect the funding to come from some hoped-for realization of managerial efficiency, especially in the short term.

Or the relative haves could short-sightedly balk at this, causing the ever-more-populous have-nots to in the county myopically to align with opportunistic left-populist politicians who might advocate for really inefficient and, ultimately, ineffective things like cross-county bussing. But then the truly haves have their self-fulfilling paradigm complete: "Look! The system is terrible! Why fund it?! (PS--While you're at it dropping our taxes, the only thing that might save a few unfortunates is to adopt vouchers, yes?...)"

Churchill is not in-scope for this study.

Quite right. Should have said Johnson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS already buses over 2/3 of students. If you want fewer kids put on the bus, you should start advocating for more crossing guards, more sidewalks, and more safe places for kids to cross.

It's almost like riding a bus to the school closest to home and riding a bus past several other schools to a school a lot farther from home just so white progressives can feel like white saviors are two different things.

And yet, for the kid on the bus, a bus ride is a bus ride. Whatever you are mad at, it's not buses.

The public buses would take forever to get cross town and there are not stops everywhere.

Stop making excuses. The school buses also take forever. My kids take 40 mins to go under 1 mile. Public buses would be no worse than the current situation and would allow the county to apply the savings to improve classrooms.

Are you the poster whose kids wait 35 minutes for a 5-minute bus ride, and then you count that as a 40-minute bus ride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny part is no matter the margins that get shuffled around, the few houses that get zoned out of desirable schools will go down in price and the few that get the bump-up will go up in price. Within a decade those houses will align with the proper SES buyers and you will still have desirable schools and silver spring schools. Nothing will change except a few people’s bank accounts.

Problem with desirable is people will pay up for it which will automatically exclude poor people. When it is the poor people the people are paying to avoid, it will automatically happen.

Even if you shipped all poorest of the poor out of the east county to W schools, prices in the shipping zones would shoot up and people in silver spring would be quickly priced out of their homes. Look at rosemary hills, used to be a very poor & black neighborhood which is why it got zoned to BCC for diversity. Now there are few AAs in the SFHs and otherwise modest ramblers are some of the most expensive homes in silver spring all in about a generation.

All of this is incorrect.

Anyone who can afford an SFH in MoCo is not low income. If an SFH gets zoned out of a desirable school, the owners can sell, rent it out or stay. In no scenario will the new resident be a low-income family.

Rosemary Hills is a close in neighborhood. All of those neighborhoods are expensive. Just across the train tracks from there are houses zoned for the DCC and they are also quite expensive.

Prices for SFHs are already high in Silver Spring. The "poorest of the poor" do not live in SFHs around downtown Silver Spring. If you "ship" the kids in Silver Spring apartments to Whitman, the rents might go up a bit? Maybe?

What are you talking about? Families inherit houses and there are still more affordable houses in Wheaton and Silver Spring and parts of upcountry. There are still homes in our area that sell on occasion for $350K or so but they are fixer uppers and really small. No one kid t in Silver Spring wants to go to Whitman. There is zero chance I'd send my Whitman and we can afford to live there. Also, families will get together and purchase a home or figure it out.

Rosemary Hills next to CC is not relevant as that is zoned for BCC. You need to get out of your bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS already buses over 2/3 of students. If you want fewer kids put on the bus, you should start advocating for more crossing guards, more sidewalks, and more safe places for kids to cross.

It's almost like riding a bus to the school closest to home and riding a bus past several other schools to a school a lot farther from home just so white progressives can feel like white saviors are two different things.

And yet, for the kid on the bus, a bus ride is a bus ride. Whatever you are mad at, it's not buses.

The public buses would take forever to get cross town and there are not stops everywhere.

Stop making excuses. The school buses also take forever. My kids take 40 mins to go under 1 mile. Public buses would be no worse than the current situation and would allow the county to apply the savings to improve classrooms.

You must have younger kids. In HS we don't get a bus for under 2 miles. 40 minutes would be better than taking a public bus cross town for HS kids that need to go at different times. There is more than just your elementary kids and for a mile you can drive them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very few were moved closer. More are being bused farther away. That was the reason for the lawsuit.

Oh right, the lawsuit. I remember the lawsuit. There were so many posts asserting that the lawsuit was a slam-dunk, and just wait for discovery! What actually happened? The plaintiffs' lawyers cashed the checks, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Not surprising, since it was nonsense.

Did those people file a lawsuit because their kids were moved to a school closer to home? Of course not.

[Anonymous]

No one in real life is talking about sending kids currently zoned for Blair to Whitman, or vice versa. What is under consideration is changes to adjacent school boundaries. So for example there could be movement along the edges from WJ to Wheaton, or vice versa, or BCC to Einstein, or vice versa. Because those schools already share a boundary line. No one is moving to or from Whitman except possibly its adjacent schools: BCC or WJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I care about diversity because I don't think schools where 80% of kids qualify for FARMS is okay. Concentrated poverty is horrible, especially for the low-income kids. There are mountains of research to support this.

So you want middle and upper income kids to get dragged down by low income kids. No thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about diversity because I don't think schools where 80% of kids qualify for FARMS is okay. Concentrated poverty is horrible, especially for the low-income kids. There are mountains of research to support this.

And, yet our kids who attend those schools do just fine there.

Same. There are challenges for sure, but the Title I schools get extra support and our class sizes are waaaay smaller than the high performing ones. If you value diversity, there are plenty of diverse schools to choose from! I don’t want my kid bussed to Whitman to make someone else feel better, JFC traffic is a nightmare. If you really want to increase SES diversity at schools it starts with housing policy.

Then I hope you will tell your fellow progressives that they should also oppose busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny part is no matter the margins that get shuffled around, the few houses that get zoned out of desirable schools will go down in price and the few that get the bump-up will go up in price. Within a decade those houses will align with the proper SES buyers and you will still have desirable schools and silver spring schools. Nothing will change except a few people’s bank accounts.

Problem with desirable is people will pay up for it which will automatically exclude poor people. When it is the poor people the people are paying to avoid, it will automatically happen.

Even if you shipped all poorest of the poor out of the east county to W schools, prices in the shipping zones would shoot up and people in silver spring would be quickly priced out of their homes. Look at rosemary hills, used to be a very poor & black neighborhood which is why it got zoned to BCC for diversity. Now there are few AAs in the SFHs and otherwise modest ramblers are some of the most expensive homes in silver spring all in about a generation.

This is a perfect explanation of why we need to fix land use instead of school boundaries. All schools should have housing available to all income levels within their boundaries.

Hey, here's an idea: let's fix both! School boundaries in the near term, land use in the medium and long term (together with changes to school boundaries as land use changes).

Though land use is an important issue, tying it to boundary changes is a great way to get enough opposition to torpedo the latter...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about diversity because I don't think schools where 80% of kids qualify for FARMS is okay. Concentrated poverty is horrible, especially for the low-income kids. There are mountains of research to support this.

And, yet our kids who attend those schools do just fine there.

Same. There are challenges for sure, but the Title I schools get extra support and our class sizes are waaaay smaller than the high performing ones. If you value diversity, there are plenty of diverse schools to choose from! I don’t want my kid bussed to Whitman to make someone else feel better, JFC traffic is a nightmare. If you really want to increase SES diversity at schools it starts with housing policy.

Then I hope you will tell your fellow progressives that they should also oppose busing.

I'm hoping my Title 1 school kids get bussed to Whitman!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS already buses over 2/3 of students. If you want fewer kids put on the bus, you should start advocating for more crossing guards, more sidewalks, and more safe places for kids to cross.

It's almost like riding a bus to the school closest to home and riding a bus past several other schools to a school a lot farther from home just so white progressives can feel like white saviors are two different things.

And yet, for the kid on the bus, a bus ride is a bus ride. Whatever you are mad at, it's not buses.

The public buses would take forever to get cross town and there are not stops everywhere.

Stop making excuses. The school buses also take forever. My kids take 40 mins to go under 1 mile. Public buses would be no worse than the current situation and would allow the county to apply the savings to improve classrooms.

You must have younger kids. In HS we don't get a bus for under 2 miles. 40 minutes would be better than taking a public bus cross town for HS kids that need to go at different times. There is more than just your elementary kids and for a mile you can drive them.

Which town?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny part is no matter the margins that get shuffled around, the few houses that get zoned out of desirable schools will go down in price and the few that get the bump-up will go up in price. Within a decade those houses will align with the proper SES buyers and you will still have desirable schools and silver spring schools. Nothing will change except a few people’s bank accounts.

Problem with desirable is people will pay up for it which will automatically exclude poor people. When it is the poor people the people are paying to avoid, it will automatically happen.

Even if you shipped all poorest of the poor out of the east county to W schools, prices in the shipping zones would shoot up and people in silver spring would be quickly priced out of their homes. Look at rosemary hills, used to be a very poor & black neighborhood which is why it got zoned to BCC for diversity. Now there are few AAs in the SFHs and otherwise modest ramblers are some of the most expensive homes in silver spring all in about a generation.

This is a perfect explanation of why we need to fix land use instead of school boundaries. All schools should have housing available to all income levels within their boundaries.

Well they do need to fix the boundaries number 1 because they are opening new high schools and expanding others. Number 2 because utilization is not currently optimized to match capacity. When they do that, they should not just cater to rich people's desire to maintain their property values, as they have in years past. They might still do this though because MCPS leaders have zero backbone.

If they accommodated new housing by assigning those neighborhoods to the closest schools with open seats instead of one of the closest schools developers would pay for school additions in a hurry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny part is no matter the margins that get shuffled around, the few houses that get zoned out of desirable schools will go down in price and the few that get the bump-up will go up in price. Within a decade those houses will align with the proper SES buyers and you will still have desirable schools and silver spring schools. Nothing will change except a few people’s bank accounts.

Problem with desirable is people will pay up for it which will automatically exclude poor people. When it is the poor people the people are paying to avoid, it will automatically happen.

Even if you shipped all poorest of the poor out of the east county to W schools, prices in the shipping zones would shoot up and people in silver spring would be quickly priced out of their homes. Look at rosemary hills, used to be a very poor & black neighborhood which is why it got zoned to BCC for diversity. Now there are few AAs in the SFHs and otherwise modest ramblers are some of the most expensive homes in silver spring all in about a generation.

This is a perfect explanation of why we need to fix land use instead of school boundaries. All schools should have housing available to all income levels within their boundaries.

Well they do need to fix the boundaries number 1 because they are opening new high schools and expanding others. Number 2 because utilization is not currently optimized to match capacity. When they do that, they should not just cater to rich people's desire to maintain their property values, as they have in years past. They might still do this though because MCPS leaders have zero backbone.

If they accommodated new housing by assigning those neighborhoods to the closest schools with open seats instead of one of the closest schools developers would pay for school additions in a hurry.

That is so not how housing development works. And if it did, it would raise the cost of housing, as though housing costs weren't already too high.

[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.

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.)?

With both equity and Marxism, everyone does what they can and the government gives them what it believes they need.

"unless one believes that there is inherent difference among those populations" Of course there's a difference. It's called culture. Asian culture values education more than (almost?) any other and Asians do the best academically. Normal people see that correlation. Progressives pretend it's just a coincidence.

As for students being equally served, we would need to define what being equally served means. It sounds like you want an exact equal number of advanced classes taught in east county schools even though the culture in those areas doesn't prepare kids for those classes nearly as well as the culture in West county. To make up for that deficit, it sounds like you want to spend a small fortune in east county to try to counteract a culture that doesn't value education....speaking of fools errands. OTOH, I would define equal opportunity as having those classes available if there are kids who want to take them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Periodic reminder that the boundary policy still has diversity as its top priority.

Periodic reminder that this PP likes to post this falsehood over and over and over and over and over and over...

And has been doing so, as far as I know, since 2018. Props to their work ethic and consistency in propagating falsehoods.

Yes. It is curious how they sometimes disappear for several months at a time and then suddenly resurface with the same old misinformation.