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

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

That's up to the superintendent and the board, not you.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

How exactly do you claim it forced their hand? There is no requirement in the policy for them to do anything, and no penalty for them not doing anything. If the board liked another option better, all they had to do was say so and take a vote. Or if they had in fact felt the policy was forcing their hand to prioritize diversity, then they certainly would have been forced to go with the Darnestown to Seneca Valley option, rejecting Jack Smith's rationales about the other factors.

[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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Where specifically is this happening in MCPS?

Not sure The only instances of this that I'm aware of are kids who live in the Wootton boundary are more often than not closer to schools other than Wootton. Also, many families in West Kensington who live near Einsten are bussed to WJ which is much further from their home.

There are kids in the Wootton cluster who are bussed passed Frost MS, Julius West MS, and Hoover MS to go to Cabin John MS. Why?

Because the only busing going on in MCPS is to accommodate the wealthier areas and maintain defacto segregation.

No, MCPS buses over 100,000 students, due to distance and dangerous walking conditions.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

And you're trying to scare everyone into believing we live in South Boston in 1974. But we don't.

I'm trying to shed light in the boundary policy that prescribes busing so that people who are unaware can be informed. You, on the other hand want people kept in the dark until it's too late.

That's what you said in 2019, and it was wrong in 2019. Since then, we've had a bunch of boundary studies. They didn't do what you said they'd do. But here you are, still saying the same wrong thing you said in 2019.

Why do you think they changed the language in the boundary policy?

DP. They changed the language because the demographics factor had largely been ignored in the past and they were hoping to change that pattern. So the aim was not to prioritize it above the other three factors at all, but to remind everyone that it should also be attended to, because after all it is one of the factors. Since the change, demographics-favoring options are now included more often than before. But there is absolutely no mandate for the superintendent or board to select one of the demographics-favoring options above all others. In fact, they rarely if ever have.

The video testimony from the BOE member who pushed the changes through says differently. She said they did it to force future boards of ed into prioritizing diversity. This was after Jack Smith cautioned the BOE that this would be the case.

Sorry - past Board activity can't bind future Boards. There's no "force" there. Just conspiracy mongering.

A past board certainly can when they alter a policy that boxes in future boards like what they did with the boundary policy.

Bullshit. They can rescind the policy. They can re-interpret it. They can ignore it. (In order of less to more likely to lose any lawsuits.)

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

How exactly do you claim it forced their hand? There is no requirement in the policy for them to do anything, and no penalty for them not doing anything. If the board liked another option better, all they had to do was say so and take a vote. Or if they had in fact felt the policy was forcing their hand to prioritize diversity, then they certainly would have been forced to go with the Darnestown to Seneca Valley option, rejecting Jack Smith's rationales about the other factors.

Are you saying the BOE can simply ignore policy?

Sure, they could, but they don't even have to, because right there in the same policy, it states: "While each of the factors will be considered, it may not be feasible to reconcile each and every recommendation with each and every factor."

No mandate.

[Anonymous]

Well I guess we wait to see what Seth Adams comes up with for Spring to address all these High Schools: BCC, DCC, Whitman, WJ, Woodward, Crown, Wootton, Gaithersburg, Quince Orchard, Northwest, and RM.

Seems like Churchill should be in the mix too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well I guess we wait to see what Seth Adams comes up with for Spring to address all these High Schools: BCC, DCC, Whitman, WJ, Woodward, Crown, Wootton, Gaithersburg, Quince Orchard, Northwest, and RM.

Seems like Churchill should be in the mix too.

They have already stated Churchill is in the mix for the Crown study.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

How exactly do you claim it forced their hand? There is no requirement in the policy for them to do anything, and no penalty for them not doing anything. If the board liked another option better, all they had to do was say so and take a vote. Or if they had in fact felt the policy was forcing their hand to prioritize diversity, then they certainly would have been forced to go with the Darnestown to Seneca Valley option, rejecting Jack Smith's rationales about the other factors.

Are you saying the BOE can simply ignore policy?

Sure, they could, but they don't even have to, because right there in the same policy, it states: "While each of the factors will be considered, it may not be feasible to reconcile each and every recommendation with each and every factor."

No mandate.

You're too caught up on the word mandate. While current and future boards might not be forced into busing, they are certainly encouraged to choose options which bus more kids for the sake of diversity that 95% of the county doesn't want by the boundary policy that was modified specifically to encourage (if not mandate) busing.

You are pulling the 95% number out of your a$$. Even if you take the wildly unrepresentative survey you are supposedly referring to as gospel, two thirds of respondents assigned some importance to diversity. The BOE's policy identifies demographics as one of 4 factors that must be considered. That is consistent with the stated preferences of the people who responded to the survey. Not considering demographics at all would be inconsistent with respondents' preferences.

[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:

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: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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Where specifically is this happening in MCPS?

Not sure The only instances of this that I'm aware of are kids who live in the Wootton boundary are more often than not closer to schools other than Wootton. Also, many families in West Kensington who live near Einsten are bussed to WJ which is much further from their home.

There are kids in the Wootton cluster who are bussed passed Frost MS, Julius West MS, and Hoover MS to go to Cabin John MS. Why?

Because the only busing going on in MCPS is to accommodate the wealthier areas and maintain defacto segregation.

No, MCPS buses over 100,000 students, due to distance and dangerous walking conditions.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

And you're trying to scare everyone into believing we live in South Boston in 1974. But we don't.

I'm trying to shed light in the boundary policy that prescribes busing so that people who are unaware can be informed. You, on the other hand want people kept in the dark until it's too late.

That's what you said in 2019, and it was wrong in 2019. Since then, we've had a bunch of boundary studies. They didn't do what you said they'd do. But here you are, still saying the same wrong thing you said in 2019.

Why do you think they changed the language in the boundary policy?

DP. They changed the language because the demographics factor had largely been ignored in the past and they were hoping to change that pattern. So the aim was not to prioritize it above the other three factors at all, but to remind everyone that it should also be attended to, because after all it is one of the factors. Since the change, demographics-favoring options are now included more often than before. But there is absolutely no mandate for the superintendent or board to select one of the demographics-favoring options above all others. In fact, they rarely if ever have.

The video testimony from the BOE member who pushed the changes through says differently. She said they did it to force future boards of ed into prioritizing diversity. This was after Jack Smith cautioned the BOE that this would be the case.

Sorry - past Board activity can't bind future Boards. There's no "force" there. Just conspiracy mongering.

A past board certainly can when they alter a policy that boxes in future boards like what they did with the boundary policy.

Bullshit. They can rescind the policy. They can re-interpret it. They can ignore it. (In order of less to more likely to lose any lawsuits.)

True, and although I think it's kind of funny reading all these posts by people fearful of diversity because they're closet bigots, they don't seem realize this is all nonsense. The board will try to consider diversity but it is in fact just one of several factors. The only places that might be changed because of this are the affluent areas which currently bus kids further away to avoid diversity.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

How exactly do you claim it forced their hand? There is no requirement in the policy for them to do anything, and no penalty for them not doing anything. If the board liked another option better, all they had to do was say so and take a vote. Or if they had in fact felt the policy was forcing their hand to prioritize diversity, then they certainly would have been forced to go with the Darnestown to Seneca Valley option, rejecting Jack Smith's rationales about the other factors.

Are you saying the BOE can simply ignore policy?

Sure, they could, but they don't even have to, because right there in the same policy, it states: "While each of the factors will be considered, it may not be feasible to reconcile each and every recommendation with each and every factor."

No mandate.

You're too caught up on the word mandate. While current and future boards might not be forced into busing, they are certainly encouraged to choose options which bus more kids for the sake of diversity that 95% of the county doesn't want by the boundary policy that was modified specifically to encourage (if not mandate) busing.

You are pulling the 95% number out of your a$$. Even if you take the wildly unrepresentative survey you are supposedly referring to as gospel, two thirds of respondents assigned some importance to diversity. The BOE's policy identifies demographics as one of 4 factors that must be considered. That is consistent with the stated preferences of the people who responded to the survey. Not considering demographics at all would be inconsistent with respondents' preferences.

The survey wasn't especially meaningful. It mostly reflects the opinions of people from Potomac and Chevy Chase, not the county.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

How exactly do you claim it forced their hand? There is no requirement in the policy for them to do anything, and no penalty for them not doing anything. If the board liked another option better, all they had to do was say so and take a vote. Or if they had in fact felt the policy was forcing their hand to prioritize diversity, then they certainly would have been forced to go with the Darnestown to Seneca Valley option, rejecting Jack Smith's rationales about the other factors.

Are you saying the BOE can simply ignore policy?

Sure, they could, but they don't even have to, because right there in the same policy, it states: "While each of the factors will be considered, it may not be feasible to reconcile each and every recommendation with each and every factor."

No mandate.

You're too caught up on the word mandate. While current and future boards might not be forced into busing, they are certainly encouraged to choose options which bus more kids for the sake of diversity that 95% of the county doesn't want by the boundary policy that was modified specifically to encourage (if not mandate) busing.

You are pulling the 95% number out of your a$$. Even if you take the wildly unrepresentative survey you are supposedly referring to as gospel, two thirds of respondents assigned some importance to diversity. The BOE's policy identifies demographics as one of 4 factors that must be considered. That is consistent with the stated preferences of the people who responded to the survey. Not considering demographics at all would be inconsistent with respondents' preferences.

95% is the number of people across the entire county who placed the other 3 factors higher than diversity. While you are correct that many did say they cared about diversity a little, they said the other 3 factors were far more important. Diversity is 4th of 4. It's dead last in the factors that people care strongly about. Given that the 4 factors are often at odds with each other, that translates to most of the county saying "Don't bus my kid to a school farther from home just to make white progressives feel virtuous."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I lived in the east county I would be way more concerned for boundary reviews than the W’s. Oh no a street gets sent from Whitman to BCC or Churchill. Where one street can sink an already highly engineered east county school with a culture changing shift of density. Most of the preferable schools in SS have their SFH already maximized though real gerrymandering. Just about any shift will send them in the opposite direction. The wetdream people who want to be shifted from an Einstein to a BCC or Walter Johnson are delusional.

We live on the western side, and I'm pretty bummed about the fact that it looks like we will be moved to Gaithersburg HS during the Crown boundary study. Instant loss of equity that is a pretty big deal for some of us and our retirements.

What are you basing that on? That study hasn't even been authorized.

Every discussion of the boundaries... you can guess the neighborhood if you search this forum.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

How exactly do you claim it forced their hand? There is no requirement in the policy for them to do anything, and no penalty for them not doing anything. If the board liked another option better, all they had to do was say so and take a vote. Or if they had in fact felt the policy was forcing their hand to prioritize diversity, then they certainly would have been forced to go with the Darnestown to Seneca Valley option, rejecting Jack Smith's rationales about the other factors.

Are you saying the BOE can simply ignore policy?

Sure, they could, but they don't even have to, because right there in the same policy, it states: "While each of the factors will be considered, it may not be feasible to reconcile each and every recommendation with each and every factor."

No mandate.

You're too caught up on the word mandate. While current and future boards might not be forced into busing, they are certainly encouraged to choose options which bus more kids for the sake of diversity that 95% of the county doesn't want by the boundary policy that was modified specifically to encourage (if not mandate) busing.

You are pulling the 95% number out of your a$$. Even if you take the wildly unrepresentative survey you are supposedly referring to as gospel, two thirds of respondents assigned some importance to diversity. The BOE's policy identifies demographics as one of 4 factors that must be considered. That is consistent with the stated preferences of the people who responded to the survey. Not considering demographics at all would be inconsistent with respondents' preferences.

95% is the number of people across the entire county who placed the other 3 factors higher than diversity. While you are correct that many did say they cared about diversity a little, they said the other 3 factors were far more important. Diversity is 4th of 4. It's dead last in the factors that people care strongly about. Given that the 4 factors are often at odds with each other, that translates to most of the county saying "Don't bus my kid to a school farther from home just to make white progressives feel virtuous."

Yes, the survey reflects the views of a very small percentage of people who responded to survey who were mostly from the wealthiest areas in the county. However, the majority of voters in the county elect people to the board who seem to understand that they prioritize diversity.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Since schools aren't built in the geographic center of each boundary, there will always be students who go to a school farther from home than another school is. In some very built-up parts of the county, there may even be one or two more schools closer. MCPS has to decide which kids get those longer bus rides, regardless of anyone's griping.

This will not change unless we tear down all the schools and rebuild them with exacting distances - which will last until housing patterns change again.

And, at some point its understandable, but for the far away families who will literally pass one school to go to another is silly.

Hmm. Maybe they should do a boundary study to look at alternative options.

As long as diversity is the top factor, a boundary study will only make things worse.

Great. Since diversity is just one of four factors, we're all good!

It's the top factor so it prescribes busing.

You are spreading misinformation.

I wish that was true. Unfortunately, back in 2018, some dishonest BOE members elevated demographics/diversity to the top factor in the boundary policy in order to "make the policy more consistent with our progressive values in Montgomery County."

That was misinformation in 2018. Now it's 2023, and you are still spreading the same misinformation, for reasons I am unable to imagine.

Why do you think the language was changed? It was changed to force future Bs of E to implement busing. Jack Smith said that the language change making diversity the top factor would box in future boards of Ed into boundary decisions they might not want. The BOE member who made these changes said she wanted them boxed in because busing for diversity was 8n line with MoCo progressive values.

If it was (which it wasn't), it didn't work.

There's video of the exchange I just posted. That was the intent and it didn't work because A) massive pushback including a boundary analysis showing 95% of the county rejects busing and B) COVID. We'll see what the Woodward study brings.

Dude. Everyone except you has already seen what all of the other studies have brought.

You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall
You: The sky is falling
Sky: Does not fall

Did any of those studies involve 8 high schools?

The policy is the policy, regardless of how many schools are being studied. And the past five studies have proven that your understanding of the policy was incorrect.

You're not very good at this. The past 5 studies were tiny and, therefore, didn't provide much opportunity for busing like what happened in the Clarksburg / Seneca Valley study. The Woodward study will be massive by comparison, spanning 7 or 8 high schools which provides a lot of opportunity for diversity busing. The boundary policy mandates busing if schools aren't diverse enough.

No it does not. It mandates nothing.

Unfortunately it does. That's why the pro-busers on the BOE changed the boundary policy to prioritize diversity.

I guess that's why Darnestown ES was rezoned to Seneca Valley. Oh wait, it wasn't! Even though that option would have prioritized the demographics factor. How about that. And why wasn't it? Because according to Jack Smith it was too far away, which would go against the proximity factor, and the busing would also cost too much money and be bad for the environment. Therefore the demographics factor was in fact not the highest priority, for several sensible reasons. So despite what you keep repeating, there is no mandate to prioritize diversity.

Diversity was prioritized more that it should have been. But the new boundary policy forced the BOE's hand and a lot of Clarksburg kids were rezoned to schools much farther from home.

That's up to the superintendent and the board, not you.

Ummm... citizens are allowed to critique the actions of a government agency.

[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:

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:

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.

No one is mad at buses. But families whose kids get bused to schools father from home are mad at progressives who are obsessed with skin color.

Where specifically is this happening in MCPS?

Not sure The only instances of this that I'm aware of are kids who live in the Wootton boundary are more often than not closer to schools other than Wootton. Also, many families in West Kensington who live near Einsten are bussed to WJ which is much further from their home.

There are kids in the Wootton cluster who are bussed passed Frost MS, Julius West MS, and Hoover MS to go to Cabin John MS. Why?

Because the only busing going on in MCPS is to accommodate the wealthier areas and maintain defacto segregation.

No, MCPS buses over 100,000 students, due to distance and dangerous walking conditions.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

And you're trying to scare everyone into believing we live in South Boston in 1974. But we don't.

I'm trying to shed light in the boundary policy that prescribes busing so that people who are unaware can be informed. You, on the other hand want people kept in the dark until it's too late.

That's what you said in 2019, and it was wrong in 2019. Since then, we've had a bunch of boundary studies. They didn't do what you said they'd do. But here you are, still saying the same wrong thing you said in 2019.

Why do you think they changed the language in the boundary policy?

DP. They changed the language because the demographics factor had largely been ignored in the past and they were hoping to change that pattern. So the aim was not to prioritize it above the other three factors at all, but to remind everyone that it should also be attended to, because after all it is one of the factors. Since the change, demographics-favoring options are now included more often than before. But there is absolutely no mandate for the superintendent or board to select one of the demographics-favoring options above all others. In fact, they rarely if ever have.

The video testimony from the BOE member who pushed the changes through says differently. She said they did it to force future boards of ed into prioritizing diversity. This was after Jack Smith cautioned the BOE that this would be the case.

Sorry - past Board activity can't bind future Boards. There's no "force" there. Just conspiracy mongering.

A past board certainly can when they alter a policy that boxes in future boards like what they did with the boundary policy.

Bullshit. They can rescind the policy. They can re-interpret it. They can ignore it. (In order of less to more likely to lose any lawsuits.)

True, and although I think it's kind of funny reading all these posts by people fearful of diversity because they're closet bigots, they don't seem realize this is all nonsense. The board will try to consider diversity but it is in fact just one of several factors. The only places that might be changed because of this are the affluent areas which currently bus kids further away to avoid diversity.

95% of the county doesn't want busing. Are they all bigots? Or do they just value schools closer to home and the stability that comes with not changing schools more?

And unfortunately, in 2018, a few underhanded BOE members changed the boundary policy to make diversity the top priority. This means that when this boundary study is done, a lot of kids will need to be moved to different schools farther from home to satisfy that factor.