Brainstorming refinements to Option 3 of Woodward Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

+100

You guys are like:
"Bus rides are terrible for kids, especially poor kids"
And
"Give the poor kids an opportunity by asking them to take a long bus ride to the whitest school, and who cares about the kids that can't/won't do that"

But busing kids long distances is option 3. Do you object to option 3?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think the long bus rides in Option 3 are worth it?

But fwiw with this "Option 5" plan y'all are saying give any FARMS kids from anywhere the option to go to low poverty schools. Do you not realize their travel times will likely be much longer if they first have to get to centralized bus stops? If anything this plan highlights that Option 3 is actually not that bad because the kids get bus service from their neighborhoods.

this is an anonymous forum so no one knows it's you. You get that, right? Or maybe just identify yourself.

Option 3 won't work for reasons already detailed (mainly, people will segregate so you can't force FARMS rates through involuntary busing. Voluntary busins may fare better but only up to a point).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

+100

You guys are like:
"Bus rides are terrible for kids, especially poor kids"
And
"Give the poor kids an opportunity by asking them to take a long bus ride to the whitest school, and who cares about the kids that can't/won't do that"

But busing kids long distances is option 3. Do you object to option 3?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think the long bus rides in Option 3 are worth it?

But fwiw with this "Option 5" plan y'all are saying give any FARMS kids from anywhere the option to go to low poverty schools. Do you not realize their travel times will likely be much longer if they first have to get to centralized bus stops? If anything this plan highlights that Option 3 is actually not that bad because the kids get bus service from their neighborhoods.

this is an anonymous forum so no one knows it's you. You get that, right? Or maybe just identify yourself.

Option 3 won't work for reasons already detailed (mainly, people will segregate so you can't force FARMS rates through involuntary busing. Voluntary busins may fare better but only up to a point).

Then why ask me about Option 3 when it's not what we're talking about? Obviously you (or a PP) made some assumption about that in order to distract from your (or their) blatant hypocrisy in strenuously objecting to long bus rides when it's your kids but demanding that poor kids endure longer travel times and if they don't it's because they aren't motivated enough so who cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

This is what they need to do. Move the desirable magnets to Kennedy. Problem solved.

This would make sense. Traditionally they put them at low preforming schools.

Yep. Once you open up like 50 magnet seats to students from the local school, you have parents moving in to that area to try to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

This is what they need to do. Move the desirable magnets to Kennedy. Problem solved.

This would make sense. Traditionally they put them at low preforming schools.

Yep. Once you open up like 50 magnet seats to students from the local school, you have parents moving in to that area to try to do that.

Blair and Takoma Park MS no longer need this bump up. Kennedy and is it Parkland MS? do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

This is what they need to do. Move the desirable magnets to Kennedy. Problem solved.

This would make sense. Traditionally they put them at low preforming schools.

Yep. Once you open up like 50 magnet seats to students from the local school, you have parents moving in to that area to try to do that.

Blair and Takoma Park MS no longer need this bump up. Kennedy and is it Parkland MS? do.

It is completely hypocritical of Blair parents to argue otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

This is what they need to do. Move the desirable magnets to Kennedy. Problem solved.

This would make sense. Traditionally they put them at low preforming schools.

Yep. Once you open up like 50 magnet seats to students from the local school, you have parents moving in to that area to try to do that.

Blair and Takoma Park MS no longer need this bump up. Kennedy and is it Parkland MS? do.

It is completely hypocritical of Blair parents to argue otherwise.

Classic straw man

Why do you care so much about deciding what schools in other communities should be doing anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

+100

You guys are like:
"Bus rides are terrible for kids, especially poor kids"
And
"Give the poor kids an opportunity by asking them to take a long bus ride to the whitest school, and who cares about the kids that can't/won't do that"

But busing kids long distances is option 3. Do you object to option 3?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think the long bus rides in Option 3 are worth it?

But fwiw with this "Option 5" plan y'all are saying give any FARMS kids from anywhere the option to go to low poverty schools. Do you not realize their travel times will likely be much longer if they first have to get to centralized bus stops? If anything this plan highlights that Option 3 is actually not that bad because the kids get bus service from their neighborhoods.

this is an anonymous forum so no one knows it's you. You get that, right? Or maybe just identify yourself.

Option 3 won't work for reasons already detailed (mainly, people will segregate so you can't force FARMS rates through involuntary busing. Voluntary busins may fare better but only up to a point).

Then why ask me about Option 3 when it's not what we're talking about? Obviously you (or a PP) made some assumption about that in order to distract from your (or their) blatant hypocrisy in strenuously objecting to long bus rides when it's your kids but demanding that poor kids endure longer travel times and if they don't it's because they aren't motivated enough so who cares.

different people are commenting and you appear to be collapsing them into a single person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

+100

You guys are like:
"Bus rides are terrible for kids, especially poor kids"
And
"Give the poor kids an opportunity by asking them to take a long bus ride to the whitest school, and who cares about the kids that can't/won't do that"

But busing kids long distances is option 3. Do you object to option 3?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think the long bus rides in Option 3 are worth it?

But fwiw with this "Option 5" plan y'all are saying give any FARMS kids from anywhere the option to go to low poverty schools. Do you not realize their travel times will likely be much longer if they first have to get to centralized bus stops? If anything this plan highlights that Option 3 is actually not that bad because the kids get bus service from their neighborhoods.

this is an anonymous forum so no one knows it's you. You get that, right? Or maybe just identify yourself.

Option 3 won't work for reasons already detailed (mainly, people will segregate so you can't force FARMS rates through involuntary busing. Voluntary busins may fare better but only up to a point).

Then why ask me about Option 3 when it's not what we're talking about? Obviously you (or a PP) made some assumption about that in order to distract from your (or their) blatant hypocrisy in strenuously objecting to long bus rides when it's your kids but demanding that poor kids endure longer travel times and if they don't it's because they aren't motivated enough so who cares.

This thread is about refinements to Option 3. Option 3 takes as a given busing long distances. Indeed, it is the only way to increase the FARMS rates at Whitman. However, Option 3 also doesn't actually do a great job of equalizing FARMS rates. So if we take as given that long bus rides are something that BOE accepts for Option 3's purpose, we can try to improve upon that by making it voluntary and focusing on the one place FARMS rates are extremely low.

[Anonymous]

What is the goal with this plan? I’m not in the loop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

+100

You guys are like:
"Bus rides are terrible for kids, especially poor kids"
And
"Give the poor kids an opportunity by asking them to take a long bus ride to the whitest school, and who cares about the kids that can't/won't do that"

But busing kids long distances is option 3. Do you object to option 3?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think the long bus rides in Option 3 are worth it?

But fwiw with this "Option 5" plan y'all are saying give any FARMS kids from anywhere the option to go to low poverty schools. Do you not realize their travel times will likely be much longer if they first have to get to centralized bus stops? If anything this plan highlights that Option 3 is actually not that bad because the kids get bus service from their neighborhoods.

this is an anonymous forum so no one knows it's you. You get that, right? Or maybe just identify yourself.

Option 3 won't work for reasons already detailed (mainly, people will segregate so you can't force FARMS rates through involuntary busing. Voluntary busins may fare better but only up to a point).

Then why ask me about Option 3 when it's not what we're talking about? Obviously you (or a PP) made some assumption about that in order to distract from your (or their) blatant hypocrisy in strenuously objecting to long bus rides when it's your kids but demanding that poor kids endure longer travel times and if they don't it's because they aren't motivated enough so who cares.

This thread is about refinements to Option 3. Option 3 takes as a given busing long distances. Indeed, it is the only way to increase the FARMS rates at Whitman. However, Option 3 also doesn't actually do a great job of equalizing FARMS rates. So if we take as given that long bus rides are something that BOE accepts for Option 3's purpose, we can try to improve upon that by making it voluntary and focusing on the one place FARMS rates are extremely low.

More distraction from your hypocrisy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

+100

You guys are like:
"Bus rides are terrible for kids, especially poor kids"
And
"Give the poor kids an opportunity by asking them to take a long bus ride to the whitest school, and who cares about the kids that can't/won't do that"

But busing kids long distances is option 3. Do you object to option 3?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think the long bus rides in Option 3 are worth it?

But fwiw with this "Option 5" plan y'all are saying give any FARMS kids from anywhere the option to go to low poverty schools. Do you not realize their travel times will likely be much longer if they first have to get to centralized bus stops? If anything this plan highlights that Option 3 is actually not that bad because the kids get bus service from their neighborhoods.

this is an anonymous forum so no one knows it's you. You get that, right? Or maybe just identify yourself.

Option 3 won't work for reasons already detailed (mainly, people will segregate so you can't force FARMS rates through involuntary busing. Voluntary busins may fare better but only up to a point).

Then why ask me about Option 3 when it's not what we're talking about? Obviously you (or a PP) made some assumption about that in order to distract from your (or their) blatant hypocrisy in strenuously objecting to long bus rides when it's your kids but demanding that poor kids endure longer travel times and if they don't it's because they aren't motivated enough so who cares.

different people are commenting and you appear to be collapsing them into a single person.

Oh the people proposing Option 5 have no problem with Option 3? Lol

[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:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

but you want the more motivated kids to be able to take advantage of opportunities that less motivated kids won't. at the very least it will help some of them get out of schools with a higher likelihood of behavior issues.

+100

You guys are like:
"Bus rides are terrible for kids, especially poor kids"
And
"Give the poor kids an opportunity by asking them to take a long bus ride to the whitest school, and who cares about the kids that can't/won't do that"

But busing kids long distances is option 3. Do you object to option 3?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think the long bus rides in Option 3 are worth it?

But fwiw with this "Option 5" plan y'all are saying give any FARMS kids from anywhere the option to go to low poverty schools. Do you not realize their travel times will likely be much longer if they first have to get to centralized bus stops? If anything this plan highlights that Option 3 is actually not that bad because the kids get bus service from their neighborhoods.

this is an anonymous forum so no one knows it's you. You get that, right? Or maybe just identify yourself.

Option 3 won't work for reasons already detailed (mainly, people will segregate so you can't force FARMS rates through involuntary busing. Voluntary busins may fare better but only up to a point).

Then why ask me about Option 3 when it's not what we're talking about? Obviously you (or a PP) made some assumption about that in order to distract from your (or their) blatant hypocrisy in strenuously objecting to long bus rides when it's your kids but demanding that poor kids endure longer travel times and if they don't it's because they aren't motivated enough so who cares.

This thread is about refinements to Option 3. Option 3 takes as a given busing long distances. Indeed, it is the only way to increase the FARMS rates at Whitman. However, Option 3 also doesn't actually do a great job of equalizing FARMS rates. So if we take as given that long bus rides are something that BOE accepts for Option 3's purpose, we can try to improve upon that by making it voluntary and focusing on the one place FARMS rates are extremely low.

More distraction from your hypocrisy

Try to engage on the substance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

This is what they need to do. Move the desirable magnets to Kennedy. Problem solved.

Isn't there an IB magnet at Kennedy already? Why isn't it as popular as the one at Richard Montgomery? Is it just that people don't want to go to Kennedy, or are there other things that could be changed to make it more desirable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in looking again at Option 3 in terms of leveling out FARMS rates across at least high schools, is the juice worth the squeeze? The only really big difference in terms of just that one metric (%FARMS) across options looks like Whitman. It goes from 6% FARMS to 20%. It seems like you could just do something far less disruptive in terms of busing kids all over the county to increase the FARMS rate at Whitman.

Example is what has been proposed in this thread -- let FARMS kids lottery into Whitman, provide central bus locations.

That will be an awesome option for some families.

That just takes the most motivated kids with supportive parents out of the high farms schools which then become even worse with less opportuntities

Yeah, for this among other reasons, the lottery thing makes no sense.

Either they should amend option 3, or just lean in on having the most desirable magnets at the poorest schools.

This is what they need to do. Move the desirable magnets to Kennedy. Problem solved.

Isn't there an IB magnet at Kennedy already? Why isn't it as popular as the one at Richard Montgomery? Is it just that people don't want to go to Kennedy, or are there other things that could be changed to make it more desirable?

Because the IB program at RM pulls the cream of the crop from the whole county. Kennedy pulls from the region. No students are leaving their home high school with a large cohort of gifted students to go to a regional IB program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately choice programs are not effective for improving educational outcomes

Source??