Cliff Notes summary of MCPS boundary study fight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students and parents are pushing MCPS to redistrict school boundaries to increase diversity and close the achievement gap that persists in schools throughout Montgomery County.

Concerned citizens of the county argue that the way schools are currently arranged allows for segregation within MCPS. Some schools are primarily white and usually in high income neighborhoods such as Walt Whitman High School (HS) in Bethesda and Winston Churchill HS in Potomac, among others. While other schools primarily consist of minorities and have higher poverty rates, known as the Downcounty Consortium (DCC) schools. The DCC high schools include Blair HS, Einstein HS, Kennedy HS, Northwood HS and Wheaton HS.

(…)

The idea to redistrict schools was proposed by the 41st Student Member of Board, Ananya Tadikonda. The issue of redistricting was brought to the Board of Education (BOE) during the 2018 summer and was officially added to their agenda Sept. 13, 2018. MCPS hired an external consultant to do a districtwide school boundary study Jan. 8. The results are expected by the spring of 2020. This will give MCPS more information about how the schools are districted now and what changes should be made. ….

https://rockvillerampage.com/14010/uncategorized/mcps-considers-possible-redistricting/

This is from the Rockville High School student newspaper. I will take MCPS’s word about this process over that of a 16 year old.

I don't see anything non-factual in there. If you do, please say what.

DP. Well, the final paragraph is misleading/incorrect on a few points. The SMOB's proposal wasn't "the idea to redistrict schools," it was the districtwide boundary assessment. MCPS hired a consultant not to do a "boundary study," which is an MCPS term with a specific meaning, but the boundary analysis. And the consultants were "hired" on August 29, not Jan. 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students and parents are pushing MCPS to redistrict school boundaries to increase diversity and close the achievement gap that persists in schools throughout Montgomery County.

Concerned citizens of the county argue that the way schools are currently arranged allows for segregation within MCPS. Some schools are primarily white and usually in high income neighborhoods such as Walt Whitman High School (HS) in Bethesda and Winston Churchill HS in Potomac, among others. While other schools primarily consist of minorities and have higher poverty rates, known as the Downcounty Consortium (DCC) schools. The DCC high schools include Blair HS, Einstein HS, Kennedy HS, Northwood HS and Wheaton HS.

(…)

The idea to redistrict schools was proposed by the 41st Student Member of Board, Ananya Tadikonda. The issue of redistricting was brought to the Board of Education (BOE) during the 2018 summer and was officially added to their agenda Sept. 13, 2018. MCPS hired an external consultant to do a districtwide school boundary study Jan. 8. The results are expected by the spring of 2020. This will give MCPS more information about how the schools are districted now and what changes should be made. ….

https://rockvillerampage.com/14010/uncategorized/mcps-considers-possible-redistricting/

This is from the Rockville High School student newspaper. I will take MCPS’s word about this process over that of a 16 year old.

I don't see anything non-factual in there. If you do, please say what.

DP. Well, the final paragraph is misleading/incorrect on a few points. The SMOB's proposal wasn't "the idea to redistrict schools," it was the districtwide boundary assessment. MCPS hired a consultant not to do a "boundary study," which is an MCPS term with a specific meaning, but the boundary analysis. And the consultants were "hired" on August 29, not Jan. 8.

The date of January 8th is not entirely without the merit as presented in the student's paper.

According to the BM (link below) In January, the Board of Education passed a resolution to hire an external consultant to evaluate school boundaries. The actual hiring/ awarding contract to specific company in August was pure technicality. I doubt that the student paper
was misguiding on purpose. It is probably just furthering the information that has been provided.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-releases-outline-for-scope-of-countywide-school-boundary-analysis/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The date of January 8th is not entirely without the merit as presented in the student's paper.

According to the BM (link below) In January, the Board of Education passed a resolution to hire an external consultant to evaluate school boundaries. The actual hiring/ awarding contract to specific company in August was pure technicality. I doubt that the student paper
was misguiding on purpose. It is probably just furthering the information that has been provided.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-releases-outline-for-scope-of-countywide-school-boundary-analysis/

Awarding a contract is a "pure technicality"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a helpful site others have linked to before, but I thought it was worth revisiting. You can select Montgomery County to see a map of what it would look like if each neighborhood was assigned to the closest school (according to 2013 data):

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374/school-segregation-gerrymander-map

Thanks. I disagree with forced diversity, but the site does make a good case.

If you look at how some of the boundaries were drawn previously, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that some of the boundaries amounted to "forced segregation." Not all of them, but some of them. So, those boundaries might become a little more natural and at the same time address over/under utilization, which isn't "forced diversity" so much as a course correction.

Like which ones? Assuming the demographics at the time they were created?

[Anonymous]

What happened to the cliff note version of all of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where do they think much of their funding comes from?

Serious question. Do you think that local governments should make all decisions based on the criterion of whether or not it increases affluent property owners' assesed property values?

I think they should consider the fiscal impact any policy action has on their ability to continue providing the services they want to provide, yes. An eroding tax base means less financial capacity to provide services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where do they think much of their funding comes from?

Serious question. Do you think that local governments should make all decisions based on the criterion of whether or not it increases affluent property owners' assesed property values?

I think they should consider the fiscal impact any policy action has on their ability to continue providing the services they want to provide, yes. An eroding tax base means less financial capacity to provide services.

Somebody who thinks that the board of education should make decisions about school boundaries according to their effect on rich people's property values. Oh boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where do they think much of their funding comes from?

Serious question. Do you think that local governments should make all decisions based on the criterion of whether or not it increases affluent property owners' assesed property values?

I think they should consider the fiscal impact any policy action has on their ability to continue providing the services they want to provide, yes. An eroding tax base means less financial capacity to provide services.

Somebody who thinks that the board of education should make decisions about school boundaries according to their effect on rich people's property values. Oh boy.

The worse part is they believe keeping neighborhoods segregated helps their property value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a helpful site others have linked to before, but I thought it was worth revisiting. You can select Montgomery County to see a map of what it would look like if each neighborhood was assigned to the closest school (according to 2013 data):

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374/school-segregation-gerrymander-map

Thanks. I disagree with forced diversity, but the site does make a good case.

If you look at how some of the boundaries were drawn previously, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that some of the boundaries amounted to "forced segregation." Not all of them, but some of them. So, those boundaries might become a little more natural and at the same time address over/under utilization, which isn't "forced diversity" so much as a course correction.

Like which ones? Assuming the demographics at the time they were created?

The unusual shape of some of the W boundaries in the North Bethesda and Rockville areas looks especially suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where do they think much of their funding comes from?

Serious question. Do you think that local governments should make all decisions based on the criterion of whether or not it increases affluent property owners' assesed property values?

I think they should consider the fiscal impact any policy action has on their ability to continue providing the services they want to provide, yes. An eroding tax base means less financial capacity to provide services.

Somebody who thinks that the board of education should make decisions about school boundaries according to their effect on rich people's property values. Oh boy.

The worse part is they believe keeping neighborhoods segregated helps their property value.

You do understand that busing kids around to different schools will do nothing to change the composition of neighborhoods, right? For that, you need to undertake the much tougher task of getting the county to do something about affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You do understand that busing kids around to different schools will do nothing to change the composition of neighborhoods, right? For that, you need to undertake the much tougher task of getting the county to do something about affordable housing.

Kids are currently getting bused around to different schools.

Also, it is conventional wisdom that one important factor in real estate prices is the perceived goodness of the schools the neighborhood is assigned to. If you believe that's false, all the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You do understand that busing kids around to different schools will do nothing to change the composition of neighborhoods, right? For that, you need to undertake the much tougher task of getting the county to do something about affordable housing.

Kids are currently getting bused around to different schools.

Also, it is conventional wisdom that one important factor in real estate prices is the perceived goodness of the schools the neighborhood is assigned to. If you believe that's false, all the better.

Not disputing that kids are getting bused to different schools already. Let's just not make those commutes longer, and more expensive to pay for.

I agree one important factor in real estate prices is the perceived goodness of the schools in the neighborhood. I also believe that most people would prefer to attend their neighborhood school than to have their kid ride a bus for long periods of the day.

For the school officials to throw up their hands and essentially say they don't have the capability of making schools in poor neighborhoods better, while keeping them neighborhood schools, is a total cop-out, not to mention an indictment of the idea that the quality of teachers, educational supports and a good curriculum matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You do understand that busing kids around to different schools will do nothing to change the composition of neighborhoods, right? For that, you need to undertake the much tougher task of getting the county to do something about affordable housing.

Kids are currently getting bused around to different schools.

Also, it is conventional wisdom that one important factor in real estate prices is the perceived goodness of the schools the neighborhood is assigned to. If you believe that's false, all the better.

Not disputing that kids are getting bused to different schools already. Let's just not make those commutes longer, and more expensive to pay for.

I agree one important factor in real estate prices is the perceived goodness of the schools in the neighborhood. I also believe that most people would prefer to attend their neighborhood school than to have their kid ride a bus for long periods of the day.

For the school officials to throw up their hands and essentially say they don't have the capability of making schools in poor neighborhoods better, while keeping them neighborhood schools, is a total cop-out, not to mention an indictment of the idea that the quality of teachers, educational supports and a good curriculum matter.

Fortunately, nobody has done that.

People who want the potential for shorter school trips and more walk-to-school trips should, rationally, support the boundary analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You do understand that busing kids around to different schools will do nothing to change the composition of neighborhoods, right? For that, you need to undertake the much tougher task of getting the county to do something about affordable housing.

Kids are currently getting bused around to different schools.

Also, it is conventional wisdom that one important factor in real estate prices is the perceived goodness of the schools the neighborhood is assigned to. If you believe that's false, all the better.

Not disputing that kids are getting bused to different schools already. Let's just not make those commutes longer, and more expensive to pay for.

I agree one important factor in real estate prices is the perceived goodness of the schools in the neighborhood. I also believe that most people would prefer to attend their neighborhood school than to have their kid ride a bus for long periods of the day.

For the school officials to throw up their hands and essentially say they don't have the capability of making schools in poor neighborhoods better, while keeping them neighborhood schools, is a total cop-out, not to mention an indictment of the idea that the quality of teachers, educational supports and a good curriculum matter.

Fortunately, nobody has done that.

People who want the potential for shorter school trips and more walk-to-school trips should, rationally, support the boundary analysis.

but they should. Can we finally put to be the myth the school environment actually matters at all. It is almost entirely based on the education of the mother and the home environment.

So again why are we spending all this time on this when almost nothing will change

NO SCHOOL DISTRICT ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAS FIXED THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP. The biggest factor is the home environment period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

but they should. Can we finally put to be the myth the school environment actually matters at all. It is almost entirely based on the education of the mother and the home environment.

So again why are we spending all this time on this when almost nothing will change

NO SCHOOL DISTRICT ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAS FIXED THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP. The biggest factor is the home environment period.

If the outcome for a given kid is the same regardless of whether the kid is at a "good school" or a "bad school," then why are some parents who own property zoned for "good schools" fighting the boundary analysis so vociferously?

And don't tell me it's about long bus rides and neighborhood schools, because there already are lots of long bus rides and lots of kids zoned for farther-away schools. If that's what they were really objecting to, they'd want MCPS to change the boundaries, not maintain them.