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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
And Eastern is a middle school. But you aren't interested in facts.
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.
Thanks! I did not see that info in connection with Crown, but especially now with the Woodward and Crown studies coinciding, it would be an odd omission.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
And Eastern is a middle school. But you aren't interested in facts.
I don't keep track of the school on the east side of the county. Perhaps you or whomever mentioned it first should be less lazy and add middle school after it. But my point still stands. These are all, for the most part, high farms schools. So shuffling a few kids would make much of a diversity impact as say swapping WJ and Einstein kids. And Darnestown isn't high farms but it's so ridiculously far from other schools that they just couldn't justify busing there. This boundary study has everything pro-busers want. Its massive, involves high schools, and involves several W schools.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
Yes and there was a good bit of busing done in that study.
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?
Look, everyone likes schools close to home and stability. But just take a look at the maps and you can see there are many areas not at all close to their assigned schools, and those students already ride the bus. These areas may be equidistant or even closer to another school or two. With so many schools being overcapacity, it makes perfect sense to consider changing these already-bused students' assigned schools. And part of that consideration will be the effect on the diversity of the resulting student body. If they can make two adjacent schools less disparate demographically, they will. That's all this is.
I'll put you down for "wants busing."
How utterly simplistic of you. I guess that makes you, well, simple.
You DO want more diversity don't you?
I seem to recall the appropriate playground response is "I know your are but what am I?" Yeesh.
It's a legitimate question. We cann't have racially balanced schools without busing. So which is it: busing or no busing?
We can't really have any schools without busing. Most students in MCPS either do not live within walking distance of their schools, or do not have a safe walking route to school. Thus, busing. The alternative to busing would be lots and lots more cars, and lots and lots more parents' time wasted, in the drop-off and pick-up lines. Busing is better.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
And Eastern is a middle school. But you aren't interested in facts.
I don't keep track of the school on the east side of the county. Perhaps you or whomever mentioned it first should be less lazy and add middle school after it. But my point still stands. These are all, for the most part, high farms schools. So shuffling a few kids would make much of a diversity impact as say swapping WJ and Einstein kids. And Darnestown isn't high farms but it's so ridiculously far from other schools that they just couldn't justify busing there. This boundary study has everything pro-busers want. Its massive, involves high schools, and involves several W schools.
In other words proximity and stability were prioritized above diversity.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
And Eastern is a middle school. But you aren't interested in facts.
I don't keep track of the school on the east side of the county. Perhaps you or whomever mentioned it first should be less lazy and add middle school after it. But my point still stands. These are all, for the most part, high farms schools. So shuffling a few kids would make much of a diversity impact as say swapping WJ and Einstein kids. And Darnestown isn't high farms but it's so ridiculously far from other schools that they just couldn't justify busing there. This boundary study has everything pro-busers want. Its massive, involves high schools, and involves several W schools.
Good! These 40-year-old boundaries that were a product of redlining are not only inefficient but out of step with our values. Their time has come!
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
And Eastern is a middle school. But you aren't interested in facts.
I don't keep track of the school on the east side of the county. Perhaps you or whomever mentioned it first should be less lazy and add middle school after it. But my point still stands. These are all, for the most part, high farms schools. So shuffling a few kids would make much of a diversity impact as say swapping WJ and Einstein kids. And Darnestown isn't high farms but it's so ridiculously far from other schools that they just couldn't justify busing there. This boundary study has everything pro-busers want. Its massive, involves high schools, and involves several W schools.
In other words proximity and stability were prioritized above diversity.
by a small minority but voters prioritize diversity
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
There are so many opportunities to improve diversity and reduce busing just by eliminating the decades old gerrymandered boundaries setup to segregate the rich and poor.
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?
Look, everyone likes schools close to home and stability. But just take a look at the maps and you can see there are many areas not at all close to their assigned schools, and those students already ride the bus. These areas may be equidistant or even closer to another school or two. With so many schools being overcapacity, it makes perfect sense to consider changing these already-bused students' assigned schools. And part of that consideration will be the effect on the diversity of the resulting student body. If they can make two adjacent schools less disparate demographically, they will. That's all this is.
I'll put you down for "wants busing."
How utterly simplistic of you. I guess that makes you, well, simple.
You DO want more diversity don't you?
I seem to recall the appropriate playground response is "I know your are but what am I?" Yeesh.
It's a legitimate question. We cann't have racially balanced schools without busing. So which is it: busing or no busing?
We can't really have any schools without busing. Most students in MCPS either do not live within walking distance of their schools, or do not have a safe walking route to school. Thus, busing. The alternative to busing would be lots and lots more cars, and lots and lots more parents' time wasted, in the drop-off and pick-up lines. Busing is better.
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
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
And Eastern is a middle school. But you aren't interested in facts.
I don't keep track of the school on the east side of the county. Perhaps you or whomever mentioned it first should be less lazy and add middle school after it. But my point still stands. These are all, for the most part, high farms schools. So shuffling a few kids would make much of a diversity impact as say swapping WJ and Einstein kids. And Darnestown isn't high farms but it's so ridiculously far from other schools that they just couldn't justify busing there. This boundary study has everything pro-busers want. Its massive, involves high schools, and involves several W schools.
In other words proximity and stability were prioritized above diversity.
There IS a distance threshold over which MCPS probably won't go. That doesn't exist in this study or the Crown study. There will be a lot of kids bused farther from home due to this.
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.
At the ballot box mainly they keep electing a board that prioritizes diversity. The people have been heard!
Cry havoc and let slip the diversity busses or desegregation!
And yet the voters keep reelecting Board members that actually use all four factors regardless of any policy statements.
There hasn't been an opportunity to do busing since the policy was altered to prioritize diversity. The Woodward study will involve 7 or 8 high schools. The Crown study will involve almost as many. That's a lot of opportunity for busing that the BOE won't be able to pass up.
What are you even talking about? Of course there have been opportunities to "do busing" in every recent boundary study. They could have bused kids from Laytonsville to Harriet Tubman to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Forest Knolls to Eastern to prioritize diversity, but they didn't. They could have bused kids from Darnestown to Seneca Valley to prioritize diversity, but they didn't.
Face the fact that the policy isn't doing all those terrible, horrible things you feared it would.
None of those involved W schools which were the original target for busing. During a BOE meeting in 2018, several board members commented that W school kids would have to move. Now it's finally time for W school boundary studies and they can do the busing they've been waiting 5 years to do.
Moving the goalposts yet again.
False. The areas you mentioned are all high farms. W schools are low Farms. It's apples and oranges.
So ignorant. No, Laytonsville, Forest Knolls, and Darnestown are not "high farms." They are all lower than the average FARMS rate, and all were part of recent boundary studies in which they could have been reassigned to higher FARMS schools, but were not, because other factors were prioritized higher than diversity.
LOL. 2 of the 3 of those have Farms rates in the high 30s. That's high farms. A school starts going sideways at 20%. That's the main reason W school parents don't want busing. We don't want your problems.
And what I said earlier is true about scale. The studies you mentioned are all small ES studies. These two (incl Crown) will be massive and will include high schools where busing is more likely to happen.
Seneca Valley is a high school, in case you were not aware.
And Eastern is a middle school. But you aren't interested in facts.
I don't keep track of the school on the east side of the county. Perhaps you or whomever mentioned it first should be less lazy and add middle school after it. But my point still stands. These are all, for the most part, high farms schools. So shuffling a few kids would make much of a diversity impact as say swapping WJ and Einstein kids. And Darnestown isn't high farms but it's so ridiculously far from other schools that they just couldn't justify busing there. This boundary study has everything pro-busers want. Its massive, involves high schools, and involves several W schools.
Good! These 40-year-old boundaries that were a product of redlining are not only inefficient but out of step with our values. Their time has come!
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
