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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

It is really really hard, as a DCC parent, to hear folks oppose zoning more kids to B-CC because they are "right around" capacity. DCC schools and WJ have been far far over capacity for years. In the absence of any sort of moratorium on new developments, and in the absence of another downcounty HS, I think we need to accept that every single school will end up over capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Well yeah, I imagine that's why they included Whitman in the boundary study.

Since Woodlin has about double the FARMS rate of BCC it does seem like it would increase diversity there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

None of that matters because capacity is not a priority. Diversity is. So they will bus whomever they have to OUT of the DCC and bus IN BCC and WJ kids to make the DCC more diverse. If you don't like this, make sure you tell the BOE you don't want busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

None of that matters because capacity is not a priority. Diversity is. So they will bus whomever they have to OUT of the DCC and bus IN BCC and WJ kids to make the DCC more diverse. If you don't like this, make sure you tell the BOE you don't want busing.

Most people spew diversity as a talking point but capacity is the real issue with overcrowding. Einstein is overcrowded and has lots of portables. How is that ok when another school is at or under capacity and can absorb more students? They need to rezone all the schools to make them in capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Well yeah, I imagine that's why they included Whitman in the boundary study.

Since Woodlin has about double the FARMS rate of BCC it does seem like it would increase diversity there.

When they stop busing kids from South Kensington to BCC and assign them to a closer school it should free up more space at BCC and allow them to help with DCC overcrowding like Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Well yeah, I imagine that's why they included Whitman in the boundary study.

Since Woodlin has about double the FARMS rate of BCC it does seem like it would increase diversity there.

There it is sneakily phrased to not look selfish. The classic let’s move one of the lowest farms DCC schools from one of the richest silver spring neighborhood to BCC. Fighting racism, one fleeing affluent neighborhood at a time :roll:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Well yeah, I imagine that's why they included Whitman in the boundary study.

Since Woodlin has about double the FARMS rate of BCC it does seem like it would increase diversity there.

There it is sneakily phrased to not look selfish. The classic let’s move one of the lowest farms DCC schools from one of the richest silver spring neighborhood to BCC. Fighting racism, one fleeing affluent neighborhood at a time :roll:

Well this is what it looks like to balance diversity with proximity and capacity. All the factors have to be balanced. And the DCC schools are so vastly overcrowded, something has to give. Who cares if we make some rich people happy? If it matters to you, the wealthy BCC parents will be PISSED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Well yeah, I imagine that's why they included Whitman in the boundary study.

Since Woodlin has about double the FARMS rate of BCC it does seem like it would increase diversity there.

There it is sneakily phrased to not look selfish. The classic let’s move one of the lowest farms DCC schools from one of the richest silver spring neighborhood to BCC. Fighting racism, one fleeing affluent neighborhood at a time :roll:

Well this is what it looks like to balance diversity with proximity and capacity. All the factors have to be balanced. And the DCC schools are so vastly overcrowded, something has to give. Who cares if we make some rich people happy? If it matters to you, the wealthy BCC parents will be PISSED.

And just to add, my family is not zoned for Woodlin, we are zoned for Einstein and expect to either stay there or be rezoned to Northwood or Wheaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

None of that matters because capacity is not a priority. Diversity is. So they will bus whomever they have to OUT of the DCC and bus IN BCC and WJ kids to make the DCC more diverse. If you don't like this, make sure you tell the BOE you don't want busing.

Most people spew diversity as a talking point but capacity is the real issue with overcrowding. Einstein is overcrowded and has lots of portables. How is that ok when another school is at or under capacity and can absorb more students? They need to rezone all the schools to make them in capacity.

And when they rezone all the schools, they must especially strive to make the schools more diverse. This will require busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Well yeah, I imagine that's why they included Whitman in the boundary study.

Since Woodlin has about double the FARMS rate of BCC it does seem like it would increase diversity there.

When they stop busing kids from South Kensington to BCC and assign them to a closer school it should free up more space at BCC and allow them to help with DCC overcrowding like Einstein.

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. So your example isn't busing. It's bad but it's not busing. You're just trying to confuse people with the hope that they won't oppose actual busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Woodside has been looking opportunistically and coming up with convoluted arguments to go to BCC for a generation or two. It burns their craw that the nicest neighborhood goes to the worst HS. While nearby Rosemary Hills goes to school with kids from Bethesda & Chevy Chase. It would literally at a third to their already high (for silver spring) home values.

The new crop of parents think they are cleaver with fresh thinking but it is just the same rebranded pleas as the previous decades. Luckily no one listens to them and it will never happen. No matter the redistricting conversation, someone always finds the chutzpah to add to the debate…. “You know what will help poor blacks and latinos…. Sending the upper middle class white kids from woodlin away from Einstein to BCC”. I mean, credit for doing it with a straight face

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Well yeah, I imagine that's why they included Whitman in the boundary study.

Since Woodlin has about double the FARMS rate of BCC it does seem like it would increase diversity there.

When they stop busing kids from South Kensington to BCC and assign them to a closer school it should free up more space at BCC and allow them to help with DCC overcrowding like Einstein.

The closer school to South Kensington other than B-CC is Einstein which is overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

Typical progressive strawman. No on ever say Kennedy to Whitman would happen. But what WILL happen is a lot more kids from WJ bused to Einstein and vic versa. Now should SOME of those kid be moved for proximity reasons? Sure. Could that have been done if they prioritized proximity? Absolutely. But they didn't. They prioritized diversity so they could start busing.

WTF are they supposed to fit more kids at Einstein? You clearly aren't familiar with the school, it's already overcrowded. Maybe one ES feeder will get sent toWoodward. I think what's equally likely to happen is that DCC boundaries will shift slightly and some parts currently in the Einstein boundary (and maybe Blair) will shift to Northwood.

Imagine that there is a boundary study about to be conducted where they will move a lot of kids out of Einstein to schools like WJ, BCC, and Woodward and fills some of those seats with kids from WJ and BCC. This satisfies the diversity mandate and the capacity factor. It makes proximity worse but that's not as high a factor as diversity.

That makes no sense since the DCC schools are so overcrowded. If they are brave, they will move Woodlin ES, which is far from Einstein, to BCC,.and KPES, which is close.to Einstein,.to Einstein. Then they will move one, maybe two Einstein feeders, such as Flora Singer or Highland, to Northwood or Wheaton, and move one, maybe two Wheaton feeders, such as Viers Mill and Wheaton Woods,.to Woodward and/or WJ. Maybe they will.make BCC, WJ and Woodward part of the DCC, so anyone who doesn't want to travel there will can choose another school, but anyone zoned for those.schools.is still.guaranteed a spot there.

This plan does actually seem like it makes sense. Wonder if they will be brave enough to do it.

DP- I think a couple of these things could happen, but not all. I can't see them moving Woodlin out of the DCC, for example, you can't even make the proximity argument because BCC is about as far. Some of the lower county ESs aren't close to any of the HSs which doesn't lend it self to any easy answers- what's really needed is another HS in the TP/SS area but obviously that's not happening. But I think it's likely a couple DCC feeders will get sent to Woodward (and proximity-wise Viers Mill or Wheaton Woods may make sense) and then they'll try to balance the enrollments in the DCC where possible.

You can make the capacity argument if there is capacity in BCC/Whitman. Schools don't grow on trees, we have to use the capacity we have. It would also increase diversity in BCC.

BCC is right around capacity already, so if you're going to add an ES I guess you'd have to shift another to Whitman? The diversity for Woodlin and BCC is not as different you'd think, because Woodlin is probably the most affluent ES in the Einstein cluster.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04406.pdf
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02764.pdf

Woodside has been looking opportunistically and coming up with convoluted arguments to go to BCC for a generation or two. It burns their craw that the nicest neighborhood goes to the worst HS. While nearby Rosemary Hills goes to school with kids from Bethesda & Chevy Chase. It would literally at a third to their already high (for silver spring) home values.

The new crop of parents think they are cleaver with fresh thinking but it is just the same rebranded pleas as the previous decades. Luckily no one listens to them and it will never happen. No matter the redistricting conversation, someone always finds the chutzpah to add to the debate…. “You know what will help poor blacks and latinos…. Sending the upper middle class white kids from woodlin away from Einstein to BCC”. I mean, credit for doing it with a straight face

Again, I'm not a Woodlin-zoned family.

Based on the fact that the only argument you have against sending Woodlin to BCC is your animus towards wealthy families in Woodside, it sounds like you think my plan makes sense. You just don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Woodside has been looking opportunistically and coming up with convoluted arguments to go to BCC for a generation or two. It burns their craw that the nicest neighborhood goes to the worst HS. While nearby Rosemary Hills goes to school with kids from Bethesda & Chevy Chase. It would literally at a third to their already high (for silver spring) home values.

This is a weird thing to say. People love Einstein. It is smaller than other MCPS high schools, has a very strong administration, and the visual and performing arts focus brings in some nice kids from the entire DCC. It's absolutely not "the worst HS" and in fact is the first choice for many families in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Woodside has been looking opportunistically and coming up with convoluted arguments to go to BCC for a generation or two. It burns their craw that the nicest neighborhood goes to the worst HS. While nearby Rosemary Hills goes to school with kids from Bethesda & Chevy Chase. It would literally at a third to their already high (for silver spring) home values.

This is a weird thing to say. People love Einstein. It is smaller than other MCPS high schools, has a very strong administration, and the visual and performing arts focus brings in some nice kids from the entire DCC. It's absolutely not "the worst HS" and in fact is the first choice for many families in the area.

Funny I can’t think of a less desirable high school with the exception of Kennedy.