Is busing really an option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Busing already happens in MoCo schools. I live in the DCC-- zoned to Einstein in Kensington. Kids are bused all over the DCC for High School.

Kids who live in town of Kensington (less than a mile to Einstein and Newport Mill MS) are bused to WJ and NBMS.

Until the past two years, kids were bused from Silver Spring over to Westland MS and they are still bused to BCC HS.

Busing is absolutely going on (and has been going on for years). Now they are looking at redrawing boundary lines again. I think it is a good thing.

I know there has been bussing here for decades so nothing new. Reality is the boundaries need to be adjusted. Many of them are currently very wacky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

But the PP is saying that if you change the boundaries to create an island within what is now Kennedy's district that goes to Churchill, and an island within what is now Churchill that gets bussed to Kennedy, then that would not be "bussing" because it's just changing boundaries. But if you leave the boundaries where they are and create a program where certain students go to a different school without changing the boundary then it is "bussing"? That seems odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

But the PP is saying that if you change the boundaries to create an island within what is now Kennedy's district that goes to Churchill, and an island within what is now Churchill that gets bussed to Kennedy, then that would not be "bussing" because it's just changing boundaries. But if you leave the boundaries where they are and create a program where certain students go to a different school without changing the boundary then it is "bussing"? That seems odd.

NP. It doesn't matter if you call that busing or not. Whatever that Churchill-Kennedy scenario you mention is isn't on the table. They are looking at adjusting boundaries within clusters and with adjacent clusters. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

But the PP is saying that if you change the boundaries to create an island within what is now Kennedy's district that goes to Churchill, and an island within what is now Churchill that gets bussed to Kennedy, then that would not be "bussing" because it's just changing boundaries. But if you leave the boundaries where they are and create a program where certain students go to a different school without changing the boundary then it is "bussing"? That seems odd.

Not the PP, but they aren't going to create "islands" and bus kids across the county for starters.

Second, yes, words have meaning. Redistricting (which PP linked to) is changing school attendance zones based on a variety of factors. Busing is leaving attendance zones as they are, and moving kids between attendance zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

But the PP is saying that if you change the boundaries to create an island within what is now Kennedy's district that goes to Churchill, and an island within what is now Churchill that gets bussed to Kennedy, then that would not be "bussing" because it's just changing boundaries. But if you leave the boundaries where they are and create a program where certain students go to a different school without changing the boundary then it is "bussing"? That seems odd.

Busing is desegregation - plain and simple.

You can accomplish this in many ways: through rezoning (boundary changes), through test-in or opt-in magnet programs (or special programs), through school "choice," and through charters. Blair MAGNET was created to desegregate. However, it simply created a school w/in a school, which is essentially what happens with most special programs. So the schools were desegregated on paper only b/c the statistics look "good."

These are just PC methods for trying to balance out demographics and SES.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

But the PP is saying that if you change the boundaries to create an island within what is now Kennedy's district that goes to Churchill, and an island within what is now Churchill that gets bussed to Kennedy, then that would not be "bussing" because it's just changing boundaries. But if you leave the boundaries where they are and create a program where certain students go to a different school without changing the boundary then it is "bussing"? That seems odd.

NP. It doesn't matter if you call that busing or not. Whatever that Churchill-Kennedy scenario you mention is isn't on the table. They are looking at adjusting boundaries within clusters and with adjacent clusters. That's all.

This cannot possibly be the answer, PP. If you look at the DCC and NEC, these schools are majority minority - and these grouped clusters are based on choice. Nothing changes in other words.

same said for the "W" clusters - What's the point?

Now, one of the maps had Magruder and Sherwood marked by the same color. Demographics are different despite fairly close proximity to each other. If they adjust boundaries - or allow for "choice" - it will not go over well in the Sherwood community. Sherwood, if any of you remember, refused to participate in the NEC; parents were in an uproar. As a result, it "acquired" an ESOL program to change the demographics on paper.

It's all a game. The middle of the road schools will be participants, as the extreme ends (high minority, high white) will remain untouched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

It is clearly not clearly defined.

[Anonymous]

OK call it whatever you want -- yes there will be boundary changes. My opinion is they will not be radical - but feel free to worry about that if you like.

[Anonymous]

I do think that it is worth defining terms, and I am not aware of a clearly defined political/educational definition of "bussing." I think most of the court-ordered desegregation plans in the 70s and 80s were colloquially known as "bussing" but I don't know how the specific features of those plans would map onto current options or plans.

Perhaps "bussing" is just not a very useful term for this conversation at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Historically, busing as an integration strategy means sending poor and/or minority kids outside of their assigned in-boundary school. So, I would argue what you describe is not busing. What you describe is a form of gerrymandering boundary lines to change the demographics of a school.

Semantics. First define busing as something MCPS doesn't do, and then say that MCPS doesn't have busing.

Similarly, I could define gerrymandering as something that only applies to voting districts and then say that MCPS doesn't have gerrymandering.

It's not semantics-- busing is clearly defined in political and educational discourse. Vocabulary does matter if you are trying to argue for OR against a policy. And I said a form of gerrymandering. The discussion would be more productive if people describe what it actually happening and what could happen. As a PP argued, busing is sending a kid from Kennedy to a W school and vice versa.

But the PP is saying that if you change the boundaries to create an island within what is now Kennedy's district that goes to Churchill, and an island within what is now Churchill that gets bussed to Kennedy, then that would not be "bussing" because it's just changing boundaries. But if you leave the boundaries where they are and create a program where certain students go to a different school without changing the boundary then it is "bussing"? That seems odd.

NP. It doesn't matter if you call that busing or not. Whatever that Churchill-Kennedy scenario you mention is isn't on the table. They are looking at adjusting boundaries within clusters and with adjacent clusters. That's all.

This cannot possibly be the answer, PP. If you look at the DCC and NEC, these schools are majority minority - and these grouped clusters are based on choice. Nothing changes in other words.

same said for the "W" clusters - What's the point?

Now, one of the maps had Magruder and Sherwood marked by the same color. Demographics are different despite fairly close proximity to each other. If they adjust boundaries - or allow for "choice" - it will not go over well in the Sherwood community. Sherwood, if any of you remember, refused to participate in the NEC; parents were in an uproar. As a result, it "acquired" an ESOL program to change the demographics on paper.

It's all a game. The middle of the road schools will be participants, as the extreme ends (high minority, high white) will remain untouched.

Well, if you read the RFP and read several of the documents linked within, including Policy FAA, that is what it says. I agree that schools in the central part of the county, BCC, Einstein, Wheaton, WJ/Woodward, RM, Rockville, QO, Wootton, Gaithersburg are the areas most likely to change. But the other areas could see boundary changes too, just with fewer shifts in demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this discussion about the RFP coming out for the boundary study and now the sound bites out there between Biden and Harris about busing policies in the 70s and 80s, do you really think busing is a practical solution to the MCPS achievement gap? I just don't see busing as a solution that will have us all living happily ever after. And as Biden said, it would be a "bankrupt policy." I am not as concerned about boundary changes, but I know others are. As long as students don't have to have ridiculously long commutes, I don't see it as much of an issue. But I also don't see the boundary changes (without busing) making much of an impact. A perfect example are some of the coveted W boundaries, which if changed, would not really change much of the racial landscape within the schools. We live in the Churchill district, and moving boundaries will not make much of an impact...we border other W districts, so there's that. What a waste of money.

I think Churchill and Whitman are going to be the least likely to have boundary changes that result in any significant demographic shifts, just because of their geography. Other clusters have more options for redrawing lines that would make any sense. No one on the BOE was advocating for busing students long distances from their homes.

Correct. The only proposal on the table is to adjust school boundaries to address a variety of issues, including over/under utilization in adjoining attendance zones AND increasing integration.

Busing is not on the table, and has never been on the table.

really?

2011 - https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/about/redistricting.aspx

Are you new to the county?

Did you read the page you linked to? That page is about the *election districts* for each BOE member and how those lines are drawn. It has nothing to do with school boundaries or rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in the Churchill district, and moving boundaries will not make much of an impact..

Sure it will... for example, rezone Twinbrook ES to Churchill (not a long ride at all) and check how much the demographics would change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Churchill and Whitman are going to be the least likely to have boundary changes that result in any significant demographic shifts, just because of their geography. Other clusters have more options for redrawing lines that would make any sense. No one on the BOE was advocating for busing students long distances from their homes.

Churchill borders the RM cluster, so some change could and should happen there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in the Churchill district, and moving boundaries will not make much of an impact..

Sure it will... for example, rezone Twinbrook ES to Churchill (not a long ride at all) and check how much the demographics would change.

Most of Twinbrook ES is in the Richard Montgomery HS walk zone.

Someone on DCUM has an idee fixe about this, and I'm guessing they don't live in Twinbrook.