Just IN!!!! Youtube video of Boundary Analysis Discussion / Board of Education Jan. 9, 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched most of it earlier today when it was live. Smondrowski came out how she's in favor of neighborhood schools more or less.

Silvestre asked a good question of Smith about why they added the "especially" bit to the FAA policy regarding diversity. Smith gave a long-winded answer which didn't really answer the question, and Silvestre didn't follow up on it.

O'Neill was getting mad at the supposed misinformation on Facebook groups, and almost seemed like she was calling for censorship.

Docca didn't say anything of value, but no surprise there.

Overall, no big revelations in my opinion. But the board didn't really acknowledge how so many people are up in arms about this, whether justified or not, and figure out how to address that. I'm not even sure _how_ they should address it, but bottom line is people on all sides are concerned, and they don't seem to be doing a very good job to allay those concerns.

but it turns out that's just a dog whistle for segregation since only 30% of kids are local to their assigned school

That's inaccurate.

37% of elementary school students
45% of middle school students
38% of high school students

are not assigned to their CLOSEST school (this excludes students who do not attend their base school, including magnet and choice programs).

Maybe we should start asking people who say they support "local schools" or "neighborhood schools" how they define those terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched most of it earlier today when it was live. Smondrowski came out how she's in favor of neighborhood schools more or less.

Silvestre asked a good question of Smith about why they added the "especially" bit to the FAA policy regarding diversity. Smith gave a long-winded answer which didn't really answer the question, and Silvestre didn't follow up on it.

O'Neill was getting mad at the supposed misinformation on Facebook groups, and almost seemed like she was calling for censorship.

Docca didn't say anything of value, but no surprise there.

Overall, no big revelations in my opinion. But the board didn't really acknowledge how so many people are up in arms about this, whether justified or not, and figure out how to address that. I'm not even sure _how_ they should address it, but bottom line is people on all sides are concerned, and they don't seem to be doing a very good job to allay those concerns.

but it turns out that's just a dog whistle for segregation since only 30% of kids are local to their assigned school

That's completely false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched most of it earlier today when it was live. Smondrowski came out how she's in favor of neighborhood schools more or less.

Silvestre asked a good question of Smith about why they added the "especially" bit to the FAA policy regarding diversity. Smith gave a long-winded answer which didn't really answer the question, and Silvestre didn't follow up on it.

O'Neill was getting mad at the supposed misinformation on Facebook groups, and almost seemed like she was calling for censorship.

Docca didn't say anything of value, but no surprise there.

Overall, no big revelations in my opinion. But the board didn't really acknowledge how so many people are up in arms about this, whether justified or not, and figure out how to address that. I'm not even sure _how_ they should address it, but bottom line is people on all sides are concerned, and they don't seem to be doing a very good job to allay those concerns.

but it turns out that's just a dog whistle for segregation since only 30% of kids are local to their assigned school

That's inaccurate.

37% of elementary school students
45% of middle school students
38% of high school students

are not assigned to their CLOSEST school (this excludes students who do not attend their base school, including magnet and choice programs).

Maybe we should start asking people who say they support "local schools" or "neighborhood schools" how they define those terms.

My kid went to Westbrook, and will go to BCC. Every single kid who is in Westbrook's zone is "closer" by a couple tenths of a mile to Whitman than BCC, and they'll all go to BCC.

This is a completely meaningless statistic, subject to misrepresentation by (i) people wishing to deceive and (ii) idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My kid went to Westbrook, and will go to BCC. Every single kid who is in Westbrook's zone is "closer" by a couple tenths of a mile to Whitman than BCC, and they'll all go to BCC.

This is a completely meaningless statistic, subject to misrepresentation by (i) people wishing to deceive and (ii) idiots.

How is it completely meaningless? If it helps them find ways to send more people to their closest schools, then why not include it? Obviously a couple tenths of a mile in this case isn't especially significant, but there are other examples with greater variances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched most of it earlier today when it was live. Smondrowski came out how she's in favor of neighborhood schools more or less.

Silvestre asked a good question of Smith about why they added the "especially" bit to the FAA policy regarding diversity. Smith gave a long-winded answer which didn't really answer the question, and Silvestre didn't follow up on it.

O'Neill was getting mad at the supposed misinformation on Facebook groups, and almost seemed like she was calling for censorship.

Docca didn't say anything of value, but no surprise there.

Overall, no big revelations in my opinion. But the board didn't really acknowledge how so many people are up in arms about this, whether justified or not, and figure out how to address that. I'm not even sure _how_ they should address it, but bottom line is people on all sides are concerned, and they don't seem to be doing a very good job to allay those concerns.

but it turns out that's just a dog whistle for segregation since only 30% of kids are local to their assigned school

That's inaccurate.

37% of elementary school students
45% of middle school students
38% of high school students

are not assigned to their CLOSEST school (this excludes students who do not attend their base school, including magnet and choice programs).

Maybe we should start asking people who say they support "local schools" or "neighborhood schools" how they define those terms.

My kid went to Westbrook, and will go to BCC. Every single kid who is in Westbrook's zone is "closer" by a couple tenths of a mile to Whitman than BCC, and they'll all go to BCC.

This is a completely meaningless statistic, subject to misrepresentation by (i) people wishing to deceive and (ii) idiots.

Why is it meaningless? The fact is that you are not assigned to your closest high school. This may or may not bother you, but it's a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid went to Westbrook, and will go to BCC. Every single kid who is in Westbrook's zone is "closer" by a couple tenths of a mile to Whitman than BCC, and they'll all go to BCC.

This is a completely meaningless statistic, subject to misrepresentation by (i) people wishing to deceive and (ii) idiots.

How is it completely meaningless? If it helps them find ways to send more people to their closest schools, then why not include it? Obviously a couple tenths of a mile in this case isn't especially significant, but there are other examples with greater variances.

And you don't know they'll go to BCC, because it's possible a future boundary study could reassign them. BCC is maxed out now, and Whitman's getting an addition.

[Anonymous]

They do prioritize walkability, and they did do this for Seneca Valley too. By definition doesn't that mean they prioritize neighborhood schools?

If you are not within walking distance to the school and take a bus, and then will take a bus the same/similar distance in a different direction, it shouldn't matter. That is not forced busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They do prioritize walkability, and they did do this for Seneca Valley too. By definition doesn't that mean they prioritize neighborhood schools?

If you are not within walking distance to the school and take a bus, and then will take a bus the same/similar distance in a different direction, it shouldn't matter. That is not forced busing.

+1. And then the utilization and demographics factors can be looked at to determine which of the non-walkable schools is the best choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid went to Westbrook, and will go to BCC. Every single kid who is in Westbrook's zone is "closer" by a couple tenths of a mile to Whitman than BCC, and they'll all go to BCC.

This is a completely meaningless statistic, subject to misrepresentation by (i) people wishing to deceive and (ii) idiots.

How is it completely meaningless? If it helps them find ways to send more people to their closest schools, then why not include it? Obviously a couple tenths of a mile in this case isn't especially significant, but there are other examples with greater variances.

It's meaningless because a significant amount of variation is built into the cluster system. We have decided, with limited exceptions, that it is good for kids who go to elementary school together to all go to middle school together, and then go to high school together. Therefore, a premium is *not* put on sending every kid to their closest school, it's with keeping groups together.

Add to this the fact that schools are built where the land is available, not in the geographic center of their sending areas, and the issue becomes obvious. (Or it should, at least.) Elementary-aged kids who live close to a boundary are likely to be closer to a school different than the one they attend. The number of them multiply for middle school, and even more so for high school. There's nothign nefarious about it, it's a function of geography and school placement.

But people who wish to inflame others use this stat as fodder for the "kids aren't going to their neighborhood schools!" nonsense, or to otherwise deceive the gullible among us (of which there are more than I'd expect.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid went to Westbrook, and will go to BCC. Every single kid who is in Westbrook's zone is "closer" by a couple tenths of a mile to Whitman than BCC, and they'll all go to BCC.

This is a completely meaningless statistic, subject to misrepresentation by (i) people wishing to deceive and (ii) idiots.

How is it completely meaningless? If it helps them find ways to send more people to their closest schools, then why not include it? Obviously a couple tenths of a mile in this case isn't especially significant, but there are other examples with greater variances.

It's meaningless because a significant amount of variation is built into the cluster system. We have decided, with limited exceptions, that it is good for kids who go to elementary school together to all go to middle school together, and then go to high school together. Therefore, a premium is *not* put on sending every kid to their closest school, it's with keeping groups together.

Add to this the fact that schools are built where the land is available, not in the geographic center of their sending areas, and the issue becomes obvious. (Or it should, at least.) Elementary-aged kids who live close to a boundary are likely to be closer to a school different than the one they attend. The number of them multiply for middle school, and even more so for high school. There's nothign nefarious about it, it's a function of geography and school placement.

But people who wish to inflame others use this stat as fodder for the "kids aren't going to their neighborhood schools!" nonsense, or to otherwise deceive the gullible among us (of which there are more than I'd expect.)

You should tell this to the people who insist that kids should go to their closest schools. That's who your audience is for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My kid went to Westbrook, and will go to BCC. Every single kid who is in Westbrook's zone is "closer" by a couple tenths of a mile to Whitman than BCC, and they'll all go to BCC.

This is a completely meaningless statistic, subject to misrepresentation by (i) people wishing to deceive and (ii) idiots.

How is it completely meaningless? If it helps them find ways to send more people to their closest schools, then why not include it? Obviously a couple tenths of a mile in this case isn't especially significant, but there are other examples with greater variances.

It's meaningless because a significant amount of variation is built into the cluster system. We have decided, with limited exceptions, that it is good for kids who go to elementary school together to all go to middle school together, and then go to high school together. Therefore, a premium is *not* put on sending every kid to their closest school, it's with keeping groups together.

Add to this the fact that schools are built where the land is available, not in the geographic center of their sending areas, and the issue becomes obvious. (Or it should, at least.) Elementary-aged kids who live close to a boundary are likely to be closer to a school different than the one they attend. The number of them multiply for middle school, and even more so for high school. There's nothign nefarious about it, it's a function of geography and school placement.

But people who wish to inflame others use this stat as fodder for the "kids aren't going to their neighborhood schools!" nonsense, or to otherwise deceive the gullible among us (of which there are more than I'd expect.)

You should tell this to the people who insist that kids should go to their closest schools. That's who your audience is for this.

Most of those people aren't acting in good faith, and aren't susceptible to logical arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's meaningless because a significant amount of variation is built into the cluster system. We have decided, with limited exceptions, that it is good for kids who go to elementary school together to all go to middle school together, and then go to high school together. Therefore, a premium is *not* put on sending every kid to their closest school, it's with keeping groups together.

But that's not the case--*we* have not decided that. The MCPS board/staff several decades ago decided that. This gives us an opportunity to reconsider that decision in the current environment, with current data.

[Anonymous]

It was comforting for me to hear the MCPS data gurus make their presentation about the analysis. (Yes, I’m a nerd.) More engagement like this would be great.

I like the way the SMOB and one of the Bd members pushed them to engage more with students and other groups, not just the same old groups who MCPS typically talks with (PTA etc). They represented their constituencies well.

Much better MCPS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's meaningless because a significant amount of variation is built into the cluster system. We have decided, with limited exceptions, that it is good for kids who go to elementary school together to all go to middle school together, and then go to high school together. Therefore, a premium is *not* put on sending every kid to their closest school, it's with keeping groups together.

But that's not the case--*we* have not decided that. The MCPS board/staff several decades ago decided that. This gives us an opportunity to reconsider that decision in the current environment, with current data.

We was used as the colloquial - "we" as in society. I realize that DCUM posters were not polled (thank goodness).

But, this is not just MD - this framework is used in the vast majority of schools in the country.

Also, you think we should reconsider? That school attendance should be purely a function of proximity, with no attention paid to overcrowding, feeder patterns, transportation difficulties, costs, etc?

Fantastic. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's meaningless because a significant amount of variation is built into the cluster system. We have decided, with limited exceptions, that it is good for kids who go to elementary school together to all go to middle school together, and then go to high school together. Therefore, a premium is *not* put on sending every kid to their closest school, it's with keeping groups together.

But that's not the case--*we* have not decided that. The MCPS board/staff several decades ago decided that. This gives us an opportunity to reconsider that decision in the current environment, with current data.

We was used as the colloquial - "we" as in society. I realize that DCUM posters were not polled (thank goodness).

But, this is not just MD - this framework is used in the vast majority of schools in the country.

Also, you think we should reconsider? That school attendance should be purely a function of proximity, with no attention paid to overcrowding, feeder patterns, transportation difficulties, costs, etc?

Fantastic. Good luck with that.

I think we should reconsider *with* attention to overcrowding, feeder patterns, transportation difficulties, costs, etc. I think the cluster lines are not as important as any of those things.