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

[Anonymous]

The other problem with using Asians as a comparison group is that they account for only 7% of students at Einstein. Not a large group and they likely have very different socioeconomic backgrounds than those at WJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with similar demographics do similarly. Further, the test is known to be broken and State scores are even lower than Montgomery county scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 86.4% of Asian students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 84.8% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 44.8% scored proficient in Math, and 76.7% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 87.5% and 90.3%.

Love the cherry picking of the data. Very clever. Asians as a demographic group are extremely diverse and have the largest levels of income inequality compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

Let's compare White test scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 72.8 % of White students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 82.5% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 64.2% scored proficient in Math, and 91.0% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 82.0% and 91.7%.

So White Walter Johnson students did a little better in math and a little worse in Language Arts compared with Einstein. Not really worth the housing price premium if you ask me. Whitman students did better than both in math. My guess is that is less about the school and more about the tutoring those families get for their kids.

Seems to be a better sample but I'd still be skeptical of using MCAP as a metric given that it is still very new and unproven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with similar demographics do similarly. Further, the test is known to be broken and State scores are even lower than Montgomery county scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 86.4% of Asian students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 84.8% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 44.8% scored proficient in Math, and 76.7% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 87.5% and 90.3%.

Love the cherry picking of the data. Very clever. Asians as a demographic group are extremely diverse and have the largest levels of income inequality compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

Let's compare White test scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 72.8 % of White students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 82.5% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 64.2% scored proficient in Math, and 91.0% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 82.0% and 91.7%.

So White Walter Johnson students did a little better in math and a little worse in Language Arts compared with Einstein. Not really worth the housing price premium if you ask me. Whitman students did better than both in math. My guess is that is less about the school and more about the tutoring those families get for their kids.

But not getting shanked in school IS really worth the housing price premium [of WJno er Einstein].

Oh I get it, this is because all of the "gang" activity at Einstein.

In 2021-22 there was one "attack", two "fighting" incidents, two "weapons" incidents, and zero serious injuries at Einstein. At Walter Johnson, there were five "attacks", 17 "fighting" incidents and five "weapons" incidents (no serious injuries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with similar demographics do similarly. Further, the test is known to be broken and State scores are even lower than Montgomery county scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 86.4% of Asian students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 84.8% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 44.8% scored proficient in Math, and 76.7% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 87.5% and 90.3%.

Love the cherry picking of the data. Very clever. Asians as a demographic group are extremely diverse and have the largest levels of income inequality compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

Let's compare White test scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 72.8 % of White students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 82.5% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 64.2% scored proficient in Math, and 91.0% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 82.0% and 91.7%.

So White Walter Johnson students did a little better in math and a little worse in Language Arts compared with Einstein. Not really worth the housing price premium if you ask me. Whitman students did better than both in math. My guess is that is less about the school and more about the tutoring those families get for their kids.

But not getting shanked in school IS really worth the housing price premium [of WJno er Einstein].

Oh I get it, this is because all of the "gang" activity at Einstein.

In 2021-22 there was one "attack", two "fighting" incidents, two "weapons" incidents, and zero serious injuries at Einstein. At Walter Johnson, there were five "attacks", 17 "fighting" incidents and five "weapons" incidents (no serious injuries).

Yes, all the fictional gang activity is a serious concern even though there are no documented incidents for well over a decade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids with similar demographics do similarly. Further, the test is known to be broken and State scores are even lower than Montgomery county scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 86.4% of Asian students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 84.8% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 44.8% scored proficient in Math, and 76.7% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 87.5% and 90.3%.

Love the cherry picking of the data. Very clever. Asians as a demographic group are extremely diverse and have the largest levels of income inequality compared with other racial/ethnic groups.

Let's compare White test scores.

In 2021 - 2022, 72.8 % of White students at WJ scored proficient in Math and 82.5% in Language Arts. At Einstein during that same time period, 64.2% scored proficient in Math, and 91.0% in Language Arts. At Whitman, 82.0% and 91.7%.

So White Walter Johnson students did a little better in math and a little worse in Language Arts compared with Einstein. Not really worth the housing price premium if you ask me. Whitman students did better than both in math. My guess is that is less about the school and more about the tutoring those families get for their kids.

But not getting shanked in school IS really worth the housing price premium [of WJno er Einstein].

I keep reading about kids with guns at WJ and some with knives at Whitman and Churchill. Seems like Einstein is a lot safer these days.

[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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to 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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to 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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

[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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

Why would they "need to"?

[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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

Sure, from walk zone of School A to walk zone of School B.

[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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

I don’t think they need to re-zone walkers at all. They may end up with split-articulations as a result, but I do think they will focus on keeping walkers walkers simply because the county doesn’t have the buses needed to turn “a lot” of walkers into bus riders.

[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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

Why would they "need to"?

Because there are a lot of walkers in the DCC and a lot of overcrowding and it's not practical to only rezone the non-walkers. Woodlin should obviously be rezoned to BCC, but if you do that by itself you're increasing segregation, so you have to swap KPES in and take another school out. You can't send Flora Singer to Woodward, for example, that's ridiculous. You can maybe send it to Northwood? But then how do you alleviate the overcrowding at Blair?

[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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

Sure, from walk zone of School A to walk zone of School B.

Yes, this is entirely possible, but I don’t think there will be a lot of walkers turned into bus riders.

[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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

I don’t think they need to re-zone walkers at all. They may end up with split-articulations as a result, but I do think they will focus on keeping walkers walkers simply because the county doesn’t have the buses needed to turn “a lot” of walkers into bus riders.

+1. This is the one thing that can be counted on.

[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:

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.

Was the Beach Drive closure part of the rationale here? We used to live right across the street from KP and driving out Beach Drive to Grosvenor made WJ a lot faster than Einstein would be.

Beach Drive is open during the week. I hope they don't move KP to Einstein but they might. I mostly hope they don't because my kid will start at WJ and then have to move and that sucks.

The diversity bus is definitely coming for you. Sorry. But east county progressives painted a target over Kensington years ago and constantly point to it as the reason they want busing.

In the case of Kensington it’s not the diversity bus so much as it would be re-zoning kids to the school closest to where they live.

Most of the other side of the tracks are closer to Einstein. It really depends on what part of Kensington for WJ. Einstein has no room to take on more Kensington kids.

They'll make room by busing poor kids OUT of Einstein.

Let’s call a spade a spade, if Highland is moved out of Einstein it drastically changes the school’s demographics. An Einstein composed of OTES, Rock View, Flora Singer and Parkwood is a completely different school.

If they are bold they will send OTES to Wheaton.

A good bit of it is walkable to Einstein.

Yes, you've posted this obvious point many times before. They will need to rezone a lot of "walkers" as part of this boundary study.

Why would they "need to"?

Because there are a lot of walkers in the DCC and a lot of overcrowding and it's not practical to only rezone the non-walkers. Woodlin should obviously be rezoned to BCC, but if you do that by itself you're increasing segregation, so you have to swap KPES in and take another school out. You can't send Flora Singer to Woodward, for example, that's ridiculous. You can maybe send it to Northwood? But then how do you alleviate the overcrowding at Blair?

To make your point about there being a lot of walkers in the DCC you actually just named 2 DCC schools that have no walkers. From MCPSs perspective Woodlin and Singer are more easily re-zoned because all of those kids are on buses anyway.