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 w
hat 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.
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}