Is Einstein getting totally screwed in the boundary and program study proposals?

[Anonymous]

Every time there are boundary proposals in the suburbs the liberals get all bent out of shape over proposals that would increase the FARMS rates at their schools by more than a percentage point or two.

You claim to love diversity but you sure don’t act like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every time there are boundary proposals in the suburbs the liberals get all bent out of shape over proposals that would increase the FARMS rates at their schools by more than a percentage point or two.

You claim to love diversity but you sure don’t act like it.

It's part of the policy to try to reduce disparities between schools on demographic criteria. This does the opposite.

[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:They should have the same strong offerings at every school. Having speciality programs at different schools is silly if students don’t get school choose and each school doesn’t have equal strong offerings. Taylor and the BOE clearly ditched equity and student needs. How many kids want a teacher academy. They reduced the current program a few years ago. How about a poll asking parents, teachers and students what they want at these schools. People are going to bail from Einstein if they can and either move or go private. It and Kennedy will be the weak links.

+1

The DCC is what keeps wealthier kids in public schools. DH and I have just discussed upping our 529 contributions so we can afford private if need be.

Having a standardized base of strong offerings at all schools is part of the plan. Funny how most people are not asking questions or focused on that piece.

We don't buy it because MCPS has caveated it with saying they will offer courses "if there is interest" which is a circular way of saying they won't actually offer that strong base or will have it be virtual in the lower income schools, which will lead wealthy families to flee public schools.

The more comfortable families will leave Einstein and the FARM rate will likely rise. The school gained students for its VAPA program, but many academically strong students now choose magnets or lottery into Blair or Wheaton due to Einstein's limited advanced course offerings. The principal claims there's no demand for higher-level classes, but demand is low because the classes aren't offered. Students are often pushed through AB, BC, then Stats, with no alternatives. MCPS offers no virtual high school math options and has no plans to. Students are left with three choices: take what is available, drive their kids to another school, or to Montgomery College for the classes they need. There is no excuse for MCPS not providing enough math to meet graduation requirements. The minimum at each school should be MVC as then students can take Statistics after MVC if they need an extra math class.

DP - I think you’re overstating how many families will leave Einstein (and how many inbounds kids currently choose Blair or Wheaton). There are a lot of highly educated parents here (e.g., Feds and academics with PhDs) who don’t necessarily have the money to shell out for private nor to move. And a lot of us who are willing to work to improve our school, inasmuch as it needs improving. I don’t love the proposed changes, but they’re not untenable with some modifications along the lines of what people have proposed.

If MVC is the minimum, most high schools shouldn’t go much farther than that. It’s *high school*. We’d be better served by pushing the BOE hard on offering robust programs at all schools, i.e., increasing parity, than arguing for super advanced classes.

There are a bunch of $1 million+ houses being sold in the Einstein area. If MCPS isn't offering a decent set of courses for smart (but not "gifted") college bound kids, some of those students will certainly leave the system. Not all of them, but it creates a vicious cycle.

Many of the rebuilds are going for 1-2 million. Minimum house now is $550-600K for a 800 square foot one level fixer upper.

Many of the kids go to Blair or Wheaton who are more advanced.

But without the DCC they don't have a choice of Blair. What is my STEM talented but not magnet talented kid supposed to go? If we were in an other HS district she would get more choice. Why is her educational opportunity curtailed because I can't afford a $1.5M house elsewhere.

Won't all high schools be required to offer AP Bio, Chem, Phys and AP Calc BC and Stats?

Jesus. You really don't understand, do you? Most stem oriented kids today want to go beyond BC Calc in HS. They want to take MVC, which Einstein does not offer, whereas other MCPS schools do.

We made the mistake of sending our STEM-oriented older child to Einstein inbounds. The math and science SUCKED. He has struggled in college trying to major in a STEM subject.

Based on that we knew to send our younger son to Wheaton. He did not get into the magnet engineering program, but thanks to the Wheaton engineering academy, he was able to take multivariable calculus, six engineering courses, etc., with the teachers who also taught in the magnet and who were fantastic teachers.

Compare that to my kid at Einstein, who had the same terrible math teacher for a year and a half, was only able to take BC Calc senior year AND was stuck with NO TEACHER for the first couple months of Calculus. They had to teach themselves from PPT! It was absurd.

Thanks god we were able to send our younger kid to Wheaton.

So they have trouble hiring teachers for standard HS math courses but want to stand up in the next 24 months a ton of new special programs that require specialized expertise to teach?

Mcps is fully staffed.

Is it? Our school is lacking a teacher it needs.

Sounds like a great job for you.

Oh now MCPS is demanding randos without teaching qualifications quit the jobs they are qualified for to babysit kids MCPS refuses to educate?

You are posting here during work hours so it’s easy to assume you have the time. You’d be perfect. Really. Fit right in.

Not my work hours.

Anyway, no MCPS is not fully staffed, and they should hire actual educators to fill the vacancies.

They aren’t going to do get a tutor or teach it yourself.

All the more reason to not create a bunch of new special programs. Saying you have a fancy program but not having teachers to actually deliver instruction is going to be a bad look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time there are boundary proposals in the suburbs the liberals get all bent out of shape over proposals that would increase the FARMS rates at their schools by more than a percentage point or two.

You claim to love diversity but you sure don’t act like it.

It's part of the policy to try to reduce disparities between schools on demographic criteria. This does the opposite.

+1 Pretty ridiculous to imply folks in an area zoned for a school with a 40% FARMS rate that they don't like diversity. Clearly coming from one of the people very pleased to see MCPS abandoning any efforts to reduce segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

[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:They should have the same strong offerings at every school. Having speciality programs at different schools is silly if students don’t get school choose and each school doesn’t have equal strong offerings. Taylor and the BOE clearly ditched equity and student needs. How many kids want a teacher academy. They reduced the current program a few years ago. How about a poll asking parents, teachers and students what they want at these schools. People are going to bail from Einstein if they can and either move or go private. It and Kennedy will be the weak links.

+1

The DCC is what keeps wealthier kids in public schools. DH and I have just discussed upping our 529 contributions so we can afford private if need be.

Having a standardized base of strong offerings at all schools is part of the plan. Funny how most people are not asking questions or focused on that piece.

We don't buy it because MCPS has caveated it with saying they will offer courses "if there is interest" which is a circular way of saying they won't actually offer that strong base or will have it be virtual in the lower income schools, which will lead wealthy families to flee public schools.

The more comfortable families will leave Einstein and the FARM rate will likely rise. The school gained students for its VAPA program, but many academically strong students now choose magnets or lottery into Blair or Wheaton due to Einstein's limited advanced course offerings. The principal claims there's no demand for higher-level classes, but demand is low because the classes aren't offered. Students are often pushed through AB, BC, then Stats, with no alternatives. MCPS offers no virtual high school math options and has no plans to. Students are left with three choices: take what is available, drive their kids to another school, or to Montgomery College for the classes they need. There is no excuse for MCPS not providing enough math to meet graduation requirements. The minimum at each school should be MVC as then students can take Statistics after MVC if they need an extra math class.

DP - I think you’re overstating how many families will leave Einstein (and how many inbounds kids currently choose Blair or Wheaton). There are a lot of highly educated parents here (e.g., Feds and academics with PhDs) who don’t necessarily have the money to shell out for private nor to move. And a lot of us who are willing to work to improve our school, inasmuch as it needs improving. I don’t love the proposed changes, but they’re not untenable with some modifications along the lines of what people have proposed.

If MVC is the minimum, most high schools shouldn’t go much farther than that. It’s *high school*. We’d be better served by pushing the BOE hard on offering robust programs at all schools, i.e., increasing parity, than arguing for super advanced classes.

There are a bunch of $1 million+ houses being sold in the Einstein area. If MCPS isn't offering a decent set of courses for smart (but not "gifted") college bound kids, some of those students will certainly leave the system. Not all of them, but it creates a vicious cycle.

Many of the rebuilds are going for 1-2 million. Minimum house now is $550-600K for a 800 square foot one level fixer upper.

Many of the kids go to Blair or Wheaton who are more advanced.

But without the DCC they don't have a choice of Blair. What is my STEM talented but not magnet talented kid supposed to go? If we were in an other HS district she would get more choice. Why is her educational opportunity curtailed because I can't afford a $1.5M house elsewhere.

Won't all high schools be required to offer AP Bio, Chem, Phys and AP Calc BC and Stats?

Jesus. You really don't understand, do you? Most stem oriented kids today want to go beyond BC Calc in HS. They want to take MVC, which Einstein does not offer, whereas other MCPS schools do.

We made the mistake of sending our STEM-oriented older child to Einstein inbounds. The math and science SUCKED. He has struggled in college trying to major in a STEM subject.

Based on that we knew to send our younger son to Wheaton. He did not get into the magnet engineering program, but thanks to the Wheaton engineering academy, he was able to take multivariable calculus, six engineering courses, etc., with the teachers who also taught in the magnet and who were fantastic teachers.

Compare that to my kid at Einstein, who had the same terrible math teacher for a year and a half, was only able to take BC Calc senior year AND was stuck with NO TEACHER for the first couple months of Calculus. They had to teach themselves from PPT! It was absurd.

Thanks god we were able to send our younger kid to Wheaton.

So they have trouble hiring teachers for standard HS math courses but want to stand up in the next 24 months a ton of new special programs that require specialized expertise to teach?

Mcps is fully staffed.

Is it? Our school is lacking a teacher it needs.

Sounds like a great job for you.

Oh now MCPS is demanding randos without teaching qualifications quit the jobs they are qualified for to babysit kids MCPS refuses to educate?

You are posting here during work hours so it’s easy to assume you have the time. You’d be perfect. Really. Fit right in.

Not my work hours.

Anyway, no MCPS is not fully staffed, and they should hire actual educators to fill the vacancies.

They aren’t going to do get a tutor or teach it yourself.

All the more reason to not create a bunch of new special programs. Saying you have a fancy program but not having teachers to actually deliver instruction is going to be a bad look.

This is all for show. There is no substance and the schools getting the better programs already have the teachers and classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time there are boundary proposals in the suburbs the liberals get all bent out of shape over proposals that would increase the FARMS rates at their schools by more than a percentage point or two.

You claim to love diversity but you sure don’t act like it.

It's part of the policy to try to reduce disparities between schools on demographic criteria. This does the opposite.

+1 Pretty ridiculous to imply folks in an area zoned for a school with a 40% FARMS rate that they don't like diversity. Clearly coming from one of the people very pleased to see MCPS abandoning any efforts to reduce segregation.

This will create more segregation not less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Rather than quibbling over which of the current bad choices for Einstein is best, there should be pushback on the entire approach where the wealthier schools and neighborhoods get treated better than the DCC ones. These options basically leave Whitman and BCC untouched and split WJ kids between WJ and Woodward, leaving the main difference between the options how much Einstein loses and Northwood gains when it comes to FARMS rates. We shouldn't be pitting Northwood against Einstein-- we should be asking why WJ and BCC neighborhoods are so untouchable that they couldn't possibly be redistricted into DCC schools (Kensington is right freaking next to Einstein, for goodness sakes!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

Why is it a non-starter? It seems weird to me that for someone living by, say, Noyes Library for Children, all of the options under consideration have them keep the commute to WJ when Einstein is right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

Why is it a non-starter? It seems weird to me that for someone living by, say, Noyes Library for Children, all of the options under consideration have them keep the commute to WJ when Einstein is right there.

WJ is undersubscribed in all options (and significantly so in options A-C). They’re not looking to pull kids out of that catchment.