Cliff Notes summary of MCPS boundary study fight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you conflating race and FARMs?

If you want to talk about FARMs and non-FARMs, we can do that.

Who is conflating race and FARMS?

[Anonymous]

Seems like a lot of folks. Race shouldn’t be part of the discussion, yet that seems like that’s all I’m reading about here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of folks. Race shouldn’t be part of the discussion, yet that seems like that’s all I’m reading about here.

Who says it shouldn't be? And why shouldn't it be?

[Anonymous]

I think you know the answer to that PP. Maybe people will pick up a book and learn something here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of folks. Race shouldn’t be part of the discussion, yet that seems like that’s all I’m reading about here.

Who says it shouldn't be? And why shouldn't it be?

There was a disastrous Facebook page started by the proponents of busing which had to be shut down because the antiracists took it over. The main focus became about racism and nothing substantial about the MCPS boundary issue. It was over the top ridiculous to see all these people basically calling opponents of busing racists because of the color of their skin, which in itself is racist. Granted there are some overt racists in this county, but to paint a broad brush to an entire community is the wrong approach. Was shocked to see the wypipo reference over and over again (is that even a word now?). The moderator deleted a couple of the posts, but then got a lot of backlash saying it was racist to do so, so after that she never deleted a post from any POC--it was downhill from then on. It was quite the train wreck...couldn't help but lurk over there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of folks. Race shouldn’t be part of the discussion, yet that seems like that’s all I’m reading about here.

Who says it shouldn't be? And why shouldn't it be?

There was a disastrous Facebook page started by the proponents of busing which had to be shut down because the antiracists took it over. The main focus became about racism and nothing substantial about the MCPS boundary issue. It was over the top ridiculous to see all these people basically calling opponents of busing racists because of the color of their skin, which in itself is racist. Granted there are some overt racists in this county, but to paint a broad brush to an entire community is the wrong approach. Was shocked to see the wypipo reference over and over again (is that even a word now?). The moderator deleted a couple of the posts, but then got a lot of backlash saying it was racist to do so, so after that she never deleted a post from any POC--it was downhill from then on. It was quite the train wreck...couldn't help but lurk over there.

Yes.

The lesson to be learned from this is: stay off Facebook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of folks. Race shouldn’t be part of the discussion, yet that seems like that’s all I’m reading about here.

Who says it shouldn't be? And why shouldn't it be?

There was a disastrous Facebook page started by the proponents of busing which had to be shut down because the antiracists took it over. The main focus became about racism and nothing substantial about the MCPS boundary issue. It was over the top ridiculous to see all these people basically calling opponents of busing racists because of the color of their skin, which in itself is racist. Granted there are some overt racists in this county, but to paint a broad brush to an entire community is the wrong approach. Was shocked to see the wypipo reference over and over again (is that even a word now?). The moderator deleted a couple of the posts, but then got a lot of backlash saying it was racist to do so, so after that she never deleted a post from any POC--it was downhill from then on. It was quite the train wreck...couldn't help but lurk over there.

Yes.

The lesson to be learned from this is: stay off Facebook.

Right. And DCUM, for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you conflating race and FARMs?

If you want to talk about FARMs and non-FARMs, we can do that.

Both racial and economic integration is important, and the intersection of race and class in Montgomery County is stark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

but they should. Can we finally put to be the myth the school environment actually matters at all. It is almost entirely based on the education of the mother and the home environment.

So again why are we spending all this time on this when almost nothing will change

NO SCHOOL DISTRICT ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAS FIXED THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP. The biggest factor is the home environment period.

If the outcome for a given kid is the same regardless of whether the kid is at a "good school" or a "bad school," then why are some parents who own property zoned for "good schools" fighting the boundary analysis so vociferously?

And don't tell me it's about long bus rides and neighborhood schools, because there already are lots of long bus rides and lots of kids zoned for farther-away schools. If that's what they were really objecting to, they'd want MCPS to change the boundaries, not maintain them.

1. They’re afraid their homes will be worth less
2. They’re afraid their children will sit next to children they view as undesirable

That’s really all this is about. It’s ugly, all the way down.

What's wrong with being concerned about our property values? For a lot of people, their homes are a big investment, and any positive outcome in a well-managed investment will most likely be inherited by the children. I mean isn't that the goal for most people? To give the next generation a chance at a better life? For some, it's having elected officials redraw the school boundaries to their benefit. For others, it's maintaining a certain amount of wealth for the future (which doesn't mean they were all born with money), and making sure their kids attend top-notch schools. I don't believe either point of view is necessarily wrong when everyone has different needs.

What is wrong is that the superintendent and BOE are doing a terrible job of funding and maintaining schools. Maybe we wouldn't be having this fight to begin with if they had better decision-making and money management to fit the needs of each school. Instead, they just want to cover up their mistakes. I've always been told every school in MCPS is fantastic, but clearly that isn't the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a lot of folks. Race shouldn’t be part of the discussion, yet that seems like that’s all I’m reading about here.

Who says it shouldn't be? And why shouldn't it be?

There was a disastrous Facebook page started by the proponents of busing which had to be shut down because the antiracists took it over. The main focus became about racism and nothing substantial about the MCPS boundary issue. It was over the top ridiculous to see all these people basically calling opponents of busing racists because of the color of their skin, which in itself is racist. Granted there are some overt racists in this county, but to paint a broad brush to an entire community is the wrong approach. Was shocked to see the wypipo reference over and over again (is that even a word now?). The moderator deleted a couple of the posts, but then got a lot of backlash saying it was racist to do so, so after that she never deleted a post from any POC--it was downhill from then on. It was quite the train wreck...couldn't help but lurk over there.

Yes.

The lesson to be learned from this is: stay off Facebook.

Right. And DCUM, for that matter.

If we had as much local journalism as we used to, then I wouldn't have to rely on DCUM (!) for information. But we don't. Bethesda Beat is doing a great job, but they're only one, limited outlet. Washington Post only drops in from time to time. TV news is TV news. So: DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[q

What's wrong with being concerned about our property values? For a lot of people, their homes are a big investment, and any positive outcome in a well-managed investment will most likely be inherited by the children. I mean isn't that the goal for most people? To give the next generation a chance at a better life? For some, it's having elected officials redraw the school boundaries to their benefit. For others, it's maintaining a certain amount of wealth for the future (which doesn't mean they were all born with money), and making sure their kids attend top-notch schools. I don't believe either point of view is necessarily wrong when everyone has different needs.

What is wrong is that the superintendent and BOE are doing a terrible job of funding and maintaining schools. Maybe we wouldn't be having this fight to begin with if they had better decision-making and money management to fit the needs of each school. Instead, they just want to cover up their mistakes. I've always been told every school in MCPS is fantastic, but clearly that isn't the case.

It is fine for you to be concerned about your property value.

It is not fine for MCPS and the board of education to make decisions based on your concern about your property value.

[Anonymous]

When you look at many of the boundaries I can see plenty of solutions that result in shorter busing while improving diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP who opposes long bus rides and I'd agree with you that, if the BOE is going to make boundary changes, the kind that make the most sense deal with balancing capacity issues in adjacent clusters. Will some people complain? Of course. If the BOE assures the public that any school assignment changes will be limited to shifting kids among adjacent clusters and gives some iron-clad guarantees that kids will not be bused beyond "X" miles or "X" number of minutes, I think fewer people would be suspicious of the BOE's intentions, though for sure some would still be upset.

They have said that they are looking at adjacent clusters.

They can't give iron-clad guarantees about time and distance. It's a big county. One might almost say that it's a big and diverse county. And my guess is, whatever miles/number of minutes to the assigned school you consider intolerable, there are kids in MCPS who have that as their current reality.

If you read their wording: it says at a MINIMUM they will look at adjacent clusters. They also said they would not bus kids from ONE end of the County to the OTHER end. They choose their words carefully

Let's look at one example.

Magruder and Sherwood are about 7 miles apart.
very close to each other

Sherwood has about 300 more students than MHS.
Magruder has twice the number of FARMs (15% vs. 33%).
Oddly enough, at the time of publication, ESOL numbers were the same at 12%. Sherwood, however, has an ESOL program "given" to them after opting out of the NEC.

Racial breakdown is drastically different. Sherwood is 50% white; Magruder is 39% Hispanic. Black population is fairly close. SPED population is close, too.

This is a perfect example of an easy "swap."

Maybe so. But one can hardly claim that a school that is 50 percent white with FARMS 15 percent is a bastion of white wealthy privilege that needs to be "desegregated." If these are the kind of changes the BOE wants to make, then fine, But proponents need to drop the rhetoric.

When there's one school that's 50% white and has 29% students who now receive FARMs or have done so in the past, and there's an adjacent school that's 26% white and has 56% students who now receive FARMs or have done so in the past, that looks a lot like segregation.

It doesn't look like Ross Barnett's or George Wallace's segregation, and some of the proponents would have you believe they are fighting those civil rights battles all over again. The word is politically charged and divisive. Time to drop it from the school redistricting debate. Promoting "diversity" works a lot better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP who opposes long bus rides and I'd agree with you that, if the BOE is going to make boundary changes, the kind that make the most sense deal with balancing capacity issues in adjacent clusters. Will some people complain? Of course. If the BOE assures the public that any school assignment changes will be limited to shifting kids among adjacent clusters and gives some iron-clad guarantees that kids will not be bused beyond "X" miles or "X" number of minutes, I think fewer people would be suspicious of the BOE's intentions, though for sure some would still be upset.

They have said that they are looking at adjacent clusters.

They can't give iron-clad guarantees about time and distance. It's a big county. One might almost say that it's a big and diverse county. And my guess is, whatever miles/number of minutes to the assigned school you consider intolerable, there are kids in MCPS who have that as their current reality.

If you read their wording: it says at a MINIMUM they will look at adjacent clusters. They also said they would not bus kids from ONE end of the County to the OTHER end. They choose their words carefully

Let's look at one example.

Magruder and Sherwood are about 7 miles apart.
very close to each other

Sherwood has about 300 more students than MHS.
Magruder has twice the number of FARMs (15% vs. 33%).
Oddly enough, at the time of publication, ESOL numbers were the same at 12%. Sherwood, however, has an ESOL program "given" to them after opting out of the NEC.

Racial breakdown is drastically different. Sherwood is 50% white; Magruder is 39% Hispanic. Black population is fairly close. SPED population is close, too.

This is a perfect example of an easy "swap."

Maybe so. But one can hardly claim that a school that is 50 percent white with FARMS 15 percent is a bastion of white wealthy privilege that needs to be "desegregated." If these are the kind of changes the BOE wants to make, then fine, But proponents need to drop the rhetoric.

When there's one school that's 50% white and has 29% students who now receive FARMs or have done so in the past, and there's an adjacent school that's 26% white and has 56% students who now receive FARMs or have done so in the past, that looks a lot like segregation.

It doesn't look like Ross Barnett's or George Wallace's segregation, and some of the proponents would have you believe they are fighting those civil rights battles all over again. The word is politically charged and divisive. Time to drop it from the school redistricting debate. Promoting "diversity" works a lot better.

So what? And "diversity" is also politically-charged and divisive. The problem isn't the word. It's that the issue itself is politically-charged and divides people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP who opposes long bus rides and I'd agree with you that, if the BOE is going to make boundary changes, the kind that make the most sense deal with balancing capacity issues in adjacent clusters. Will some people complain? Of course. If the BOE assures the public that any school assignment changes will be limited to shifting kids among adjacent clusters and gives some iron-clad guarantees that kids will not be bused beyond "X" miles or "X" number of minutes, I think fewer people would be suspicious of the BOE's intentions, though for sure some would still be upset.

They have said that they are looking at adjacent clusters.

They can't give iron-clad guarantees about time and distance. It's a big county. One might almost say that it's a big and diverse county. And my guess is, whatever miles/number of minutes to the assigned school you consider intolerable, there are kids in MCPS who have that as their current reality.

If you read their wording: it says at a MINIMUM they will look at adjacent clusters. They also said they would not bus kids from ONE end of the County to the OTHER end. They choose their words carefully

Let's look at one example.

Magruder and Sherwood are about 7 miles apart.
very close to each other

Sherwood has about 300 more students than MHS.
Magruder has twice the number of FARMs (15% vs. 33%).
Oddly enough, at the time of publication, ESOL numbers were the same at 12%. Sherwood, however, has an ESOL program "given" to them after opting out of the NEC.

Racial breakdown is drastically different. Sherwood is 50% white; Magruder is 39% Hispanic. Black population is fairly close. SPED population is close, too.

This is a perfect example of an easy "swap."

Maybe so. But one can hardly claim that a school that is 50 percent white with FARMS 15 percent is a bastion of white wealthy privilege that needs to be "desegregated." If these are the kind of changes the BOE wants to make, then fine, But proponents need to drop the rhetoric.

When there's one school that's 50% white and has 29% students who now receive FARMs or have done so in the past, and there's an adjacent school that's 26% white and has 56% students who now receive FARMs or have done so in the past, that looks a lot like segregation.

It doesn't look like Ross Barnett's or George Wallace's segregation, and some of the proponents would have you believe they are fighting those civil rights battles all over again. The word is politically charged and divisive. Time to drop it from the school redistricting debate. Promoting "diversity" works a lot better.

So what? And "diversity" is also politically-charged and divisive. The problem isn't the word. It's that the issue itself is politically-charged and divides people.

The rhetoric you choose matters. You can try to have a conversation with people whose opinions differ from yours, or you can try to demonize them.