Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC in Moco is basically above $175k HHI. That is generally not going to be a household that can easily pack up and move nor go private. It is a bad look to hope kids of these families (or any kids) are unhappy.

Presuming this was meant for me, I don’t wish ill on anyone’s kids. I commented that seeing some people worked up about their property values and only their property values provoked some more radical instincts in me. I do not think these people are actually doing themselves any favors, and people who oppose option 3 would do well to distance themselves from this perspective.

I have an expensive house too and would not be pleased to lose a lot of value, but these people are arguing that their livelihoods are tied up in continued school segregation, which is . . . a perspective.

You are basically arguing that everyone should be fine sending their kids to a high FARMS school. While simultaneously saying that we need to lower the FARMS rates at some places. Why would we need to lower the FARMS rates (and to what) if high FARMS schools are fine?

Obviously this is rhetorical.

Some of us are.

And if we were all like you then we could not bother with concentrated poverty impacting schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Pretty much.
Caveat: Options 2 and 4 send the south side of Garrett Park to WJ ( the handful of homes on the south side of Strathmore). Town of GP, as small as it is, getting broken up.

Please! The 300K post was most likely trolling and you actually agree with that alarmist nonsense.

First of all, WJ today is not some amazing school that drives property values. It is weaker than other W schools and not much better than, for example, Richard Montgomery that has similar demographics to Woodward options 1,2 and 4.

Second, it is not all about the quality of high schools. Garret Park and Tilden will still have mostly the same teachers and same kids going there. So if parents were happy with what they were getting with these two schools before, there is no reason to suddenly completely turn their backs. Even more importantly, Garret Park and Tilden neighborhoods are very safe and walkable, a rare combination that will not change with the new school.

Every responsible new home buyer in the last two years knew that the rezoning is coming and that for some neighborhoods (for example Old Georgetown Village and Timberlawn) it will be a miracle not to end up in the new HS. And yet, home prices in that area went up by more than 15%.

You are delusional. There are safe and walkable neighborhoods zoned to Crown, Blair, Einstein, and plenty of others, and they’re worth less than GP and Tilden—even those that are closer to DC. They can be up to $400k cheaper, and the reason is clearly a difference in schools. People paid for a W in GP and Tilden, and if they are zoned to a school with QO or current Einstein demographics performance, their property values will reflect that. In some options, homes zoned to Einstein may end up with better property values than those zoned to Woodward.

Many of the newer or remolded homes are now over a million and the lower priced ones are very small on small lots. They aren’t cheaper anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC in Moco is basically above $175k HHI. That is generally not going to be a household that can easily pack up and move nor go private. It is a bad look to hope kids of these families (or any kids) are unhappy.

Presuming this was meant for me, I don’t wish ill on anyone’s kids. I commented that seeing some people worked up about their property values and only their property values provoked some more radical instincts in me. I do not think these people are actually doing themselves any favors, and people who oppose option 3 would do well to distance themselves from this perspective.

I have an expensive house too and would not be pleased to lose a lot of value, but these people are arguing that their livelihoods are tied up in continued school segregation, which is . . . a perspective.

You are basically arguing that everyone should be fine sending their kids to a high FARMS school. While simultaneously saying that we need to lower the FARMS rates at some places. Why would we need to lower the FARMS rates (and to what) if high FARMS schools are fine?

Obviously this is rhetorical.

Some of us are.

And if we were all like you then we could not bother with concentrated poverty impacting schools.

I don’t care about the low income families. Most are good people. I care about the lack of ap classes and opportunities. Our school would b higher rated if we had equal opportunities. I don’t care about property values and would be thrilled if mine went down to pay lower taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC in Moco is basically above $175k HHI. That is generally not going to be a household that can easily pack up and move nor go private. It is a bad look to hope kids of these families (or any kids) are unhappy.

Presuming this was meant for me, I don’t wish ill on anyone’s kids. I commented that seeing some people worked up about their property values and only their property values provoked some more radical instincts in me. I do not think these people are actually doing themselves any favors, and people who oppose option 3 would do well to distance themselves from this perspective.

I have an expensive house too and would not be pleased to lose a lot of value, but these people are arguing that their livelihoods are tied up in continued school segregation, which is . . . a perspective.

You are basically arguing that everyone should be fine sending their kids to a high FARMS school. While simultaneously saying that we need to lower the FARMS rates at some places. Why would we need to lower the FARMS rates (and to what) if high FARMS schools are fine?

Obviously this is rhetorical.

This is public education. I’m actually saying that inequality isn’t fine, and balancing demographics across the county is a worthy goal. It’s not the only goal, so I’ll repeat that option 3 doesn’t make sense to me. And yes of course there is a huge difference between moderate and high farms, for issues ranging from parent engagement to high achieving children needing a cohort.

If you want to keep FARMS kids out of your school, how do you defend that? Segregation is fine as long as it benefits you?

But you are jumping from “some FARMS is fine” and “high farms have problems” to “caring about FARMS rates is promoting segregation.”

You are agreeing with the prior poster you don’t like (the segregationist, in your words).

I didn’t think it was in dispute that higher FARMS schools were lower performing. And I thought public school was in the business of trying to promote equal access to quality education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC in Moco is basically above $175k HHI. That is generally not going to be a household that can easily pack up and move nor go private. It is a bad look to hope kids of these families (or any kids) are unhappy.

Presuming this was meant for me, I don’t wish ill on anyone’s kids. I commented that seeing some people worked up about their property values and only their property values provoked some more radical instincts in me. I do not think these people are actually doing themselves any favors, and people who oppose option 3 would do well to distance themselves from this perspective.

I have an expensive house too and would not be pleased to lose a lot of value, but these people are arguing that their livelihoods are tied up in continued school segregation, which is . . . a perspective.

You are basically arguing that everyone should be fine sending their kids to a high FARMS school. While simultaneously saying that we need to lower the FARMS rates at some places. Why would we need to lower the FARMS rates (and to what) if high FARMS schools are fine?

Obviously this is rhetorical.

This is public education. I’m actually saying that inequality isn’t fine, and balancing demographics across the county is a worthy goal. It’s not the only goal, so I’ll repeat that option 3 doesn’t make sense to me. And yes of course there is a huge difference between moderate and high farms, for issues ranging from parent engagement to high achieving children needing a cohort.

If you want to keep FARMS kids out of your school, how do you defend that? Segregation is fine as long as it benefits you?

But you are jumping from “some FARMS is fine” and “high farms have problems” to “caring about FARMS rates is promoting segregation.”

You are agreeing with the prior poster you don’t like (the segregationist, in your words).

I didn’t think it was in dispute that higher FARMS schools were lower performing. And I thought public school was in the business of trying to promote equal access to quality education.[/]

What’s the perfect FARMS rate since you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC in Moco is basically above $175k HHI. That is generally not going to be a household that can easily pack up and move nor go private. It is a bad look to hope kids of these families (or any kids) are unhappy.

Presuming this was meant for me, I don’t wish ill on anyone’s kids. I commented that seeing some people worked up about their property values and only their property values provoked some more radical instincts in me. I do not think these people are actually doing themselves any favors, and people who oppose option 3 would do well to distance themselves from this perspective.

I have an expensive house too and would not be pleased to lose a lot of value, but these people are arguing that their livelihoods are tied up in continued school segregation, which is . . . a perspective.

You are basically arguing that everyone should be fine sending their kids to a high FARMS school. While simultaneously saying that we need to lower the FARMS rates at some places. Why would we need to lower the FARMS rates (and to what) if high FARMS schools are fine?

Obviously this is rhetorical.

This is public education. I’m actually saying that inequality isn’t fine, and balancing demographics across the county is a worthy goal. It’s not the only goal, so I’ll repeat that option 3 doesn’t make sense to me. And yes of course there is a huge difference between moderate and high farms, for issues ranging from parent engagement to high achieving children needing a cohort.

If you want to keep FARMS kids out of your school, how do you defend that? Segregation is fine as long as it benefits you?

So I don’t want to keep FARMS kids out of my kids school. They are already there. More can come, that is fine. I just rank transportation and proximity to schools as a more important factor than demographics. You rank demographics higher, that is fine.

My preference would be to balance demographics in schools via housing policy not school boundaries that necessitate long bus rides.

I would like to see kids having the shortest routes to school possible and as much walking options possible.
Maybe there is a way to have both by a change in zoning laws and an investment in moderate and low income housing options.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon. [/quote]

Is that true if options other than 3? Because I don’t think MCPS can afford 3 so likey it will be off the table [/quote]

Yes, because Woodward will be more than 30-47% FARMS in any scenario. Huge difference compared to a W school. At the very best, it will be another QO. At the worst, it will be another Einstein (and actually, Einstein would be the better school).[/quote]

What do people have against medium-FARMS schools? Like, I get why folks would be nervous about high FARMS schools (and why white families might be hesitant about schools that are less than 10% white), but are there reasons (besides racism-- trying to give people the benefit of the doubt here) that medium FARMS schools with racial diversity reflective of the county are a problem too? We are a white middle-class family in a medium-FARMS elementary focus school with about 30% white kids, currently zoned for middle and high schools with similar demographics, and it all seems pretty great so far to us. Genuinely wondering why it would be so terrible for Woodward to be medium-FARMS instead of low-FARMS?[/quote]

People are upset their property values might go down. Regardless of whether individuals are racist, home values in MoCo differ in part due to perceived school quality and fears about Black and Latino youth.[/quote]


People are upset that their kids might be in school with kids and families who do not prioritize school and learning in general. Look at some of the truency rates in our county. Peers matter in school. Very valid concerns here.

[/quote]

Agree. I don't want my kids with other kids who don't care to be there. Yes, at schools there are bad apples, the goal is minimizing the number of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Is that true if options other than 3? Because I don’t think MCPS can afford 3 so likey it will be off the table

Yes, because Woodward will be more than 30-47% FARMS in any scenario. Huge difference compared to a W school. At the very best, it will be another QO. At the worst, it will be another Einstein (and actually, Einstein would be the better school).

What do people have against medium-FARMS schools? Like, I get why folks would be nervous about high FARMS schools (and why white families might be hesitant about schools that are less than 10% white), but are there reasons (besides racism-- trying to give people the benefit of the doubt here) that medium FARMS schools with racial diversity reflective of the county are a problem too? We are a white middle-class family in a medium-FARMS elementary focus school with about 30% white kids, currently zoned for middle and high schools with similar demographics, and it all seems pretty great so far to us. Genuinely wondering why it would be so terrible for Woodward to be medium-FARMS instead of low-FARMS?

Similar situation and perspective to yours. I don’t think everyone feels that way, but for those who do it’s not a good look.

you chose your crappy neighborhood so I'm glad you feel good about it

Hey guys, those of you saying it's just about proximity and wanting to walk to your school -- these guys are making you look bad. I don't even want Option 3 or think it makes much sense, but some of you deserve the option that makes you most unhappy.

You care too much about optics for someone who posts anonymously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC in Moco is basically above $175k HHI. That is generally not going to be a household that can easily pack up and move nor go private. It is a bad look to hope kids of these families (or any kids) are unhappy.

Presuming this was meant for me, I don’t wish ill on anyone’s kids. I commented that seeing some people worked up about their property values and only their property values provoked some more radical instincts in me. I do not think these people are actually doing themselves any favors, and people who oppose option 3 would do well to distance themselves from this perspective.

I have an expensive house too and would not be pleased to lose a lot of value, but these people are arguing that their livelihoods are tied up in continued school segregation, which is . . . a perspective.

You are basically arguing that everyone should be fine sending their kids to a high FARMS school. While simultaneously saying that we need to lower the FARMS rates at some places. Why would we need to lower the FARMS rates (and to what) if high FARMS schools are fine?

Obviously this is rhetorical.

Some of us are.

And if we were all like you then we could not bother with concentrated poverty impacting schools.

UMC families can mostly make up up for the issues caused by concentrated poverty. It is the low income families that really benefit from demographically balanced schools.

Property values should not be a part of this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC in Moco is basically above $175k HHI. That is generally not going to be a household that can easily pack up and move nor go private. It is a bad look to hope kids of these families (or any kids) are unhappy.

Presuming this was meant for me, I don’t wish ill on anyone’s kids. I commented that seeing some people worked up about their property values and only their property values provoked some more radical instincts in me. I do not think these people are actually doing themselves any favors, and people who oppose option 3 would do well to distance themselves from this perspective.

I have an expensive house too and would not be pleased to lose a lot of value, but these people are arguing that their livelihoods are tied up in continued school segregation, which is . . . a perspective.

You are basically arguing that everyone should be fine sending their kids to a high FARMS school. While simultaneously saying that we need to lower the FARMS rates at some places. Why would we need to lower the FARMS rates (and to what) if high FARMS schools are fine?

Obviously this is rhetorical.

This is public education. I’m actually saying that inequality isn’t fine, and balancing demographics across the county is a worthy goal. It’s not the only goal, so I’ll repeat that option 3 doesn’t make sense to me. And yes of course there is a huge difference between moderate and high farms, for issues ranging from parent engagement to high achieving children needing a cohort.

If you want to keep FARMS kids out of your school, how do you defend that? Segregation is fine as long as it benefits you?

But you are jumping from “some FARMS is fine” and “high farms have problems” to “caring about FARMS rates is promoting segregation.”

You are agreeing with the prior poster you don’t like (the segregationist, in your words).

I didn’t think it was in dispute that higher FARMS schools were lower performing. And I thought public school was in the business of trying to promote equal access to quality education.[/]

What’s the perfect FARMS rate since you know?

0, because 0 people qualify and need it!

We have inequality in the county and no one inherently deserves better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in Garrett Park are more hipster and liberal, I don’t think they’re going to mind the demographics of Woodward.

Oh we mind. It's all we talk about at our pool. (Privilege)

[Anonymous]

This is a capitalistic country that rewards perpetuating inequality. There is no incentive for W parents to accept diversity and redistricting. In fact, there is only incentives tied to segregation. Segregation is tied to higher property values. Families that get redistricted to Woodward from WJ will be dinged in property values even though mixing high income students with low income students should be rewarded. Meanwhile, the values of those in WJ will be rewarded. Even if MCPS balances out Whitman, the fact that Langley in FCPS is low-FARMS will result in Whitman getting dinged for doing the right thing and Langley rewarded for being segregated, as more families will just move to Langley and McLean HS if Whitman becomes 20% FARMS.

If you want an end to segregation but support neoliberal politicians and policies, you are the problem. You can’t shame W parents for trying to do their best in a capitalistic society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a capitalistic country that rewards perpetuating inequality. There is no incentive for W parents to accept diversity and redistricting. In fact, there is only incentives tied to segregation. Segregation is tied to higher property values. Families that get redistricted to Woodward from WJ will be dinged in property values even though mixing high income students with low income students should be rewarded. Meanwhile, the values of those in WJ will be rewarded. Even if MCPS balances out Whitman, the fact that Langley in FCPS is low-FARMS will result in Whitman getting dinged for doing the right thing and Langley rewarded for being segregated, as more families will just move to Langley and McLean HS if Whitman becomes 20% FARMS.

If you want an end to segregation but support neoliberal politicians and policies, you are the problem. You can’t shame W parents for trying to do their best in a capitalistic society.

End capitalism and support socialism, then W parents will comply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a capitalistic country that rewards perpetuating inequality. There is no incentive for W parents to accept diversity and redistricting. In fact, there is only incentives tied to segregation. Segregation is tied to higher property values. Families that get redistricted to Woodward from WJ will be dinged in property values even though mixing high income students with low income students should be rewarded. Meanwhile, the values of those in WJ will be rewarded. Even if MCPS balances out Whitman, the fact that Langley in FCPS is low-FARMS will result in Whitman getting dinged for doing the right thing and Langley rewarded for being segregated, as more families will just move to Langley and McLean HS if Whitman becomes 20% FARMS.

If you want an end to segregation but support neoliberal politicians and policies, you are the problem. You can’t shame W parents for trying to do their best in a capitalistic society.

This is a rather convoluted justification for resource hoarding. Damn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a capitalistic country that rewards perpetuating inequality. There is no incentive for W parents to accept diversity and redistricting. In fact, there is only incentives tied to segregation. Segregation is tied to higher property values. Families that get redistricted to Woodward from WJ will be dinged in property values even though mixing high income students with low income students should be rewarded. Meanwhile, the values of those in WJ will be rewarded. Even if MCPS balances out Whitman, the fact that Langley in FCPS is low-FARMS will result in Whitman getting dinged for doing the right thing and Langley rewarded for being segregated, as more families will just move to Langley and McLean HS if Whitman becomes 20% FARMS.

If you want an end to segregation but support neoliberal politicians and policies, you are the problem. You can’t shame W parents for trying to do their best in a capitalistic society.

This is a rather convoluted justification for resource hoarding. Damn.

We live in a society that promotes resource hoarding and inequality. Until we embrace socialism, don’t expect W parents to be on board with redistricting. There is no incentive for UMC to not self segregate in this country.