Proposed New Regions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs when it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs when it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

that would be awful. Current HS magnet programs hold 100+ kids. I don't think they'd reduce the size to 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs when it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

I don't mean how the programs affect the enrollment of the school with the programs-- I mean how they will affect the enrollment of the sending schools. If a region has, let's say, 1,600 total seats in programs (400 per grade across 7 programs), you can map out how much capacity you need at the schools with the programs based on how many seats each will have. But how do you predict how many kids will enroll in the programs from each school (leaving extra space at their home school)? You could just assume that it is even-- 320 from each of the 5 schools-- but I would guess instead there will be some schools sending more than 400 kids and others sending less than 200. And if you plan boundaries based on assuming equal applications/acceptance to programs, I strongly suspect the poorer schools will be the ones sending fewer kids to programs and then be over-utilized compared to the richer schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs where it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

Many of these 30 students are coming from four other schools within the same region. The number would vary each year based on interest and admission criteria. It makes no sense to add at least 4 more buses, and possibly more, depending on the size of the region, just to accommodate them. Many high school regions are geographically large, so one bus per high school isn’t realistic.

On top of that, if there’s going to be a program at each high school, then the region would need to run multiple buses between schools—essentially setting up a network of routes. That means every pair of schools potentially needs its own transportation plan.

This doesn’t look like a cost-saving solution at all. In fact, it sounds like a logistical and budgetary burden. I’m not convinced the design team for this regional program has actually run the numbers. From a transportation standpoint alone, the plan seems inefficient and expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs where it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

Many of these 30 students are coming from four other schools within the same region. The number would vary each year based on interest and admission criteria. It makes no sense to add at least 4 more buses, and possibly more, depending on the size of the region, just to accommodate them. Many high school regions are geographically large, so one bus per high school isn’t realistic.

On top of that, if there’s going to be a program at each high school, then the region would need to run multiple buses between schools—essentially setting up a network of routes. That means every pair of schools potentially needs its own transportation plan.

This doesn’t look like a cost-saving solution at all. In fact, it sounds like a logistical and budgetary burden. I’m not convinced the design team for this regional program has actually run the numbers. From a transportation standpoint alone, the plan seems inefficient and expensive.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs when it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

that would be awful. Current HS magnet programs hold 100+ kids. I don't think they'd reduce the size to 30.

But there will be more of them so it may a wash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs where it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

Many of these 30 students are coming from four other schools within the same region. The number would vary each year based on interest and admission criteria. It makes no sense to add at least 4 more buses, and possibly more, depending on the size of the region, just to accommodate them. Many high school regions are geographically large, so one bus per high school isn’t realistic.

On top of that, if there’s going to be a program at each high school, then the region would need to run multiple buses between schools—essentially setting up a network of routes. That means every pair of schools potentially needs its own transportation plan.

This doesn’t look like a cost-saving solution at all. In fact, it sounds like a logistical and budgetary burden. I’m not convinced the design team for this regional program has actually run the numbers. From a transportation standpoint alone, the plan seems inefficient and expensive.

Currently DCC runs lots of buses which is not even based on programs. MCPS needs to see current cost and coampre with whatever option they pick to see what's happening with cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs where it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

Many of these 30 students are coming from four other schools within the same region. The number would vary each year based on interest and admission criteria. It makes no sense to add at least 4 more buses, and possibly more, depending on the size of the region, just to accommodate them. Many high school regions are geographically large, so one bus per high school isn’t realistic.

On top of that, if there’s going to be a program at each high school, then the region would need to run multiple buses between schools—essentially setting up a network of routes. That means every pair of schools potentially needs its own transportation plan.

This doesn’t look like a cost-saving solution at all. In fact, it sounds like a logistical and budgetary burden. I’m not convinced the design team for this regional program has actually run the numbers. From a transportation standpoint alone, the plan seems inefficient and expensive.

Currently DCC runs lots of buses which is not even based on programs. MCPS needs to see current cost and coampre with whatever option they pick to see what's happening with cost.

That’s just one consortium. It’ll be 6 consortia in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see Sherwood learn to accept others not like them. They think they are too special and hope that racist bubble gets burst.

I don't really follow things related to Sherwood. Are they bad in that regard and have protested in the past?

Their demographics looks a bit more diverse then some schools like Whitman.

The At a Glance page linked to their school profile page (as of 9/30/2022) shows Sherwood's demographic percentages as:
American Indian <=5
Asian 11.4
Black/African American 15.9
Hispanic/Latino 19.3
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 5.1
White 48.2

For Whitman:
American Indian <=5
Asian 15.2
Black/African American <=5
Hispanic/Latino 12
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 8
White 60.4

And at the very least they have those townhome communities across the street from Sherwood with a lot of minorities waiting for the school bus.

I think sometimes people beat up on the Sherwood and Olney areas because it used to be not diverse. But while it's still not that diverse, it isn't as bad as people make it out to be and there's less diverse schools in the county.

It's very possible that the Sherwood did in fact resist any changes that would increase diversity for their schools.

But I'm wondering if people on here are saying families in the Sherwood area would not be happy just based on their perceived demographics of the area, which is racist too, or if Sherwood actually resisted these types of changes in the past.

Sherwood is diverse and my minority kids are happy and thriving. Who ever is screaming about racism doesn’t have a clue and is ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs when it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

that would be awful. Current HS magnet programs hold 100+ kids. I don't think they'd reduce the size to 30.

But there will be more of them so it may a wash.

There will be at most 2 programs per region, so 60 total if they limit it to 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see Sherwood learn to accept others not like them. They think they are too special and hope that racist bubble gets burst.

I don't really follow things related to Sherwood. Are they bad in that regard and have protested in the past?

Their demographics looks a bit more diverse then some schools like Whitman.

The At a Glance page linked to their school profile page (as of 9/30/2022) shows Sherwood's demographic percentages as:
American Indian <=5
Asian 11.4
Black/African American 15.9
Hispanic/Latino 19.3
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 5.1
White 48.2

For Whitman:
American Indian <=5
Asian 15.2
Black/African American <=5
Hispanic/Latino 12
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 8
White 60.4

And at the very least they have those townhome communities across the street from Sherwood with a lot of minorities waiting for the school bus.

I think sometimes people beat up on the Sherwood and Olney areas because it used to be not diverse. But while it's still not that diverse, it isn't as bad as people make it out to be and there's less diverse schools in the county.

It's very possible that the Sherwood did in fact resist any changes that would increase diversity for their schools.

But I'm wondering if people on here are saying families in the Sherwood area would not be happy just based on their perceived demographics of the area, which is racist too, or if Sherwood actually resisted these types of changes in the past.

Sherwood is diverse and my minority kids are happy and thriving. Who ever is screaming about racism doesn’t have a clue and is ignorant.

That applies to most schools here. But these DEI people are still not happy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs where it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

Many of these 30 students are coming from four other schools within the same region. The number would vary each year based on interest and admission criteria. It makes no sense to add at least 4 more buses, and possibly more, depending on the size of the region, just to accommodate them. Many high school regions are geographically large, so one bus per high school isn’t realistic.

On top of that, if there’s going to be a program at each high school, then the region would need to run multiple buses between schools—essentially setting up a network of routes. That means every pair of schools potentially needs its own transportation plan.

This doesn’t look like a cost-saving solution at all. In fact, it sounds like a logistical and budgetary burden. I’m not convinced the design team for this regional program has actually run the numbers. From a transportation standpoint alone, the plan seems inefficient and expensive.

How many buses are there for Blair and RMIB magnet? If it's more than 4 per program, I can see how 6 shorter bus rides would be more economical than 5 longer bus rides. But, if they put two programs in per region, I don't see the cost savings vs what they are doing now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see Sherwood learn to accept others not like them. They think they are too special and hope that racist bubble gets burst.

I don't really follow things related to Sherwood. Are they bad in that regard and have protested in the past?

Their demographics looks a bit more diverse then some schools like Whitman.

The At a Glance page linked to their school profile page (as of 9/30/2022) shows Sherwood's demographic percentages as:
American Indian <=5
Asian 11.4
Black/African American 15.9
Hispanic/Latino 19.3
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 5.1
White 48.2

For Whitman:
American Indian <=5
Asian 15.2
Black/African American <=5
Hispanic/Latino 12
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 8
White 60.4

And at the very least they have those townhome communities across the street from Sherwood with a lot of minorities waiting for the school bus.

I think sometimes people beat up on the Sherwood and Olney areas because it used to be not diverse. But while it's still not that diverse, it isn't as bad as people make it out to be and there's less diverse schools in the county.

It's very possible that the Sherwood did in fact resist any changes that would increase diversity for their schools.

But I'm wondering if people on here are saying families in the Sherwood area would not be happy just based on their perceived demographics of the area, which is racist too, or if Sherwood actually resisted these types of changes in the past.

Sherwood is diverse and my minority kids are happy and thriving. Who ever is screaming about racism doesn’t have a clue and is ignorant.

That applies to most schools here. But these DEI people are still not happy

And they're still isolating and ignoring the problematic schools too. ie grouping them all together in the regions, making it a weaker region overall. Or not doing anything to improve their populations.

I'm not convinced that in the future that people won't look back and see these plans and actions as disguised racism by limiting the opportunities for students at these schools. ie lower standards so they can't achieve anything higher then what certain people expect for them, don't give them access to the better schools that other regions have access to, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see Sherwood learn to accept others not like them. They think they are too special and hope that racist bubble gets burst.

I don't really follow things related to Sherwood. Are they bad in that regard and have protested in the past?

Their demographics looks a bit more diverse then some schools like Whitman.

The At a Glance page linked to their school profile page (as of 9/30/2022) shows Sherwood's demographic percentages as:
American Indian <=5
Asian 11.4
Black/African American 15.9
Hispanic/Latino 19.3
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 5.1
White 48.2

For Whitman:
American Indian <=5
Asian 15.2
Black/African American <=5
Hispanic/Latino 12
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander <=5
Two or More Races 8
White 60.4

And at the very least they have those townhome communities across the street from Sherwood with a lot of minorities waiting for the school bus.

I think sometimes people beat up on the Sherwood and Olney areas because it used to be not diverse. But while it's still not that diverse, it isn't as bad as people make it out to be and there's less diverse schools in the county.

It's very possible that the Sherwood did in fact resist any changes that would increase diversity for their schools.

But I'm wondering if people on here are saying families in the Sherwood area would not be happy just based on their perceived demographics of the area, which is racist too, or if Sherwood actually resisted these types of changes in the past.

Sherwood is diverse and my minority kids are happy and thriving. Who ever is screaming about racism doesn’t have a clue and is ignorant.

That applies to most schools here. But these DEI people are still not happy

And they're still isolating and ignoring the problematic schools too. ie grouping them all together in the regions, making it a weaker region overall. Or not doing anything to improve their populations.

I'm not convinced that in the future that people won't look back and see these plans and actions as disguised racism by limiting the opportunities for students at these schools. ie lower standards so they can't achieve anything higher then what certain people expect for them, don't give them access to the better schools that other regions have access to, etc.

Also in terms of improving the populations, I'm referring to the initial boundary proposals.

In the initial boundary proposals (for the Crown study at least), the rich areas just stay rich or get richer. And none of the lower performing schools sees any significant changes in their population, some of them have increased FARMS rates from their already high rates.

Then some of the proposed regions are somewhat balanced. But two of them group all of the weaker schools together.

So don't see either the boundary studies or the proposed regions as helping with the problem areas that MCPS has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I wonder about is how you can figure out the impacts of new programs on capacity anyway if you don't know which schools the kids applying will be from? It works fine if you assume an equal number applying from each school, but if you assume that and then some schools send many fewer kids than others, they will end up more crowded and the schools that send more kids will have lower enrollment.

Programs may have just 30 kids( like Wheatons programs where it started). So it may not change capacity utilization much if 20 attend instead of 30.

Many of these 30 students are coming from four other schools within the same region. The number would vary each year based on interest and admission criteria. It makes no sense to add at least 4 more buses, and possibly more, depending on the size of the region, just to accommodate them. Many high school regions are geographically large, so one bus per high school isn’t realistic.

On top of that, if there’s going to be a program at each high school, then the region would need to run multiple buses between schools—essentially setting up a network of routes. That means every pair of schools potentially needs its own transportation plan.

This doesn’t look like a cost-saving solution at all. In fact, it sounds like a logistical and budgetary burden. I’m not convinced the design team for this regional program has actually run the numbers. From a transportation standpoint alone, the plan seems inefficient and expensive.

How many buses are there for Blair and RMIB magnet? If it's more than 4 per program, I can see how 6 shorter bus rides would be more economical than 5 longer bus rides. But, if they put two programs in per region, I don't see the cost savings vs what they are doing now.

They’re saying each region will have multiple programs and each school will have a program in the presentation.