MCPS BOE petition re: making student demographics the primary factor in redistricting decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PP, Richard Montgomery is not a "low income" school - get your facts straight.

lol.. to Wootton parents we are because they have < 5% FARMs and RM has around 20%. Even if Wootton had 5%, that's a 4x increase. If they have 3%, that's almost a 7x increase. That's a lot. The funny thing is, there are many homes in the RM cluster that are more expensive than homes in the Wootton cluster. But, yes, there is Twinbrook which has the highest FARMs rate in the cluster.

We're in Wootton and never thought of RM as low income. We would have bought in Fallsgrove but didn't like how the houses were so big and lot was so small- too many huge windows looking right into your neighbors huge windows.

You could move Twinbrook into Wootton but since RM is only 20% FARMS don't the Twinbrook students already have the advantage of being at a high income school? RM would go from 20-5 and Wootton would go from 5-20. What would this achieve other than swapping the FARMS ratio between Wootton and RM?

I don't know think Twinbrook by itself accounts for 15% of RM FARMS rate.

TB accounts for close to 50% of all the ESs FARMs rate. So if you take TB out, RM FARMs rate would still be above 5%.

It's hard to really gauge because RM FARMs rate doesn't equate to the total FARMs rate of all the ESs since the ESs have 6 grade and RM only has 4. If you add up all the FARMS of all the ES, it's about 30% of the population. But RM FARMs rate is about 20%; JW is about 23%.

More than likely, CG (only 13% FARMs), which is part of RM would be rezoned to Crown. So, even with TB moving to Wootton, the FARMs rate at RM could actually stay about the same. RP and Beall combined have a FARMs rate of about 23%. Obviously some of this will be off since Bayard has openend, but it won't be that far off.


But I agree about the homes in FG. I feel the same way.

[Anonymous]

I read that the BOE approved this. What can we do now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
PP, Richard Montgomery is not a "low income" school - get your facts straight.

lol.. to Wootton parents we are because they have < 5% FARMs and RM has around 20%. Even if Wootton had 5%, that's a 4x increase. If they have 3%, that's almost a 7x increase. That's a lot. The funny thing is, there are many homes in the RM cluster that are more expensive than homes in the Wootton cluster. But, yes, there is Twinbrook which has the highest FARMs rate in the cluster.


We're in Wootton and never thought of RM as low income. We would have bought in Fallsgrove but didn't like how the houses were so big and lot was so small- too many huge windows looking right into your neighbors huge windows.

You could move Twinbrook into Wootton but since RM is only 20% FARMS don't the Twinbrook students already have the advantage of being at a high income school? RM would go from 20-5 and Wootton would go from 5-20. What would this achieve other than swapping the FARMS ratio between Wootton and RM?


Twinbrook Elementary School is an elementary school. Richard Montgomery High School is a high school.

Twinbrook is a higher FARMS ES school that feeds into Richard Montgomery (20% ) a low FARMS school. Some have argued that Twinbrook ES be moved to feed into Wootton because Wootton (5%) is low FARMS. RM would then become very low FARMS 5% and Wootton would be become low FARMS 20%. This doesn't change anything in terms of more poor students getting access to low FARMS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read that the BOE approved this. What can we do now?

The same as you were doing before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
PP, Richard Montgomery is not a "low income" school - get your facts straight.

lol.. to Wootton parents we are because they have < 5% FARMs and RM has around 20%. Even if Wootton had 5%, that's a 4x increase. If they have 3%, that's almost a 7x increase. That's a lot. The funny thing is, there are many homes in the RM cluster that are more expensive than homes in the Wootton cluster. But, yes, there is Twinbrook which has the highest FARMs rate in the cluster.


We're in Wootton and never thought of RM as low income. We would have bought in Fallsgrove but didn't like how the houses were so big and lot was so small- too many huge windows looking right into your neighbors huge windows.

You could move Twinbrook into Wootton but since RM is only 20% FARMS don't the Twinbrook students already have the advantage of being at a high income school? RM would go from 20-5 and Wootton would go from 5-20. What would this achieve other than swapping the FARMS ratio between Wootton and RM?


Twinbrook Elementary School is an elementary school. Richard Montgomery High School is a high school.

Twinbrook is a higher FARMS ES school that feeds into Richard Montgomery (20% ) a low FARMS school. Some have argued that Twinbrook ES be moved to feed into Wootton because Wootton (5%) is low FARMS. RM would then become very low FARMS 5% and Wootton would be become low FARMS 20%. This doesn't change anything in terms of more poor students getting access to low FARMS schools.

Your stats are WAY Off. Taking Twinbrook ES out of the cluster does not reduce RM to 5% FARMS. Moving Twinbrook ES into the Wottton cluster does not make it 20% FARMS.

[Anonymous]

don't know think Twinbrook by itself accounts for 15% of RM FARMS rate.

TB accounts for close to 50% of all the ESs FARMs rate. So if you take TB out, RM FARMs rate would still be above 5%.

It's hard to really gauge because RM FARMs rate doesn't equate to the total FARMs rate of all the ESs since the ESs have 6 grade and RM only has 4. If you add up all the FARMS of all the ES, it's about 30% of the population. But RM FARMs rate is about 20%; JW is about 23%.

More than likely, CG (only 13% FARMs), which is part of RM would be rezoned to Crown. So, even with TB moving to Wootton, the FARMs rate at RM could actually stay about the same. RP and Beall combined have a FARMs rate of about 23%. Obviously some of this will be off since Bayard has openend, but it won't be that far off.


But I agree about the homes in FG. I feel the same way.

So if CG and Twinbrook move out of RM who ends up going to RM? If RP and Beal both have 11.5% FARMS isn't RM now down to 11.5% - how does this make RM more balanced. Isn't the goal to get schools up to 30-40% FARMS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

don't know think Twinbrook by itself accounts for 15% of RM FARMS rate.

TB accounts for close to 50% of all the ESs FARMs rate. So if you take TB out, RM FARMs rate would still be above 5%.

It's hard to really gauge because RM FARMs rate doesn't equate to the total FARMs rate of all the ESs since the ESs have 6 grade and RM only has 4. If you add up all the FARMS of all the ES, it's about 30% of the population. But RM FARMs rate is about 20%; JW is about 23%.

More than likely, CG (only 13% FARMs), which is part of RM would be rezoned to Crown. So, even with TB moving to Wootton, the FARMs rate at RM could actually stay about the same. RP and Beall combined have a FARMs rate of about 23%. Obviously some of this will be off since Bayard has openend, but it won't be that far off.


But I agree about the homes in FG. I feel the same way.

So if CG and Twinbrook move out of RM who ends up going to RM? If RP and Beal both have 11.5% FARMS isn't RM now down to 11.5% - how does this make RM more balanced. Isn't the goal to get schools up to 30-40% FARMS?

Don't forget that they now have Rustin.. so it's three ES. Prior to Rustin opening, Beall and RP combined had a FARMs rate of 23%. Beall had 25% FARMs; RP had 20% FARMs. Not sure where you got 11.5% from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for thoughtful rezoning that improves diversity WHILE reducing busing. I'm writing this as a DCC parent. I believe neighborhood schools are a good thing.

I also believe that shuffling kids from one school to another may impact the school's test score average but will have little impact on individual students. As an early poster suggested, a better curriculum, however, will make a difference.

My concern with busing is it amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Could you provide an example of a rezoning that would improve diversity and also increase the percentage of students who walk to school (or, at least, live in the walk zone)?

Forest Oak MS is completely surrounded by a neighborhood that is bused to another MS and all the students that attend Forest Oak are bused in. There are 3 middle schools in close proximity along Midcounty/Watkins Mill, plus two others that feed three high schools that end up with a full demographic range of students. If the BOE is willing to look broadly at those three clusters, I'm sure something with more even diversity and fewer long bus rides could be worked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, there are no exemptions, least of all for Whiteman. This has been a serious concern in the County - they want to end segregated schools. My bet is that 10 years from now, all the West side high schoolswill look like Wilson.

"Look like Wilson", how? And what do you think will change between now and then to make that happen?

Right, the whole question is how they will diversify Whitman. Extensive busing could accomplish this. Or you could draw substantially gerrymandered school boundaries. But each of these have significant downsides.

But how else will can you diversify given that the areas in and around Whitman are all fairly wealthy. Most other schools are at least near lower income areas so that smaller adjustments to the boundaries -- that still largely keep boundaries contiguous and geographically rationale -- could increase diversity.

Unless there is some other solution, it seems like you are going to have to take a more radical approach to diversifying Whitman since tinkering around the edges won't work, or Whitman is likely to remain a fairly segregated school, economically and racially. More radical approaches are much easier to criticize and fight against, however.

They need to build affordable housing in the west part of the county. Subsidized garden style apartments. That will diversify the schools. No need to bus.

Check out the beautiful "garden apartments" at Scotland.

[Anonymous]

No, there are no exemptions, least of all for Whiteman. This has been a serious concern in the County -

MCPS has a failing curriculum, plummenting test scores across the county, lead in the drinking water in schools and an employee child abuse/sex scandal twice a month . The county has had close tp zero new businesses locate in the county, high failure rate of existing businesses, declining tax revenue and rising debt service and traffic issues as everyone commutes out of the county for work.

None of these issues are a serious concern but making Whitman more diverse is the priority? I don't care about Whitman's demographics but I'd like MCPS and the county for once to address the real problems-many of them self created by MCPS and the county leadership. Fix those problems and then you can play racial modeling with Whitman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Forest Oak MS is completely surrounded by a neighborhood that is bused to another MS and all the students that attend Forest Oak are bused in. There are 3 middle schools in close proximity along Midcounty/Watkins Mill, plus two others that feed three high schools that end up with a full demographic range of students. If the BOE is willing to look broadly at those three clusters, I'm sure something with more even diversity and fewer long bus rides could be worked out.

Forest Oak MS: 57% FARMs, 74% ever FARMs, 6% Asian, 26% black, 54% Hispanic, 10% white
Montgomery Village MS: 67% FARMs, 85% ever FARMs, 7% Asian, 33% black, 53% Hispanic, <5% white
Gaithersburg MS (which, famously, includes kids who take the bus from Laytonsville): 47% FARMs, 63% ever FARMs, 7% Asian, 21% black, 49% Hispanic, 19% white

plus

Shady Grove MS: 43% FARMs, 59% ever FARMs, 11% Asian, 21% black, 42% Hispanic, 22% white

and I don't know what the second other middle school is that you had in mind.

Arguably you could rezone so that Forest Oak MS could have lots of poor kids who walk, rather than lots of poor kids who arrive by bus. But I don't think there's any way to rezone Forest Oak MS so that there are more kids who walk AND it's a lower-poverty school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Check out the beautiful "garden apartments" at Scotland.

I wonder how much you know about the history of Scotland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Check out the beautiful "garden apartments" at Scotland.

I wonder how much you know about the history of Scotland.

I think that PP was being sarcastic.

[Anonymous]

They need to build affordable housing in the west part of the county. Subsidized garden style apartments. That will diversify the schools. No need to bus.

This only works in area with good public transportation. Creating section 8 garden style apartments in western Potomac where the residents would need a car to get to work, services, and healthcare isn't going to work. Bethesda areas near the Metro are all already locked up. Do you recommend using eminent domain to seize some of the property near the Bethesda metro to use as section 8 housing? Doubtful. Even if you did support this, the county doesn't have the money to buy the land.

Even in other areas that have a mix of section 8 and UMC houses like some areas of Rockville and downtown Silver Spring, developer pressure is too high and the existing section 8 housing is likely to get pushed out. Since Montgomery has no tax revenue from businesses it depends on the developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They need to build affordable housing in the west part of the county. Subsidized garden style apartments. That will diversify the schools. No need to bus.

This only works in area with good public transportation. Creating section 8 garden style apartments in western Potomac where the residents would need a car to get to work, services, and healthcare isn't going to work. Bethesda areas near the Metro are all already locked up. Do you recommend using eminent domain to seize some of the property near the Bethesda metro to use as section 8 housing? Doubtful. Even if you did support this, the county doesn't have the money to buy the land.

Even in other areas that have a mix of section 8 and UMC houses like some areas of Rockville and downtown Silver Spring, developer pressure is too high and the existing section 8 housing is likely to get pushed out. Since Montgomery has no tax revenue from businesses it depends on the developers.

Why do you mention "section 8 housing"? There are lots of opportunities for adding affordable housing in the county that don't involve the county building Robert Taylor Homes.