BOE Memer is proposing to study school boundary in MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you for posting the paper. I think what is interested is that it found a clear benefit for very poor students of attending a school with 20% or less FARMS, but found no difference for the very poor students between attending a school with 35% FARMS v. higher FARMs percentage. To the extent that boundary changes would push a school from the 19-20% FARMs level over the 35% FARMs level, this study suggests that the FARMs students already attending the school would suffer negative consequences from the FARMs rate going from "under 20%" to "35% or over." The study summary doesn't talk much about the 20-35% FARMs range, which is common for many MCPS elementary schools. The main categories described in the summary were under 20% and 35%+

I don't think that's entirely accurate. The study binned the data, almost certainly for very valid statistical reasons, but as a result we can't really draw inferences for individual values in each bin.

If rezoning turned a low-poverty school and a high-poverty school into two moderate-poverty schools, would the low-income students previously in the low-poverty school be harmed more than the low-income students previously in the high-poverty school were helped? That's a question the study can't answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hilarious thing is that literally no one is suggesting busing - just balancing the boundaries a little to deal with schools that are overcrowded near schools that have space.

This means the MOST segregated communities are the safest, since their boundaries are least likely to touch an integrated school zone.

Nothing has actually been proposed yet so no one knows exactly what will be coming. Some of the rhetoric from the BOE certainly could be used to support busing so fears about busing are not completely unfounded, although maybe premature.

Hee hee.

No, they're not 100% unfounded, they're just about 99% unfounded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hilarious thing is that literally no one is suggesting busing - just balancing the boundaries a little to deal with schools that are overcrowded near schools that have space.

This means the MOST segregated communities are the safest, since their boundaries are least likely to touch an integrated school zone.

Nothing has actually been proposed yet so no one knows exactly what will be coming. Some of the rhetoric from the BOE certainly could be used to support busing so fears about busing are not completely unfounded, although maybe premature.

Hee hee.

No, they're not 100% unfounded, they're just about 99% unfounded.

I don't agree. You have a BOE who has made it very, very clear that closing the achievement gap is a, if not the, main thing they are focused on. There has been plenty of other talk about changing borders to achieve greater diversity.

Given that it will be hard to really make much of a difference on either front by just tinkering with the borders, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to think that they might wind up supporting busing that goes beyond border tinkering once it becomes clear that tinkering won't achieve their objectives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't agree. You have a BOE who has made it very, very clear that closing the achievement gap is a, if not the, main thing they are focused on. There has been plenty of other talk about changing borders to achieve greater diversity.

Given that it will be hard to really make much of a difference on either front by just tinkering with the borders, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to think that they might wind up supporting busing that goes beyond border tinkering once it becomes clear that tinkering won't achieve their objectives.

In that case, it's quite appropriate for you to keep spreading fear and panic on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you for posting the paper. I think what is interested is that it found a clear benefit for very poor students of attending a school with 20% or less FARMS, but found no difference for the very poor students between attending a school with 35% FARMS v. higher FARMs percentage. To the extent that boundary changes would push a school from the 19-20% FARMs level over the 35% FARMs level, this study suggests that the FARMs students already attending the school would suffer negative consequences from the FARMs rate going from "under 20%" to "35% or over." The study summary doesn't talk much about the 20-35% FARMs range, which is common for many MCPS elementary schools. The main categories described in the summary were under 20% and 35%+

I don't think that's entirely accurate. The study binned the data, almost certainly for very valid statistical reasons, but as a result we can't really draw inferences for individual values in each bin.

If rezoning turned a low-poverty school and a high-poverty school into two moderate-poverty schools, would the low-income students previously in the low-poverty school be harmed more than the low-income students previously in the high-poverty school were helped? That's a question the study can't answer.

I fully admit to reading only the summary of findings and not the whole paper (as well as not being a person who works with these kinds of studies/statistics for a living). However, on p. 6 under the heading "school related findings" it says:

"The academic returns from economic integration diminished as school poverty levels rose. Children who lived in public housing and attended schools where no more than 20 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal did best, whereas those children in public housing who attended schools where as many as 35 percent of students who qualified for a free or reduced price meal performed no better academically over time than public housing children who attended schools where 35 to 85 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal." (italics original, bold emphasis mine)

So that's what I based my post on, and I think it is supported by this language in the study itself.

[Anonymous]

Thank you! Rich students don’t suffer when some poorer students are present in their classes. But poor students perform worse when their classes are full of only poor students. At this point everyone in the rich schools is intentionally paying a premium to isolate their children from poor students. MCPS doesn’t have to allow that to continue. [code]

This isn't entirely true. You can add some poor low performing kids to a high performing school that is well resourced and the high performing kids will not suffer and the low performing kids might get better. This is a win.

However when you add too many low performing kids to a high performing school their performance does drop for the high performing kids. The low performing poor kids don't do better either. Look around at the MCPS schools with 25%-30% FARMS kids. Those kids are really not performing better than low performing poor kids at other schools. with a higher FARMS rate. This situation is a lose for students. MCPS though still sees it as a win because it makes the school APPEAR to look better than a school with only poor low performing kids. So if you actually care about kids you wouldn't support this plan. If you suck up to MCPS then sure its a great idea.

In terms of people choosing not to live in areas with high poverty, its crazy to think that someone believes that MCPS should have a say in where to allow people to live. Good grief. People 0white, black, asian, hispanic- will always avoid areas with high poverty if they can afford to do it. Why? Because high concentration of poverty correlates with high crime, poorly maintained properties and lower appreciation, and poor performing schools.

Look at the DCC. Blair, Einstein and Northwood are incredibly over capacity while Kennedy sits there with open seats. Why aren't more kids in the DCC diverted up to Kennedy to use those seats? Why aren't wealthier white or asian kids living in boundary for Blair assigned to Kennedy? Blair, Einstein, and Northwood residents would have a nervous breakdown if they were assigned to a lower performing DCC school in a higher poverty area with more crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't agree. You have a BOE who has made it very, very clear that closing the achievement gap is a, if not the, main thing they are focused on. There has been plenty of other talk about changing borders to achieve greater diversity.

Given that it will be hard to really make much of a difference on either front by just tinkering with the borders, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to think that they might wind up supporting busing that goes beyond border tinkering once it becomes clear that tinkering won't achieve their objectives.

In that case, it's quite appropriate for you to keep spreading fear and panic on DCUM.

Feel free to dispute the substance of my post if you would like.

And I am not spreading fear and panic -- I've never stated a position one way or another about whether busing would be a good or bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Feel free to dispute the substance of my post if you would like.

And I am not spreading fear and panic -- I've never stated a position one way or another about whether busing would be a good or bad thing.

Yes. Also, the zombies are coming, but I haven't stated a position on whether that would be a good or bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Feel free to dispute the substance of my post if you would like.

And I am not spreading fear and panic -- I've never stated a position one way or another about whether busing would be a good or bad thing.

Yes. Also, the zombies are coming, but I haven't stated a position on whether that would be a good or bad thing.

For all you know I support busing and there are plenty of people who would, unlike your imbecilic zombie example.

And I am still waiting for a substantive response to my post arguing that it is not unreasonable to think there is a chance the BOE could decide to go with more extensive busing than just border tinkering, which you conveniently decided to not include in your quote.

If you really believe there is, at most, a 1% chance of this happening, it should be easy for you to discuss on the merits rather than with sill ad hominem attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you! Rich students don’t suffer when some poorer students are present in their classes. But poor students perform worse when their classes are full of only poor students. At this point everyone in the rich schools is intentionally paying a premium to isolate their children from poor students. MCPS doesn’t have to allow that to continue. [code]

This isn't entirely true. You can add some poor low performing kids to a high performing school that is well resourced and the high performing kids will not suffer and the low performing kids might get better. This is a win.

However when you add too many low performing kids to a high performing school their performance does drop for the high performing kids. The low performing poor kids don't do better either. Look around at the MCPS schools with 25%-30% FARMS kids. Those kids are really not performing better than low performing poor kids at other schools. with a higher FARMS rate. This situation is a lose for students. MCPS though still sees it as a win because it makes the school APPEAR to look better than a school with only poor low performing kids. So if you actually care about kids you wouldn't support this plan. If you suck up to MCPS then sure its a great idea.

In terms of people choosing not to live in areas with high poverty, its crazy to think that someone believes that MCPS should have a say in where to allow people to live. Good grief. People 0white, black, asian, hispanic- will always avoid areas with high poverty if they can afford to do it. Why? Because high concentration of poverty correlates with high crime, poorly maintained properties and lower appreciation, and poor performing schools.

Look at the DCC. Blair, Einstein and Northwood are incredibly over capacity while Kennedy sits there with open seats. Why aren't more kids in the DCC diverted up to Kennedy to use those seats? Why aren't wealthier white or asian kids living in boundary for Blair assigned to Kennedy? Blair, Einstein, and Northwood residents would have a nervous breakdown if they were assigned to a lower performing DCC school in a higher poverty area with more crime.

Yep. It isn't just Bethesda parents who want to segregate their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Over-capacity is the PC way of saying desegregation.

funny thing about this situation . . .

the "understanding" that minorities will benefit by being sent to a school that's either majority white or high SES - That's the blanketed message no one wants to state out loud.

The issue is not resolved through busing. This is a simplistic approach that's part of the "blame game." Kids should not be made ashamed of their home school, yet this is the message we're sending by examining this approach. Instead, teachers be provided the autonomy (and respect!) to do what's best for their students.

Uh huh. Tell that to the parents at Ashburton ES and Rachel Carson ES.

And if you look at the school's stats, there are few students labeled as FARMs at the two ES. This means that students will most likely be zoned for other elementary schools with some space.

QO and WJ are the high schools into which these schools feed. WJ, as we know, is fairly close to the DCC, as the boundary wars have already begun. Remember that Woodward is in the picture.

QO is surrounded by Watkins Mill, Seneca Valley, Gaithersburg and Northwest HS.

What's described as overpopulation is just a code word for busing.

I feel like I'm arguing with somebody who is insisting that 2 plus 2 is actually 3.

I'm not arguing. I'm telling you.

I've spent over 20 years in the system, experiencing the growing pains when the NEC and DCC came into existence.

I don't care if you don't get it. I know I'm right.

Continue to live in your bubble. I'm out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In terms of people choosing not to live in areas with high poverty, its crazy to think that someone believes that MCPS should have a say in where to allow people to live. Good grief. People 0white, black, asian, hispanic- will always avoid areas with high poverty if they can afford to do it. Why? Because high concentration of poverty correlates with high crime, poorly maintained properties and lower appreciation, and poor performing schools.

Nobody is saying this. What people are saying is that MCPS should have a say in school boundaries.

Also, the residential geography of Montgomery County didn't just happen by itself, like sunrise. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, people gotta live in neighborhoods segregated by income and ethnicity - nope. We have segregated neighborhoods by design. On purpose. Here's a bit of historical perspective to start with, and no, I am not the author: https://ggwash.org/view/70408/harland-bartholomew-the-man-who-zoned-washington-dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you! Rich students don’t suffer when some poorer students are present in their classes. But poor students perform worse when their classes are full of only poor students. At this point everyone in the rich schools is intentionally paying a premium to isolate their children from poor students. MCPS doesn’t have to allow that to continue. [code]

This isn't entirely true. You can add some poor low performing kids to a high performing school that is well resourced and the high performing kids will not suffer and the low performing kids might get better. This is a win.

However when you add too many low performing kids to a high performing school their performance does drop for the high performing kids. The low performing poor kids don't do better either. Look around at the MCPS schools with 25%-30% FARMS kids. Those kids are really not performing better than low performing poor kids at other schools. with a higher FARMS rate. This situation is a lose for students. MCPS though still sees it as a win because it makes the school APPEAR to look better than a school with only poor low performing kids. So if you actually care about kids you wouldn't support this plan. If you suck up to MCPS then sure its a great idea.

In terms of people choosing not to live in areas with high poverty, its crazy to think that someone believes that MCPS should have a say in where to allow people to live. Good grief. People 0white, black, asian, hispanic- will always avoid areas with high poverty if they can afford to do it. Why? Because high concentration of poverty correlates with high crime, poorly maintained properties and lower appreciation, and poor performing schools.

Look at the DCC. Blair, Einstein and Northwood are incredibly over capacity while Kennedy sits there with open seats. Why aren't more kids in the DCC diverted up to Kennedy to use those seats? Why aren't wealthier white or asian kids living in boundary for Blair assigned to Kennedy? Blair, Einstein, and Northwood residents would have a nervous breakdown if they were assigned to a lower performing DCC school in a higher poverty area with more crime.

Yep. It isn't just Bethesda parents who want to segregate their kids.

Nice try, but Kennedy has a capacity of 1794 and enrollment of 1796 this year. Wheaton is the only DCC HS with space, which is an effect of their new building.
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP20_Chap4_DCC.pdf

[Anonymous]

Nice try, but Kennedy has a capacity of 1794 and enrollment of 1796 this year. Wheaton is the only DCC HS with space, which is an effect of their new building.

Kennedy is projected to be under capacity. Plus adding a few portables would easily increase the available space even more there so the capacity number could be increased to off set crowing at Blair, Einstein and Northwood. And yes, if there are free seats at Wheaton than the most expensive areas in TP that feed Blair should be assigned to Wheaton. Wheaton and Kennedy are part of the DCC so the people should have no problem going to a school within their own DCC overall boundary. After all, they didn't buy into a particular HS school zone, they bought into the DCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nice try, but Kennedy has a capacity of 1794 and enrollment of 1796 this year. Wheaton is the only DCC HS with space, which is an effect of their new building.

Kennedy is projected to be under capacity. Plus adding a few portables would easily increase the available space even more there so the capacity number could be increased to off set crowing at Blair, Einstein and Northwood. And yes, if there are free seats at Wheaton than the most expensive areas in TP that feed Blair should be assigned to Wheaton. Wheaton and Kennedy are part of the DCC so the people should have no problem going to a school within their own DCC overall boundary. After all, they didn't buy into a particular HS school zone, they bought into the DCC.

Kennedy is projected to be under capacity after its scheduled classroom addition opens in 2022. There will be a boundary study then to fill the seats.

And no, they didn't buy into a particular HS zone, nor did they buy into the DCC. They bought into Montgomery County, which has one school district, and everyone should know that school and/or consortia boundaries are subject to change at any time.