Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What rational was given for swapping students between Neelsville and Rocky Hill?

If the purpose of the boundary rezoning was to relieve crowding at Clarksburg High and fill the under enrolled new SV school, then why move a bunch of kids out of Neelsville into Rocky and vive versa? Other than demographic balancing, there is no capacity gain or loss from swapping students.


An earlier poster explained it well: "the move also helps with articulation. Previously, Daly/Fox Chapel kids went to Neelsville MS and then Clarksburg HS. Now, they will go to Rocky Hill MS and then Clarksburg HS. Similarly, without middle-school reassignment, Cabin Branch and Gibbs ES would have gone to Rocky Hill MS and then Seneca Valley HS; but instead they will go to Neelsville MS and then Seneca Valley HS. "

Not really, it would have made more sense for proximity, continuity and articulation to keep Daly/Fox Chapel at Neelsville and then go to SV leaving CB and Gibbs at RH and Clarksburg. I can understand why from a racial diversity perspective MCPS did not want to do this. MCPS should be honest about it though and its a much stronger case to try to get the 2007 ruling overturned than to try to claim you didn't use race, especially when you published a racial impact table on your website as part of the announcement.

It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with FARMS. There are plenty of people of color in Gibbs and CBranch. In 2020, the BOE, with an opportunity to adjust boundaries, did not want to keep a school at 66% FARMS when there is one a few miles up the road with 21% FARMS (based on 2018-2018 data). Other than Kingsview (which will be played with when Crown HS is built, RHMS is the only middle school that had a big enough disparity to support the balancing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

No they did not. Those 78 comments were from April through Sep 13th when all the factors were assumed to be weighed equally. The word especially was not in the policy during this review period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks should sue. MoCo assessed properties higher in better school areas hence collected more taxes. Therefore you can’t take it away without lowering property taxes

Folks are suing. The lawsuit is not based on "You lowered my property value!," but it's not much better than that. A reminder that anybody can sue anybody about anything for any reason, no matter how foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

No they did not. Those 78 comments were from April through Sep 13th when all the factors were assumed to be weighed equally. The word especially was not in the policy during this review period.

The factors still are weighed equally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

No they did not. Those 78 comments were from April through Sep 13th when all the factors were assumed to be weighed equally. The word especially was not in the policy during this review period.

The factors still are weighed equally.

please do research. This is not the case at all. Watch the videos and the articles from 2018.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

No they did not. Those 78 comments were from April through Sep 13th when all the factors were assumed to be weighed equally. The word especially was not in the policy during this review period.

As stated, even if they didn't, the boundary changes aren't going to be reversed. I assume the ultimate goal for this lawsuit is to reverse the boundary change, but it won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

No they did not. Those 78 comments were from April through Sep 13th when all the factors were assumed to be weighed equally. The word especially was not in the policy during this review period.

The factors still are weighed equally.

I'm ^PP... it's impossible to weigh each factor equally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

No they did not. Those 78 comments were from April through Sep 13th when all the factors were assumed to be weighed equally. The word especially was not in the policy during this review period.

The factors still are weighed equally.

please do research. This is not the case at all. Watch the videos and the articles from 2018.

I've read the policy. I've heard MCPS staff say that the four factors are equally important. And I've read the superintendent's recommendation.

Please quote the part of the policy that says that one of the factors should be more important than the other three.

[Anonymous]

^^^the superintendent's recommendation in the upcounty boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Not true. They did open the changes up for review. https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7661eebc-f5d1-44bc-8ae5-7d4a85a29742

DP... even if they didn't, this wouldn't necessarily reverse the recent boundary changes since diversity was always one of the four factors. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have all four factors weighted equally.

No they did not. Those 78 comments were from April through Sep 13th when all the factors were assumed to be weighed equally. The word especially was not in the policy during this review period.

The factors still are weighed equally.

please do research. This is not the case at all. Watch the videos and the articles from 2018.

I've read the policy. I've heard MCPS staff say that the four factors are equally important. And I've read the superintendent's recommendation.

Please quote the part of the policy that says that one of the factors should be more important than the other three.

The part that says "especially." Words have meaning. Especially means it is given more weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The part that says "especially." Words have meaning. Especially means it is given more weight.

Words have meaning IN CONTEXT. There are thousands of words in Policy FAA, including words such as "maximize," "air conditioning," and "demonstrates."

So please cite the actual part that says that one of the factors should be more important then the other three. Not one word. The whole part that says that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would I move to MoCo if all three of my kids will be bused to separate schools and not make friends in the neighborhood via local school we’d walk to?

Shall stay in DC. Hope we get into SWW in two years time!

Thanks dcum.

Yes, stay in the DC based rat race lottery system, all while pretending to care about racial equity. DC can keep you

Wrong, you have a choice: you go to your local Es, ms, or Hs, or you enter lottery for a charter school or other dcps.

Sounds like mcps won’t even let you choose your local designated school as a default or make school bussing voluntary. Instead mcps is setting the table to take away catchment pyramids for residential real estate and hire consulted to do diversity bussing and boundaries. No choice there MoCo. Let the Gubment handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would I move to MoCo if all three of my kids will be bused to separate schools and not make friends in the neighborhood via local school we’d walk to?

Shall stay in DC. Hope we get into SWW in two years time!

Thanks dcum.

Yes, stay in the DC based rat race lottery system, all while pretending to care about racial equity. DC can keep you

Wrong, you have a choice: you go to your local Es, ms, or Hs, or you enter lottery for a charter school or other dcps.

Sounds like mcps won’t even let you choose your local designated school as a default or make school bussing voluntary. Instead mcps is setting the table to take away catchment pyramids for residential real estate and hire consulted to do diversity bussing and boundaries. No choice there MoCo. Let the Gubment handle it.

Yeah, no.