Oak View and New Hampshire Estates- separating into two different schools?

[Anonymous]

One of the really weird things about his decision is that, to support it, he expresses concern that all of the students who currently COSA-out of the schools might decide to actually come back and attend if they had a neighborhood school, creating a capacity problem that MCPS would be forced to address. So basically the real utility of the pairing to MCPS isn't that it fosters diversity, but rather that it is so reliably and consistently unattractive to so many families that Starr can count on them not to attend. And voila! Capacity problem in densely populated corner of Silver Spring is kept at bay indefinitely. The whole point of the pairing was to blend poor and middle class students to give all kids access to a diverse learning environment, and now they're declaring it a success because it so effectively prevents middle class students from enrolling in these otherwise perfectly fine schools. If a public school system is deliberately implementing policies whose purpose is to repel middle class families from schools in poor neighborhoods as a capacity-control tool, and the school system invokes diversity purely as a pretext to support the practice, is that even legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course we taxpayers (or rather, we citizens) have influence. We elect the county school board. We elect the county council. We elect the county executive.

It may not be as local as you want it to be, but it's still local.

If you think you have any influence at all on how our school system is run, you are delusional.

I don't have much influence at all on how our school system is run, because I haven't tried to influence it (beyond voting for school board candidates).

How have you tried to influence how our school system is run? Have you been a regular at meetings, put together plans with realistic and feasible suggestions for change, acknowledged that you won't get everything you want, led your local PTA, worked with the MCCPTA, gotten the press involved, organized other parents to write letters, talked to school board members, talked to county council members, run for the school board yourself?

I worked hard for years on a few different issues at my kids' school, with zero results thanks to the bloated bureaucracy that is MCPS. I had exactly zero success and eventually gave up.

I have a close family member whose child is at NHE and who has worked hard on this issue. To be told no so dismissively after having put in so much time, effort and energy is disheartening (to say the least).

With 150K+ students, MCPS is not a local school system. It is an enormous and IME impenetrable machine, uninterested in its constituents, a select few of which are occasionally given five minutes to speak at school board meetings.

Compare that to the school system I grew up in, which is town-based and which seeks out the views of the parent community. THAT is truly local and representative of the taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the gap can be explained by the HGC. The HGC is very small- only 50 kids or so total and probably 7 or 8 would have gone to Oak View anyway.

The Roundtable ordered by Starr answered this question, but the moderator of the Roundtable chose not to include it in the public report. The FARMS rates at OV was estimated to be about 76% without the HGC program and as a PreK-5 school. The school is only about 350 kids so 50 kids (a 15% addition) surely has some impact. Plus, many children from NHE's PK-2 program do not make the transition to OV, seeking out more convenient alternatives in PG county or elsewhere, which may add to the somewhat lower number in OV. But focusing on the difference in FARMS between NHE and OV is playing MCPS's game. It's a red herring. When you're dealing with FARMS rates of 70, 80, 90 percent the distinctions are meaningless as each such school is high poverty and unable to play the "low FARMS school" role that's need for a pairing arrangement to have any chance of being successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the really weird things about his decision is that, to support it, he expresses concern that all of the students who currently COSA-out of the schools might decide to actually come back and attend if they had a neighborhood school, creating a capacity problem that MCPS would be forced to address. So basically the real utility of the pairing to MCPS isn't that it fosters diversity, but rather that it is so reliably and consistently unattractive to so many families that Starr can count on them not to attend. And voila! Capacity problem in densely populated corner of Silver Spring is kept at bay indefinitely. The whole point of the pairing was to blend poor and middle class students to give all kids access to a diverse learning environment, and now they're declaring it a success because it so effectively prevents middle class students from enrolling in these otherwise perfectly fine schools. If a public school system is deliberately implementing policies whose purpose is to repel middle class families from schools in poor neighborhoods as a capacity-control tool, and the school system invokes diversity purely as a pretext to support the practice, is that even legal?

I was also bothered by this language. I think that this decision came down the cost of an addition at Oak View. There are so many capacity issues at MCPS schools right now that they just weren't willing to take on another building addition. Its also interesting that Starr recently wrote an editorial in the Washington Post basically saying that balancing out the demographics of schools is not a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the really weird things about his decision is that, to support it, he expresses concern that all of the students who currently COSA-out of the schools might decide to actually come back and attend if they had a neighborhood school, creating a capacity problem that MCPS would be forced to address. So basically the real utility of the pairing to MCPS isn't that it fosters diversity, but rather that it is so reliably and consistently unattractive to so many families that Starr can count on them not to attend. And voila! Capacity problem in densely populated corner of Silver Spring is kept at bay indefinitely. The whole point of the pairing was to blend poor and middle class students to give all kids access to a diverse learning environment, and now they're declaring it a success because it so effectively prevents middle class students from enrolling in these otherwise perfectly fine schools. If a public school system is deliberately implementing policies whose purpose is to repel middle class families from schools in poor neighborhoods as a capacity-control tool, and the school system invokes diversity purely as a pretext to support the practice, is that even legal?

I was also bothered by this language. I think that this decision came down the cost of an addition at Oak View. There are so many capacity issues at MCPS schools right now that they just weren't willing to take on another building addition. Its also interesting that Starr recently wrote an editorial in the Washington Post basically saying that balancing out the demographics of schools is not a priority.

They may not want to face the capacity problem, but it already exists. The kids who would come back into the schools already live in these neighborhoods. The school system has elected to hide behind this unpopular arrangement as a convenient way to avoid making investments in these schools. So now the question is whether it is permissible for MCPS to pursue a policy that knowingly and intentionally discourages middle class families from enrolling in these schools, both of which are situated in high-poverty neighborhoods. I'm just not sure they have the discretion to take an approach that is structured in a way that openly depends upon its unpopularity, and that needlessly guarantees high concentrations of poverty at schools that local middle class residents would gladly attend but for the imposition of compulsory busing arrangements that the rest of the county is not asked to participate in. Starr's report freely acknowledges that having the local residents absorbed back into the schools would be a problem. It's like he doesn't even get how offensive it is that this pairing, which was ostensibly created to establish diversity and which MCPS promised to support with a vibrant magnet program to ensure middle class participation, is now being exploited by the county as a way to artificially reduce the enrollment of the very students it originally promised to work hard to attract. The intellectual dishonesty surrounding MCPS's framing of the issue and the way it tries to spin the numbers to support the conclusion that this pairing benefits students from a diversity-standpoint is a complete embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Why did the Blair cluster coordinators come out against unpairing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the really weird things about his decision is that, to support it, he expresses concern that all of the students who currently COSA-out of the schools might decide to actually come back and attend if they had a neighborhood school, creating a capacity problem that MCPS would be forced to address. So basically the real utility of the pairing to MCPS isn't that it fosters diversity, but rather that it is so reliably and consistently unattractive to so many families that Starr can count on them not to attend. And voila! Capacity problem in densely populated corner of Silver Spring is kept at bay indefinitely. The whole point of the pairing was to blend poor and middle class students to give all kids access to a diverse learning environment, and now they're declaring it a success because it so effectively prevents middle class students from enrolling in these otherwise perfectly fine schools. If a public school system is deliberately implementing policies whose purpose is to repel middle class families from schools in poor neighborhoods as a capacity-control tool, and the school system invokes diversity purely as a pretext to support the practice, is that even legal?

I was also bothered by this language. I think that this decision came down the cost of an addition at Oak View. There are so many capacity issues at MCPS schools right now that they just weren't willing to take on another building
addition. Its also interesting that Starr recently wrote an editorial in the Washington Post basically saying that balancing out the demographics of schools is not a priority.

which page did he say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the really weird things about his decision is that, to support it, he expresses concern that all of the students who currently COSA-out of the schools might decide to actually come back and attend if they had a neighborhood school, creating a capacity problem that MCPS would be forced to address. So basically the real utility of the pairing to MCPS isn't that it fosters diversity, but rather that it is so reliably and consistently unattractive to so many families that Starr can count on them not to attend. And voila! Capacity problem in densely populated corner of Silver Spring is kept at bay indefinitely. The whole point of the pairing was to blend poor and middle class students to give all kids access to a diverse learning environment, and now they're declaring it a success because it so effectively prevents middle class students from enrolling in these otherwise perfectly fine schools. If a public school system is deliberately implementing policies whose purpose is to repel middle class families from schools in poor neighborhoods as a capacity-control tool, and the school system invokes diversity purely as a pretext to support the practice, is that even legal?

I was also bothered by this language. I think that this decision came down the cost of an addition at Oak View. There are so many capacity issues at MCPS schools right now that they just weren't willing to take on another building
addition. Its also interesting that Starr recently wrote an editorial in the Washington Post basically saying that balancing out the demographics of schools is not a priority.

which page did he say that?

The part about Oakview families coming back and this being a problem for MCPS is in the section about capital improvements, which is found at the bottom of page 8 carrying over to page 9. This is what he's really worried about, but he goes through this whole song and dance about diversity in an effort to be consistent with MCPS's original explanation for why it paired these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did the Blair cluster coordinators come out against unpairing?

At least someone is asking the right question. Hopefully members of the BOE are experienced enough in these things to understand that the cluster coordinators have motives and interests that are completely independent from and, in significant respects, directly at odds with the NHE and OV communities. So if the question is whether unpairing is the right thing to do for the children who reside in the NHE and OV communities, you might want to look at what the PTA and the communities are saying, not the cluster coordinators.

[Anonymous]

What were the motives/interests of the cluster coordinators? It seems like their opposition may have hurt the case of the local communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What were the motives/interests of the cluster coordinators? It seems like their opposition may have hurt the case of the local communities.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Money spent at OV and NHE can't be spent elsewhere, and a change to the status quo will require money. In my opinion, it's all very political and has a lot more to do with vying for limited resources than what's actually best for the children and communities. By pointing to the cluster coordinators' views, the Superintendent's recommendation creates the false impression that there isn't a consensus. But there is a consensus. Just look at the PTA vote. Only 7 members voted to maintain the pairing. 7. More than 70 members voted to unpair the schools. There is probably never unanimity when it comes to tricky issues, but here there is at least a basic consensus.

Hopefully the BOE will take a critical look at Dr. Starr's recommendation and vote in favor of unpairing the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What were the motives/interests of the cluster coordinators? It seems like their opposition may have hurt the case of the local communities.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Money spent at OV and NHE can't be spent elsewhere, and a change to the status quo will require money. In my opinion, it's all very political and has a lot more to do with vying for limited resources than what's actually best for the children and communities. By pointing to the cluster coordinators' views, the Superintendent's recommendation creates the false impression that there isn't a consensus. But there is a consensus. Just look at the PTA vote. Only 7 members voted to maintain the pairing. 7. More than 70 members voted to unpair the schools. There is probably never unanimity when it comes to tricky issues, but here there is at least a basic consensus.

Hopefully the BOE will take a critical look at Dr. Starr's recommendation and vote in favor of unpairing the schools.

I really hope so. Is there precedent for the BOE voting against the superintendent's recommendations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What were the motives/interests of the cluster coordinators? It seems like their opposition may have hurt the case of the local communities.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Money spent at OV and NHE can't be spent elsewhere, and a change to the status quo will require money. In my opinion, it's all very political and has a lot more to do with vying for limited resources than what's actually best for the children and communities. By pointing to the cluster coordinators' views, the Superintendent's recommendation creates the false impression that there isn't a consensus. But there is a consensus. Just look at the PTA vote. Only 7 members voted to maintain the pairing. 7. More than 70 members voted to unpair the schools. There is probably never unanimity when it comes to tricky issues, but here there is at least a basic consensus.

Hopefully the BOE will take a critical look at Dr. Starr's recommendation and vote in favor of unpairing the schools.

I really hope so. Is there precedent for the BOE voting against the superintendent's recommendations?

Interesting question. I can't imagine it's never happened. And I don't think Dr. Starr made adoption of his recommendation particularly easy. It's almost like it was written before the numbers were in, and under an assumption that the communities and PTA would be divided on the issue, which they're not.

For starters, it's kind of painful to read through the analysis of why he thinks the pairing is supportable on the basis of diversity, especially if you've followed how he treats this issue when he's dealing with schools in the green zone! The numbers are facts and no amount of twisting those facts can change the reality that pairing two high-poverty high-minority school zones does not result in diversity for anyone. Why on earth would you pair the two poorest elementary schools in the Blair cluster to achieve diversity? The answer is that you wouldn't, and I suspect the BOE is smart enough to understand that.

Another problem with Dr. Starr's report is that he finally gave up the ghost about why MCPS wishes to maintain this pairing. The truth is that MCPS relies on this pairing to funnel most of the Oak View kids into just about any school other than the schools they're assigned to. Currently almost 100 students from Oak View are attending schools other than NHE or OV through a COSA. Dr. Starr's recommendation recognizes that having a neighborhood school is something that would likely bring the COSA students back to their local school, and this would create capacity problems that he does not wish to address. In just a few sentences, Dr. Starr's recommendation writes off the kids from Oak View as a capacity nuisance. Honestly, this is one of the things that makes me think Dr. Starr didn't contribute much to the report and perhaps over-delegated and simply signed off on something prematurely. Because if that's what's really going on here, it's probably not the kind of thing he should admit. Hopefully the BOE will agree that this is a pretty outrageous and offensive way to defend the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Why do they keep the HGC there if they are trying to get kids out of Oak View? I dislike that the HGC is split with Pine Crest and I've heard that Pine Crest now has room for all HGC classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What were the motives/interests of the cluster coordinators? It seems like their opposition may have hurt the case of the local communities.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Money spent at OV and NHE can't be spent elsewhere, and a change to the status quo will require money. In my opinion, it's all very political and has a lot more to do with vying for limited resources than what's actually best for the children and communities. By pointing to the cluster coordinators' views, the Superintendent's recommendation creates the false impression that there isn't a consensus. But there is a consensus. Just look at the PTA vote. Only 7 members voted to maintain the pairing. 7. More than 70 members voted to unpair the schools. There is probably never unanimity when it comes to tricky issues, but here there is at least a basic consensus.

Hopefully the BOE will take a critical look at Dr. Starr's recommendation and vote in favor of unpairing the schools.

I really hope so. Is there precedent for the BOE voting against the superintendent's recommendations?

Interesting question. I can't imagine it's never happened. And I don't think Dr. Starr made adoption of his recommendation particularly easy. It's almost like it was written before the numbers were in, and under an assumption that the communities and PTA would be divided on the issue, which they're not.

For starters, it's kind of painful to read through the analysis of why he thinks the pairing is supportable on the basis of diversity, especially if you've followed how he treats this issue when he's dealing with schools in the green zone! The numbers are facts and no amount of twisting those facts can change the reality that pairing two high-poverty high-minority school zones does not result in diversity for anyone. Why on earth would you pair the two poorest elementary schools in the Blair cluster to achieve diversity? The answer is that you wouldn't, and I suspect the BOE is smart enough to understand that.

Another problem with Dr. Starr's report is that he finally gave up the ghost about why MCPS wishes to maintain this pairing. The truth is that MCPS relies on this pairing to funnel most of the Oak View kids into just about any school other than the schools they're assigned to. Currently almost 100 students from Oak View are attending schools other than NHE or OV through a COSA. Dr. Starr's recommendation recognizes that having a neighborhood school is something that would likely bring the COSA students back to their local school, and this would create capacity problems that he does not wish to address. In just a few sentences, Dr. Starr's recommendation writes off the kids from Oak View as a capacity nuisance. Honestly, this is one of the things that makes me think Dr. Starr didn't contribute much to the report and perhaps over-delegated and simply signed off on something prematurely. Because if that's what's really going on here, it's probably not the kind of thing he should admit. Hopefully the BOE will agree that this is a pretty outrageous and offensive way to defend the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the really weird things about his decision is that, to support it, he expresses concern that all of the students who currently COSA-out of the schools might decide to actually come back and attend if they had a neighborhood school, creating a capacity problem that MCPS would be forced to address. So basically the real utility of the pairing to MCPS isn't that it fosters diversity, but rather that it is so reliably and consistently unattractive to so many families that Starr can count on them not to attend. And voila! Capacity problem in densely populated corner of Silver Spring is kept at bay indefinitely. The whole point of the pairing was to blend poor and middle class students to give all kids access to a diverse learning environment, and now they're declaring it a success because it so effectively prevents middle class students from enrolling in these otherwise perfectly fine schools. If a public school system is deliberately implementing policies whose purpose is to repel middle class families from schools in poor neighborhoods as a capacity-control tool, and the school system invokes diversity purely as a pretext to support the practice, is that even legal?

Wow. This is terrible. DH grew up near by Oak View and has great stories about walking to and attending school there in the 70's.