Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis

[Anonymous]

WJ and RM cluster is over crowded. Boundary change needs to happen immediately to distribute kids to other schools.

It's better to have 105% in 10 schools than having 100% in 9 and then having 150% in one school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Completely ridiculous. Boundary studies HAVE to happen because demographics and population sizes change.

That is actually fine. Capacity issues can't be solved by just being politically correct.

Anonymous wrote:
Also, NO ONE is entitled to go to a particular public school. If you want a guarantee, go to a private school and make sure your kid doesn't get kicked out. Just because you bought a house in a particular community doesn't mean you're entitled to go to the school you're districted for at that point.

Well, that depends on how "entitled" you are talking about. Rules are there for a reason. The existing boundaries are existing rules telling who goes to which school. Can they be changed? Of course yes, but to say "NO ONE is entitled to go to a particular public school." is a bit exaggerating.

Anonymous wrote:
As the parent of a kid districted to Rachel Carson ES--one of the most overcrowded in MCPS--I absolutely welcome boundary changes that will alleviate that problem. I have every confidence my kid will be fine because she has two parents committed to giving her a safe, enriching environment. And if we find her school isn't working for her, we will move, as I imagine most of the parents who have the time to go to that meeting could do as well.

Of course you can confidently express your welcome to the change. Others can also express their opinions. People speak out on their interest, then we have a better knowledge of what the real "public interest" is, rather than the "public interest" defined be some people which mainly looks at certain group(s) where these people like to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WJ and RM cluster is over crowded. Boundary change needs to happen immediately to distribute kids to other schools.

It's better to have 105% in 10 schools than having 100% in 9 and then having 150% in one school.

People from that 150% school may agree. But those from the 9 100% schools may not. It is a balance of different interests and no absolute rights or wrongs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went. It was not pretty. About 100 there, give or take. I’d say it was over half Asian and South Asian parents who attended. Then whites. About six or seven black parents. I couldn’t identify anyone who may be LatinX.

Several Asian parents said they absolutely did not want diversity, and an older white man said he didn’t either, because it would disrupt the “social cohesion” of students. On white guy started mansplaining to the moderator how she should do her job.



I can understand being concerned that your kid might have to go to a whole new school. But I absolutely do not understand the backlash against more diversity at your own school.

Did they say explicitly that they did not want diversity? Or is that the interpretation of their words?

No. That’s what one Asian woman in the front left said, explicitly.

Are you the same poster stating "Several Asian parents said they absolutely did not want diversity"?

Now we are backing up from "several" to "one"?

No. One said it aloud before the entire group. Others said it in my parent group. So did one white guy.

I can try and write every single bigoted thing that was said, where it was said, time stamped, with context, but it will take awhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely ridiculous. Boundary studies HAVE to happen because demographics and population sizes change.

That is actually fine. Capacity issues can't be solved by just being politically correct.

Anonymous wrote:
Also, NO ONE is entitled to go to a particular public school. If you want a guarantee, go to a private school and make sure your kid doesn't get kicked out. Just because you bought a house in a particular community doesn't mean you're entitled to go to the school you're districted for at that point.

Well, that depends on how "entitled" you are talking about. Rules are there for a reason. The existing boundaries are existing rules telling who goes to which school. Can they be changed? Of course yes, but to say "NO ONE is entitled to go to a particular public school." is a bit exaggerating.

Anonymous wrote:
As the parent of a kid districted to Rachel Carson ES--one of the most overcrowded in MCPS--I absolutely welcome boundary changes that will alleviate that problem. I have every confidence my kid will be fine because she has two parents committed to giving her a safe, enriching environment. And if we find her school isn't working for her, we will move, as I imagine most of the parents who have the time to go to that meeting could do as well.

Of course you can confidently express your welcome to the change. Others can also express their opinions. People speak out on their interest, then we have a better knowledge of what the real "public interest" is, rather than the "public interest" defined be some people which mainly looks at certain group(s) where these people like to think about.

I can say with pretty high confidence that have zero boundary changes when there are lots of overcrowded schools is absolutely not in the public interest. We need boundary changes and new construction to deal with population increases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you can confidently express your welcome to the change. Others can also express their opinions. People speak out on their interest, then we have a better knowledge of what the real "public interest" is, rather than the "public interest" defined be some people which mainly looks at certain group(s) where these people like to think about.

We, who?

The Board of Education will make whatever decisions there are to be made. There won't be any public referendum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. One said it aloud before the entire group. Others said it in my parent group. So did one white guy.

I can try and write every single bigoted thing that was said, where it was said, time stamped, with context, but it will take awhile.

Thanks for going, PP. I mean that sincerely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ and RM cluster is over crowded. Boundary change needs to happen immediately to distribute kids to other schools.

It's better to have 105% in 10 schools than having 100% in 9 and then having 150% in one school.

People from that 150% school may agree. But those from the 9 100% schools may not. It is a balance of different interests and no absolute rights or wrongs.

Agreed, that's why we have BOE and decisions are not made by popularity.

Now , BOE gets elected so popularity matters as well, but you get my point.

Popular decisions may or may not be the best decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boundary change needs to happen and while doing it if we can avoid situations like two ES in the same cluster ending with 7% and 70% FARMs then we should surely do that.

BOE in their infinite wisdom decided to create boundary with 7% and 70% in RM cluster when new ES came online.

As a survivor of that disastrous boundary change study, school with 70% explicitly fought to stay that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary change needs to happen and while doing it if we can avoid situations like two ES in the same cluster ending with 7% and 70% FARMs then we should surely do that.

BOE in their infinite wisdom decided to create boundary with 7% and 70% in RM cluster when new ES came online.

As a survivor of that disastrous boundary change study, school with 70% explicitly fought to stay that way.

A disastrous boundary change study? What were the disasters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boundary change needs to happen and while doing it if we can avoid situations like two ES in the same cluster ending with 7% and 70% FARMs then we should surely do that.

BOE in their infinite wisdom decided to create boundary with 7% and 70% in RM cluster when new ES came online.

This just goes to show that some folks think the BOE don't do enough to spread diversity and others think they are doing too much like busing.

I was part of that boundary study. If you are referring to Twinbrook with 70%FARMs rate, the TB community didn't want to split up, and part of the reason was due to losing their Title 1 funding. The option that would've split up TB left the school at 40% FARMS rate (still waaay too high for the cluster) but not high enough to get Title 1 funding. That was a lose-lose proposition for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ and RM cluster is over crowded. Boundary change needs to happen immediately to distribute kids to other schools.

It's better to have 105% in 10 schools than having 100% in 9 and then having 150% in one school.

People from that 150% school may agree. But those from the 9 100% schools may not. It is a balance of different interests and no absolute rights or wrongs.

It is morally wrong to shove more kids into an already over crowded schools while the rest of the school surrounding it aren't over crowded.

DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary change needs to happen and while doing it if we can avoid situations like two ES in the same cluster ending with 7% and 70% FARMs then we should surely do that.

BOE in their infinite wisdom decided to create boundary with 7% and 70% in RM cluster when new ES came online.

As a survivor of that disastrous boundary change study, school with 70% explicitly fought to stay that way.

A disastrous boundary change study? What were the disasters?

By disastrous I meant how it was handled by MCPS/BOE. All information given to the committee/parents by "long range planning" division was incorrect one way or another. Options put forward were in the end influence heavily by individual lobbying groups of parents who had the "ear" of one or another BOD member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ and RM cluster is over crowded. Boundary change needs to happen immediately to distribute kids to other schools.

It's better to have 105% in 10 schools than having 100% in 9 and then having 150% in one school.

People from that 150% school may agree. But those from the 9 100% schools may not. It is a balance of different interests and no absolute rights or wrongs.

It is morally wrong to shove more kids into an already over crowded schools while the rest of the school surrounding it aren't over crowded.

DP.

I'm the parent of a kid who will go to RCES and I completely agree. Why should more kids go to a school that's at 150% capacity when there are under-capacity schools all around us? We only moved here because the Dufief expansion should happen by the time DD will start kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ and RM cluster is over crowded. Boundary change needs to happen immediately to distribute kids to other schools.

It's better to have 105% in 10 schools than having 100% in 9 and then having 150% in one school.

People from that 150% school may agree. But those from the 9 100% schools may not. It is a balance of different interests and no absolute rights or wrongs.

It is morally wrong to shove more kids into an already over crowded schools while the rest of the school surrounding it aren't over crowded.

DP.

No one is asking to "shove more kids" into an already over crowded school.
The question is how many kids of which neighborhood can be moved to which other school, or, maybe building a new school instead.