BOE/MCPS is a mess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it clearly does not say that. It mandates absolutely nothing. It asks them to try for diverse student bodies, while also trying to improve proximity, and utilization, and stability, while looking at adjacent schools. They have been using the revised policy in the last four or five boundary studies, and in every case they have simply looked for opportunities to reduce existing disparities between neighboring schools. Which is a good thing for a public school system to do. Sometimes they've succeeded, sometimes they've barely moved the numbers. In several instances they have rejected options that would have improved the diversity numbers because they would not have advanced the other factors. The policy supports this.

False. It says that they BOE must especially dlatribe to create more diverse schools. Given where people of different demographics often live, increasing diversity can only make proximity worse. And as the boundary analysis shows, 90% of the county doesn't really case about the skin color of their kids classmates. Only a handful of white east county progressives care about this.

Edit: especially strive

You're incorrect. Here is the sentence, which we should all know by heart now: "Options should especially strive to create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education."

There's a difference between must and should. The policy says should, which means they should try, not they have to. (It is also about the options, which are several choices that are presented, and it does not mandate that any one option is the one selected.) That's why even since the revision, they sometimes have and sometimes have not created especially diverse student bodies. You can look at the Bethesda/Somerset/Westbrook study and see how just last month there were differing results for each school, some more diverse, some less diverse.

Bethesda's FARMS rate barely changed, from 12% to 13%.
Somerset's FARMS rate dropped, from 12% to 9.7%.
Westbrook's FARMS rate increased, from 1.2 to 6.6%.

And of course all of these rates are far below the countywide average of 38.7%, and yet there was not a single option even considered that bussed kids in "from far away" in order to mitigate this. So the policy just isn't doing what you keep claiming it is doing.

Oh ok. So it says the BOE should especially strive for busing, not has to do busing. Got it. In either case, 90% of the county doesn't even want them to consider it, let alone strive for it.

And the example you picked is one of the wealthiest areas of the county where they still bused a good number of kids they really didn't need to. The BOE's priorities are way off as is the underhandedly altered boundary policy.

Yes, I already pointed out that these schools had a far below average FARMS rate. But that's the point--your endless fear mongering about "busing" would have us believe that they would take every opportunity to send more low income kids to Bethesda, and/or send Bethesda kids to low income areas, but they did not. Face the fact that this policy is, in reality, not the scary "busing plan" you kept saying it would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it clearly does not say that. It mandates absolutely nothing. It asks them to try for diverse student bodies, while also trying to improve proximity, and utilization, and stability, while looking at adjacent schools. They have been using the revised policy in the last four or five boundary studies, and in every case they have simply looked for opportunities to reduce existing disparities between neighboring schools. Which is a good thing for a public school system to do. Sometimes they've succeeded, sometimes they've barely moved the numbers. In several instances they have rejected options that would have improved the diversity numbers because they would not have advanced the other factors. The policy supports this.

False. It says that they BOE must especially dlatribe to create more diverse schools. Given where people of different demographics often live, increasing diversity can only make proximity worse. And as the boundary analysis shows, 90% of the county doesn't really case about the skin color of their kids classmates. Only a handful of white east county progressives care about this.

Edit: especially strive

You're incorrect. Here is the sentence, which we should all know by heart now: "Options should especially strive to create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education."

There's a difference between must and should. The policy says should, which means they should try, not they have to. (It is also about the options, which are several choices that are presented, and it does not mandate that any one option is the one selected.) That's why even since the revision, they sometimes have and sometimes have not created especially diverse student bodies. You can look at the Bethesda/Somerset/Westbrook study and see how just last month there were differing results for each school, some more diverse, some less diverse.

Bethesda's FARMS rate barely changed, from 12% to 13%.
Somerset's FARMS rate dropped, from 12% to 9.7%.
Westbrook's FARMS rate increased, from 1.2 to 6.6%.

And of course all of these rates are far below the countywide average of 38.7%, and yet there was not a single option even considered that bussed kids in "from far away" in order to mitigate this. So the policy just isn't doing what you keep claiming it is doing.

Oh ok. So it says the BOE should especially strive for busing, not has to do busing. Got it. In either case, 90% of the county doesn't even want them to consider it, let alone strive for it.

And the example you picked is one of the wealthiest areas of the county where they still bused a good number of kids they really didn't need to. The BOE's priorities are way off as is the underhandedly altered boundary policy.

Yes, I already pointed out that these schools had a far below average FARMS rate. But that's the point--your endless fear mongering about "busing" would have us believe that they would take every opportunity to send more low income kids to Bethesda, and/or send Bethesda kids to low income areas, but they did not. Face the fact that this policy is, in reality, not the scary "busing plan" you kept saying it would be.

This was a small scale boundary study so there wasn't an opportunity to bus very many kids yet they bused as many as they could get away with. The boundary policy changes in 2018 also allow for MCPS to bus kids to adjoining clusters. When there's a large enough study like there will be for Crown or Woodward there'll be a LOT of busing. Had Covid not hit, the BOE was set to tee up a countywide boundary study with the specific purpose of moving as many boundaries as possible to make MCPS as diverse as possible with as little care for proximity as they could get away with. Busing is still coming. It'll probably just take 15 years. Thankfully my kids will be well out of MCPS by then but I feel bad for people with small children who are blissfully unaware of what the pro-busing boundary policy has in store for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This was a small scale boundary study so there wasn't an opportunity to bus very many kids yet they bused as many as they could get away with. The boundary policy changes in 2018 also allow for MCPS to bus kids to adjoining clusters. When there's a large enough study like there will be for Crown or Woodward there'll be a LOT of busing. Had Covid not hit, the BOE was set to tee up a countywide boundary study with the specific purpose of moving as many boundaries as possible to make MCPS as diverse as possible with as little care for proximity as they could get away with. Busing is still coming. It'll probably just take 15 years. Thankfully my kids will be well out of MCPS by then but I feel bad for people with small children who are blissfully unaware of what the pro-busing boundary policy has in store for them.

Nope, here in the real world that was never even suggested. Just another one of your fever dreams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This was a small scale boundary study so there wasn't an opportunity to bus very many kids yet they bused as many as they could get away with. The boundary policy changes in 2018 also allow for MCPS to bus kids to adjoining clusters. When there's a large enough study like there will be for Crown or Woodward there'll be a LOT of busing. Had Covid not hit, the BOE was set to tee up a countywide boundary study with the specific purpose of moving as many boundaries as possible to make MCPS as diverse as possible with as little care for proximity as they could get away with. Busing is still coming. It'll probably just take 15 years. Thankfully my kids will be well out of MCPS by then but I feel bad for people with small children who are blissfully unaware of what the pro-busing boundary policy has in store for them.

Nope, here in the real world that was never even suggested. Just another one of your fever dreams.[/quote]

AGREE - I'm not sure what they hope to gain by spreading misinformation, but there was never any such plan.

[Anonymous]

At this point, they're not spreading misinformation, they're deliberately spreading lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it clearly does not say that. It mandates absolutely nothing. It asks them to try for diverse student bodies, while also trying to improve proximity, and utilization, and stability, while looking at adjacent schools. They have been using the revised policy in the last four or five boundary studies, and in every case they have simply looked for opportunities to reduce existing disparities between neighboring schools. Which is a good thing for a public school system to do. Sometimes they've succeeded, sometimes they've barely moved the numbers. In several instances they have rejected options that would have improved the diversity numbers because they would not have advanced the other factors. The policy supports this.

False. It says that they BOE must especially dlatribe to create more diverse schools. Given where people of different demographics often live, increasing diversity can only make proximity worse. And as the boundary analysis shows, 90% of the county doesn't really case about the skin color of their kids classmates. Only a handful of white east county progressives care about this.

Edit: especially strive

You're incorrect. Here is the sentence, which we should all know by heart now: "Options should especially strive to create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education."

There's a difference between must and should. The policy says should, which means they should try, not they have to. (It is also about the options, which are several choices that are presented, and it does not mandate that any one option is the one selected.) That's why even since the revision, they sometimes have and sometimes have not created especially diverse student bodies. You can look at the Bethesda/Somerset/Westbrook study and see how just last month there were differing results for each school, some more diverse, some less diverse.

Bethesda's FARMS rate barely changed, from 12% to 13%.
Somerset's FARMS rate dropped, from 12% to 9.7%.
Westbrook's FARMS rate increased, from 1.2 to 6.6%.

And of course all of these rates are far below the countywide average of 38.7%, and yet there was not a single option even considered that bussed kids in "from far away" in order to mitigate this. So the policy just isn't doing what you keep claiming it is doing.

Oh ok. So it says the BOE should especially strive for busing, not has to do busing. Got it. In either case, 90% of the county doesn't even want them to consider it, let alone strive for it.

And the example you picked is one of the wealthiest areas of the county where they still bused a good number of kids they really didn't need to. The BOE's priorities are way off as is the underhandedly altered boundary policy.

Holy misconstruing, Batman!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MCPS and the BOE have a plan for the spike in COVID after Winter Break? Cases are already spiking across the entire school system after Thanksgiving. Combine that with out of state travel plans during Winter Break, it’s going to be a sh$t show of COVID spread in January.

If if the case rate is already spiking, then hooray, the next thing to happen is that the case rate will come down again. Or did you mean that the case rate is increasing?

I'm old enough to remember all the way back to August 2021, when every second post on DCUM solemnly averred that MCPS was going to be a huge mess within 2 weeks of school starting.

Also, how do you know cases are rising? MoCo data hasn't been updated in 10 days. State data is only current for hospitalizations. The local case could have plummeted (unlikely). But you can't also assert that cases are spiking if the data hasn't been updated since 12/4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MCPS and the BOE have a plan for the spike in COVID after Winter Break? Cases are already spiking across the entire school system after Thanksgiving. Combine that with out of state travel plans during Winter Break, it’s going to be a sh$t show of COVID spread in January.

If if the case rate is already spiking, then hooray, the next thing to happen is that the case rate will come down again. Or did you mean that the case rate is increasing?

I'm old enough to remember all the way back to August 2021, when every second post on DCUM solemnly averred that MCPS was going to be a huge mess within 2 weeks of school starting.

Also, how do you know cases are rising? MoCo data hasn't been updated in 10 days. State data is only current for hospitalizations. The local case could have plummeted (unlikely). But you can't also assert that cases are spiking if the data hasn't been updated since 12/4

It makes for a better gripe narrative, obvs.

[Anonymous]

Geez, Steve, I guess I struck a nerve there? Or is it one of your buddies like JR or the other JR? Or what's her name with the adoption blog?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This was a small scale boundary study so there wasn't an opportunity to bus very many kids yet they bused as many as they could get away with. The boundary policy changes in 2018 also allow for MCPS to bus kids to adjoining clusters. When there's a large enough study like there will be for Crown or Woodward there'll be a LOT of busing. Had Covid not hit, the BOE was set to tee up a countywide boundary study with the specific purpose of moving as many boundaries as possible to make MCPS as diverse as possible with as little care for proximity as they could get away with. Busing is still coming. It'll probably just take 15 years. Thankfully my kids will be well out of MCPS by then but I feel bad for people with small children who are blissfully unaware of what the pro-busing boundary policy has in store for them.

Nope, here in the real world that was never even suggested. Just another one of your fever dreams.

It was suggested right in the boundary analysis resolution.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B8C2XD77A17C/$file/20190108%20ADOPTED%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

"It may not be feasible to revise all boundaries, however, there are many schools in MCPS with
adjacent school boundaries that have both significant disparities in socioeconomic and racial demographics and disparities in facility utilization. Examining the possibility of altering the
boundaries for these schools can present opportunities for progress toward ensuring that all
students are able to reap the significant benefits of attending school with a diverse student body,"

Be honest with yourself, does this section sound like something an organization would write if they intended to sit on their hands or does it sound like the precursor to revise as many boundaries as possible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This was a small scale boundary study so there wasn't an opportunity to bus very many kids yet they bused as many as they could get away with. The boundary policy changes in 2018 also allow for MCPS to bus kids to adjoining clusters. When there's a large enough study like there will be for Crown or Woodward there'll be a LOT of busing. Had Covid not hit, the BOE was set to tee up a countywide boundary study with the specific purpose of moving as many boundaries as possible to make MCPS as diverse as possible with as little care for proximity as they could get away with. Busing is still coming. It'll probably just take 15 years. Thankfully my kids will be well out of MCPS by then but I feel bad for people with small children who are blissfully unaware of what the pro-busing boundary policy has in store for them.

Nope, here in the real world that was never even suggested. Just another one of your fever dreams.

It was suggested right in the boundary analysis resolution.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B8C2XD77A17C/$file/20190108%20ADOPTED%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

"It may not be feasible to revise all boundaries, however, there are many schools in MCPS with
adjacent school boundaries that have both significant disparities in socioeconomic and racial demographics and disparities in facility utilization. Examining the possibility of altering the
boundaries for these schools can present opportunities for progress toward ensuring that all
students are able to reap the significant benefits of attending school with a diverse student body,"

Be honest with yourself, does this section sound like something an organization would write if they intended to sit on their hands or does it sound like the precursor to revise as many boundaries as possible?

Check your temperature, PP. I think you have a fever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This was a small scale boundary study so there wasn't an opportunity to bus very many kids yet they bused as many as they could get away with. The boundary policy changes in 2018 also allow for MCPS to bus kids to adjoining clusters. When there's a large enough study like there will be for Crown or Woodward there'll be a LOT of busing. Had Covid not hit, the BOE was set to tee up a countywide boundary study with the specific purpose of moving as many boundaries as possible to make MCPS as diverse as possible with as little care for proximity as they could get away with. Busing is still coming. It'll probably just take 15 years. Thankfully my kids will be well out of MCPS by then but I feel bad for people with small children who are blissfully unaware of what the pro-busing boundary policy has in store for them.

Nope, here in the real world that was never even suggested. Just another one of your fever dreams.

It was suggested right in the boundary analysis resolution.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B8C2XD77A17C/$file/20190108%20ADOPTED%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

"It may not be feasible to revise all boundaries, however, there are many schools in MCPS with
adjacent school boundaries that have both significant disparities in socioeconomic and racial demographics and disparities in facility utilization. Examining the possibility of altering the
boundaries for these schools can present opportunities for progress toward ensuring that all
students are able to reap the significant benefits of attending school with a diverse student body,"

Be honest with yourself, does this section sound like something an organization would write if they intended to sit on their hands or does it sound like the precursor to revise as many boundaries as possible?

Did you not see where it says "many schools" and "for these schools"? That is not evidence of your claim that "the BOE was set to tee up a countywide boundary study."

[Anonymous]

With Northwood HS, Woodward HS and Crown HS coming on line in just a few years, the time is now for a county wide boundary study. But that would be too much common sense, so no, MCPS won't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With Northwood HS, Woodward HS and Crown HS coming on line in just a few years, the time is now for a county wide boundary study. But that would be too much common sense, so no, MCPS won't do it.

How would that be common sense? Common sense would be to conduct two smaller (but still quite large) boundary studies, one for each set of schools that will be affected by the construction of these new buildings: in 2023-24, a Woodward study to include WJ, Blair, Einstein, Kennedy, Northwood, and Wheaton; and in 2024-25, a Crown study to include Gaithersburg, Northwest, Quince Orchard, RM, and Wootton.

I can't see anything sensible about throwing in all other schools' boundaries too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MCPS and the BOE have a plan for the spike in COVID after Winter Break? Cases are already spiking across the entire school system after Thanksgiving. Combine that with out of state travel plans during Winter Break, it’s going to be a sh$t show of COVID spread in January.

If if the case rate is already spiking, then hooray, the next thing to happen is that the case rate will come down again. Or did you mean that the case rate is increasing?

I'm old enough to remember all the way back to August 2021, when every second post on DCUM solemnly averred that MCPS was going to be a huge mess within 2 weeks of school starting.

Also, how do you know cases are rising? MoCo data hasn't been updated in 10 days. State data is only current for hospitalizations. The local case could have plummeted (unlikely). But you can't also assert that cases are spiking if the data hasn't been updated since 12/4

It makes for a better gripe narrative, obvs.

Really? You want to hang your hat on the argument that the explained absence of data suggests that cases have gone down? We don't have the data, and that is a problem. However, it's been over 10 days since the data became inaccessible, and hospitalizations have been rising at a steadly clip. Given that hospitalizations are a lagging indicator, that suggests that cases have been rising over this period.

I don't know if MCPS has been reporting the number of positive tests, but Howard and Anne Arundel County public schools have, and both have seen a tremendous increase with the highest number of positive cases so far this year.