Woodward Boundary Study discussion at next BoE meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating how everyone seems to know exactly what MCPS/BOE will do.

NONE of you know, you are all guessing. And, in the long-run, MCPS will do whatever they want, parents be damned. We will all just have to wait and see

+1. Think of MCPS/BOE as the Tow Truck guy.

Or, hey: the board members elected by a majority of MoCo voters get to make the final decision.

[Anonymous]

The crazy unhinged fearmongering in this thread is a riot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the schools will become more diverse. This is what MCPS is pushing for. There are a bunch of low performing kids in the county. They want YOUR kids to teach them values, respect and how to read and talk. If you haven’t figured that out then you are clueless. It is not about race it is about low performing kids. The parents aren’t doing sh— at home so teachers have to become magicians and make up for years of kids sitting in. front of tv’s and being ignored. They can’t do it alone so they look to UMC kids to help and ease the burden.

No. What is happening is that among low income populations there is a larger share of disruptive and high needs children. Why? Because their parents lack adequate resources to help their children and/or themselves. For low income families of color this lack of resources is directly tied to the history of chattel slavery, redlining and other forms of racial discrimination in housing, education, labor markets, criminal justice and pretty much any other sector you can think of. Yes, many families of color are not low income, just like many White families are poor, but the above factors disadvantage families of color and advantage White families, which is why we see much larger shares of families of color on poverty than White families.

Most of the kids from low income families are well behaved and hardworking. But since low income families are are concentrated in the same geographic areas + because of the intentional segregation of the school system (Case and point - Kensington Parkwood ES), they.have to go to school with a mich larger share of disruptive kids than White kids do, which negatively affects their access to education, by no fault of their own.
.

Yes, distribute disruptive kids equally in BCC, WJ, Whitman to balance it.

Data on "disruptive kids" is not used in boundary studies.

They may not use "disruptive kids" as a factor, but they use FARMS rates; and there is a correlation between high FARMS schools and incidents of disruption, misbehavior, fights, and high absenteeism.

Sorry, my kids are in a W cluster and I work in another W cluster: we have just as many disruptive kids in our schools. In ES, MS and HS. The behavior challenges are atrocious. And Admin says "engage them more" or "engage them better," which is IMPOSSIBLE. Parents are not helpful, if the number they gave us to contact them even works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the schools will become more diverse. This is what MCPS is pushing for. There are a bunch of low performing kids in the county. They want YOUR kids to teach them values, respect and how to read and talk. If you haven’t figured that out then you are clueless. It is not about race it is about low performing kids. The parents aren’t doing sh— at home so teachers have to become magicians and make up for years of kids sitting in. front of tv’s and being ignored. They can’t do it alone so they look to UMC kids to help and ease the burden.

No. What is happening is that among low income populations there is a larger share of disruptive and high needs children. Why? Because their parents lack adequate resources to help their children and/or themselves. For low income families of color this lack of resources is directly tied to the history of chattel slavery, redlining and other forms of racial discrimination in housing, education, labor markets, criminal justice and pretty much any other sector you can think of. Yes, many families of color are not low income, just like many White families are poor, but the above factors disadvantage families of color and advantage White families, which is why we see much larger shares of families of color on poverty than White families.

Most of the kids from low income families are well behaved and hardworking. But since low income families are are concentrated in the same geographic areas + because of the intentional segregation of the school system (Case and point - Kensington Parkwood ES), they.have to go to school with a mich larger share of disruptive kids than White kids do, which negatively affects their access to education, by no fault of their own.
.

Yes, distribute disruptive kids equally in BCC, WJ, Whitman to balance it.

When you do reach a parent, what do you tell them and what do they say? Curious because I've been on the parent side of this and felt unsure of how to address behavior that I wasn't directly observing and that we did not see at home.
Data on "disruptive kids" is not used in boundary studies.

They may not use "disruptive kids" as a factor, but they use FARMS rates; and there is a correlation between high FARMS schools and incidents of disruption, misbehavior, fights, and high absenteeism.

Sorry, my kids are in a W cluster and I work in another W cluster: we have just as many disruptive kids in our schools. In ES, MS and HS. The behavior challenges are atrocious. And Admin says "engage them more" or "engage them better," which is IMPOSSIBLE. Parents are not helpful, if the number they gave us to contact them even works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the schools will become more diverse. This is what MCPS is pushing for. There are a bunch of low performing kids in the county. They want YOUR kids to teach them values, respect and how to read and talk. If you haven’t figured that out then you are clueless. It is not about race it is about low performing kids. The parents aren’t doing sh— at home so teachers have to become magicians and make up for years of kids sitting in. front of tv’s and being ignored. They can’t do it alone so they look to UMC kids to help and ease the burden.

No. What is happening is that among low income populations there is a larger share of disruptive and high needs children. Why? Because their parents lack adequate resources to help their children and/or themselves. For low income families of color this lack of resources is directly tied to the history of chattel slavery, redlining and other forms of racial discrimination in housing, education, labor markets, criminal justice and pretty much any other sector you can think of. Yes, many families of color are not low income, just like many White families are poor, but the above factors disadvantage families of color and advantage White families, which is why we see much larger shares of families of color on poverty than White families.

Most of the kids from low income families are well behaved and hardworking. But since low income families are are concentrated in the same geographic areas + because of the intentional segregation of the school system (Case and point - Kensington Parkwood ES), they.have to go to school with a mich larger share of disruptive kids than White kids do, which negatively affects their access to education, by no fault of their own.
.

Yes, distribute disruptive kids equally in BCC, WJ, Whitman to balance it.

Data on "disruptive kids" is not used in boundary studies.

They may not use "disruptive kids" as a factor, but they use FARMS rates; and there is a correlation between high FARMS schools and incidents of disruption, misbehavior, fights, and high absenteeism.

Sorry, my kids are in a W cluster and I work in another W cluster: we have just as many disruptive kids in our schools. In ES, MS and HS. The behavior challenges are atrocious. And Admin says "engage them more" or "engage them better," which is IMPOSSIBLE. Parents are not helpful, if the number they gave us to contact them even works.

When you do reach a parent, what do you tell them and what do they say? Curious because I've been on the parent side of this and felt unsure of how to address behavior that I wasn't directly observing and that we did not see at home.

[Anonymous]

Recently, the response is "we don't see that at home," or "they are my problem at home, your problem at school." If receptive, we talk about strategies to work on together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recently, the response is "we don't see that at home," or "they are my problem at home, your problem at school." If receptive, we talk about strategies to work on together

Do you interpret "we don't see that at home" as not being receptive?

[Anonymous]

Some ES's from Einstein and Wheaton will be good candidates to fill Woodward and may be even WJ.

[Anonymous]

Woodward, WJ and BCC should become part of DCC. That way kids from this area will have choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woodward, WJ and BCC should become part of DCC. That way kids from this area will have choices.

And Whitman as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodward, WJ and BCC should become part of DCC. That way kids from this area will have choices.

And Whitman as well.

It would be a lot to add on four more schools to the consortial bus routes. Some of the bus rides are already super long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently, the response is "we don't see that at home," or "they are my problem at home, your problem at school." If receptive, we talk about strategies to work on together

Do you interpret "we don't see that at home" as not being receptive?

When there are no siblings at home, or an infant, and they don't do play dates, and the problem stems from interactions with others, then yes, it's not receptive or relevant. And, specifics don't really matter, what I am telling you is we have the same disruptive kids at the Ws (no idea why some who don't attend think they are so perfect), and, just like other schools, we have some active and involved parents, and parents who are unable to support their children. Administration (at the school and at Central Office) have been less than helpful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodward, WJ and BCC should become part of DCC. That way kids from this area will have choices.

And Whitman as well.

It would be a lot to add on four more schools to the consortial bus routes. Some of the bus rides are already super long.

Well, if logistics is an issue then BCC should be first to added and then move on to others. BCC should have been in DCC from the get go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodward, WJ and BCC should become part of DCC. That way kids from this area will have choices.

And Whitman as well.

It would be a lot to add on four more schools to the consortial bus routes. Some of the bus rides are already super long.

Well, if logistics is an issue then BCC should be first to added and then move on to others. BCC should have been in DCC from the get go.

I don't think logistics-type issues like this will be a huge deal to the BOE since they are looking to the Woodward study to be such a transformational change in redistricting and rebalancing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently, the response is "we don't see that at home," or "they are my problem at home, your problem at school." If receptive, we talk about strategies to work on together

Do you interpret "we don't see that at home" as not being receptive?

When there are no siblings at home, or an infant, and they don't do play dates, and the problem stems from interactions with others, then yes, it's not receptive or relevant. And, specifics don't really matter, what I am telling you is we have the same disruptive kids at the Ws (no idea why some who don't attend think they are so perfect), and, just like other schools, we have some active and involved parents, and parents who are unable to support their children. Administration (at the school and at Central Office) have been less than helpful

I'm sure this isn't what you mean but it sounds like you're saying if a parent says they don't see something at home it means they aren't doing the right things. I hope you understand parents can't read your mind, if we don't see something at home it is very hard for us to understand how to address it. If you have specific suggestions, share that. Don't just sit and stew about how they are horrible parents. Most if not all parents are trying to do their best.

I have a child with a behavior issue that mainly appeared at school. Sometimes there are behaviors that occur only in specific settings, not all social situations. It was very hard to understand what the issue was and the teacher told us what was happening but we'd also hear at times it was getting better. We honestly didn't understand the seriousness of the issue for a while and certainly had no idea what to do about it. Only reason we figured it out eventually was because of an educator in my family who encouraged us to seek help.