Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

This is too simplistic because different people define "good" different ways. What is important to you? 1 is best if you want minimal change and split articulation. 2 is best if you care most about utilization and not having overcrowding anywhere. 3 is best if you prioritize less segregation and demographic disparities. 4 is best if you prioritize proximity and walkers. And if you care about multiple of these factors, none of these is really good and you should be calling for options that better balance multiple factors rather than going all-in on one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should be easy for the consultants to add walk zones to their pretty maps, right? It’s a priority to keep kids in the walk zones, is it not?

I think it would be hard to have actual walk zones because there are factors around which streets are safe to cross, etc, that gets figured out school-by-school. But they can and should be able to easily do an imperfect approximation that is based purely on how many kids are within 1.5 or 2 miles of the school (ideally based on streets, but "as the crow flies" would be better than nothing, maybe adjusted down a bit to compensate, i.e. "What percentage of kids are within a 1 mile radius of their assigned school in each option?")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

This is too simplistic because different people define "good" different ways. What is important to you? 1 is best if you want minimal change and split articulation. 2 is best if you care most about utilization and not having overcrowding anywhere. 3 is best if you prioritize less segregation and demographic disparities. 4 is best if you prioritize proximity and walkers. And if you care about multiple of these factors, none of these is really good and you should be calling for options that better balance multiple factors rather than going all-in on one.

Option 1 is the least disruption.

Option 3 is the most cross-town bussing.

Options 2 and 4 are a mix of random split articulations that are too confusion for me to logically follow.

My ES, MS and HS don't change based on any of these options but the other schools that come to my schools do. I think Option 3 is the best for my school (Einstein) but it's really the worst for the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

And split elementary articulations for at least 11 schools, mostly from the DCC. No thanks.

This is why there should be at least 2 more options currently on the table, offering blends. Going with 4, each of which is heavily weighted towards a single priority, doesn't allow us to see what more balanced configurations might bring. That will tip public opinion toward a best-of-the-bad one such as 2, typically expressed in the survey without nuance (most won't take the time to provide such), which inappropriately will result in a conclusion that things like continuity or diversity don't matter and, then, to a rather suboptimal decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be easy for the consultants to add walk zones to their pretty maps, right? It’s a priority to keep kids in the walk zones, is it not?

I think it would be hard to have actual walk zones because there are factors around which streets are safe to cross, etc, that gets figured out school-by-school. But they can and should be able to easily do an imperfect approximation that is based purely on how many kids are within 1.5 or 2 miles of the school (ideally based on streets, but "as the crow flies" would be better than nothing, maybe adjusted down a bit to compensate, i.e. "What percentage of kids are within a 1 mile radius of their assigned school in each option?")

I don't get why this is hard. Isn't stuff like this why you hire consultants instead of just use software?

[Anonymous]

I just saw the map. Are these people crazy?

[Anonymous]

The thing that most concerns me is that, with all the options, they'd move kids around right in the middle of middle school.

If I read it correctly, a rising 7th grader in the 2027-28 school year who lives within a shifting boundary would be forced to move to their new boundary-assigned school. It's a recipe for disaster for those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should be easy for the consultants to add walk zones to their pretty maps, right? It’s a priority to keep kids in the walk zones, is it not?

The walk zones are a layer you can add on the map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

And split elementary articulations for at least 11 schools, mostly from the DCC. No thanks.

This is why there should be at least 2 more options currently on the table, offering blends. Going with 4, each of which is heavily weighted towards a single priority, doesn't allow us to see what more balanced configurations might bring. That will tip public opinion toward a best-of-the-bad one such as 2, typically expressed in the survey without nuance (most won't take the time to provide such), which inappropriately will result in a conclusion that things like continuity or diversity don't matter and, then, to a rather suboptimal decision.

There are 137 ESs in MCPS. Some are going to have to be split articulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that most concerns me is that, with all the options, they'd move kids around right in the middle of middle school.

If I read it correctly, a rising 7th grader in the 2027-28 school year who lives within a shifting boundary would be forced to move to their new boundary-assigned school. It's a recipe for disaster for those kids.

I mean, this is what always happens when a new school opens, and they will move alongside their entire neighborhood or even their entire ES cohort. It's not that big of a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that most concerns me is that, with all the options, they'd move kids around right in the middle of middle school.

If I read it correctly, a rising 7th grader in the 2027-28 school year who lives within a shifting boundary would be forced to move to their new boundary-assigned school. It's a recipe for disaster for those kids.

That was always going to happen. It's just a matter of timing. You have to have the cut off at the same time for everyone. Those in the middle of whatever school they attend will have the most disruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

And split elementary articulations for at least 11 schools, mostly from the DCC. No thanks.

This is why there should be at least 2 more options currently on the table, offering blends. Going with 4, each of which is heavily weighted towards a single priority, doesn't allow us to see what more balanced configurations might bring. That will tip public opinion toward a best-of-the-bad one such as 2, typically expressed in the survey without nuance (most won't take the time to provide such), which inappropriately will result in a conclusion that things like continuity or diversity don't matter and, then, to a rather suboptimal decision.

There are 137 ESs in MCPS. Some are going to have to be split articulation.

The high number actually decreases the likelihood this will be necessary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is the only one that addressed diversity/demographics. Not perfect but with some tweaks they can make it work.

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

I'm not a Whitman parent but honestly, I don't think diversity should be the end-all be-all. Option 3 sucks for a lot of people.

I mean, could we just get super simple and say let’s pick the option that sucks for the fewest people? Maximize happiness?

If it were that easy, it would be a much simpler process! But how would you do that? Every option sucks for a significant number of kids.

I mean you could use these 4 options (or a set of refined options in the future) and ask families to pick the one that they like best. Or you could get fancier and do rank choice. Yes every option has downsides for some people, but it doesn’t need to be hard to figure out which scenario has the most support and minimizes unhappy people.

My perception right now is that option 3 is deeply unpopular and I don’t even know why you bother having community input and engagement if you’re seriously considering the option that the fewest people prefer (that incidentally is likely to cost the most money).

I mean, Option 3 is the least popular amongst people posting on DCUM, but this is an anonymous website that the owner has said skews white and upper middle class, and where one person can post 15 times a half hour and make it look like consensus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be easy for the consultants to add walk zones to their pretty maps, right? It’s a priority to keep kids in the walk zones, is it not?

The walk zones are a layer you can add on the map.

Yes, if you scroll to the bottom of the layers list in the interactive map. The thing is, in the DCC, all five schools' walk zones are blending together, so you can't tell where one ends and the next begins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

And split elementary articulations for at least 11 schools, mostly from the DCC. No thanks.

This is why there should be at least 2 more options currently on the table, offering blends. Going with 4, each of which is heavily weighted towards a single priority, doesn't allow us to see what more balanced configurations might bring. That will tip public opinion toward a best-of-the-bad one such as 2, typically expressed in the survey without nuance (most won't take the time to provide such), which inappropriately will result in a conclusion that things like continuity or diversity don't matter and, then, to a rather suboptimal decision.

This is an excellent point.