BOE/MCPS is a mess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

Well then MCPS isn't all that interested in "busing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

Well then MCPS isn't all that interested in "busing."

Stop responding to the busing troll. Nobody is interested in busing. They just enjoy fearmongering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

Well then MCPS isn't all that interested in "busing."

Stop responding to the busing troll. Nobody is interested in busing. They just enjoy fearmongering.

Fearmongering about what though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

Well then MCPS isn't all that interested in "busing."

Stop responding to the busing troll. Nobody is interested in busing. They just enjoy fearmongering.

DP. Of course MCPS is and will bus kids to further schools than where they live to achieve a more balanced demographics. Those who are debating this are not paying attention whether willfully or not.
The issue is that families either agree with busing or they don't and while I wish kids can all go to schools close to them, it's ridiculous that some schools are 10% FARMS and some are 70%. That's MESSED UP as the challenges that are facing schools with such high poverty are real. What they really need to do is to stop with this piecemeal crap. In the Upcounty boundary study, there are still significant variances in FARMS rates among schools that are a few miles away from each other because some schools were omitted from the study. They need to just do a whole county boundary update and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Of course MCPS is and will bus kids to further schools than where they live to achieve a more balanced demographics. Those who are debating this are not paying attention whether willfully or not.
The issue is that families either agree with busing or they don't and while I wish kids can all go to schools close to them, it's ridiculous that some schools are 10% FARMS and some are 70%. That's MESSED UP as the challenges that are facing schools with such high poverty are real. What they really need to do is to stop with this piecemeal crap. In the Upcounty boundary study, there are still significant variances in FARMS rates among schools that are a few miles away from each other because some schools were omitted from the study. They need to just do a whole county boundary update and call it a day.

That would be an unwieldy nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Of course MCPS is and will bus kids to further schools than where they live to achieve a more balanced demographics. Those who are debating this are not paying attention whether willfully or not.
The issue is that families either agree with busing or they don't and while I wish kids can all go to schools close to them, it's ridiculous that some schools are 10% FARMS and some are 70%. That's MESSED UP as the challenges that are facing schools with such high poverty are real. What they really need to do is to stop with this piecemeal crap. In the Upcounty boundary study, there are still significant variances in FARMS rates among schools that are a few miles away from each other because some schools were omitted from the study. They need to just do a whole county boundary update and call it a day.

That would be an unwieldy nightmare.

That poster is nuts. MCPS wants to do nothing of the kind. They just enjoy making up this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

Well then MCPS isn't all that interested in "busing."

Stop responding to the busing troll. Nobody is interested in busing. They just enjoy fearmongering.

Fearmongering about what though?

That troll seems to think that posting fiction about busing will help their political agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Of course MCPS is and will bus kids to further schools than where they live to achieve a more balanced demographics. Those who are debating this are not paying attention whether willfully or not.
The issue is that families either agree with busing or they don't and while I wish kids can all go to schools close to them, it's ridiculous that some schools are 10% FARMS and some are 70%. That's MESSED UP as the challenges that are facing schools with such high poverty are real. What they really need to do is to stop with this piecemeal crap. In the Upcounty boundary study, there are still significant variances in FARMS rates among schools that are a few miles away from each other because some schools were omitted from the study. They need to just do a whole county boundary update and call it a day.

That would be an unwieldy nightmare.

That poster is nuts. MCPS wants to do nothing of the kind. They just enjoy making up this stuff.

What are you talking about? Do you think MCPS hired an outside consultant to do a county-wide boundary analysis for nothing? Don't doubt that this was their intent. It was the outcry and the backlash from families already in high-rated schools that made them back off; so MCPS is going to try to do this little by little when schools are built or renovated and they'll only look at those schools that are part of the study. That's stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Of course MCPS is and will bus kids to further schools than where they live to achieve a more balanced demographics. Those who are debating this are not paying attention whether willfully or not.
The issue is that families either agree with busing or they don't and while I wish kids can all go to schools close to them, it's ridiculous that some schools are 10% FARMS and some are 70%. That's MESSED UP as the challenges that are facing schools with such high poverty are real. What they really need to do is to stop with this piecemeal crap. In the Upcounty boundary study, there are still significant variances in FARMS rates among schools that are a few miles away from each other because some schools were omitted from the study. They need to just do a whole county boundary update and call it a day.

That would be an unwieldy nightmare.

That poster is nuts. MCPS wants to do nothing of the kind. They just enjoy making up this stuff.

What are you talking about? Do you think MCPS hired an outside consultant to do a county-wide boundary analysis for nothing? Don't doubt that this was their intent. It was the outcry and the backlash from families already in high-rated schools that made them back off; so MCPS is going to try to do this little by little when schools are built or renovated and they'll only look at those schools that are part of the study. That's stupid.

You've just described how boundary studies work. This has been the case for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Of course MCPS is and will bus kids to further schools than where they live to achieve a more balanced demographics. Those who are debating this are not paying attention whether willfully or not.
The issue is that families either agree with busing or they don't and while I wish kids can all go to schools close to them, it's ridiculous that some schools are 10% FARMS and some are 70%. That's MESSED UP as the challenges that are facing schools with such high poverty are real. What they really need to do is to stop with this piecemeal crap. In the Upcounty boundary study, there are still significant variances in FARMS rates among schools that are a few miles away from each other because some schools were omitted from the study. They need to just do a whole county boundary update and call it a day.

That would be an unwieldy nightmare.

That poster is nuts. MCPS wants to do nothing of the kind. They just enjoy making up this stuff.

What are you talking about? Do you think MCPS hired an outside consultant to do a county-wide boundary analysis for nothing? Don't doubt that this was their intent. It was the outcry and the backlash from families already in high-rated schools that made them back off; so MCPS is going to try to do this little by little when schools are built or renovated and they'll only look at those schools that are part of the study. That's stupid.

Yes, they hired a consultant to perform some analysis for a 40-year overdue boundary study. This didn't result in a plan that involved any more busing than what exists today. The busing poster is a fearmongering nutcase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

Well then MCPS isn't all that interested in "busing."

Of course they are. Didn't you watch any of the BOE meetings? They said that increasing diversity was the most important thing they could do for the students. Busing is the only way to make that happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The part that you left out is that, in every corner of the county, people said they overwhelmingly supported sending kids to their nearest school and that diversity wasn't that important to them.

You don't understand how surveys work do you?

You also don't care to concern yourself with the reality that currently, many students do not attend the school closest to them, the boundaries do not make sense even if you ignore diversity, and it is possible to improve utilization of existing space AND reduce segregation. The problem is, you think reducing segregation is inherently bad, which is why you keep prattling on about a wildly unrepresentative survey while completely ignoring decades of research showing why segregation in education is bad. But, nevermind all that, 90% of the people who filled out this online thing want to go to the school closest to them. Guess that's settled then.

I do. And I underatnad that if we look at the breakdown of each individual are of the county, proximity was overwhelmingly supported. Conversely, diversity was marked as not that important.

And I would have supported a countywide boundary study if the boundary policy hadn't been altered to prioritize diversity. Under the current diversity-priorotozed policy, kids cannot be moved to a closer school if it make the school less divers. Because of where people live, almost every move will be farther which is busing.

That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the policy does it say that.

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, during the largest boundary student to date under the new policy (Clarksburg), Sup. Smith said he couldn't choose one of the options most people preferred because it didn't advance the diversity factor enough. And that was in one of the most diverse areas of the county. Just imagine what they'll do I'm places like Bethesda, Damascus, and Silver Spring.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts. What you said above in bold above isn't the same thing as what you just said. Second, you conveniently omitted that Smith also said he couldn't choose other options because they didn't advance the proximity factor or they didn't advance the utilization factor. Which is how the process works.

Right. He didn't choose the worst busing option. He chose the second worst busing option.

Well then MCPS isn't all that interested in "busing."

Stop responding to the busing troll. Nobody is interested in busing. They just enjoy fearmongering.

DP. Of course MCPS is and will bus kids to further schools than where they live to achieve a more balanced demographics. Those who are debating this are not paying attention whether willfully or not.
The issue is that families either agree with busing or they don't and while I wish kids can all go to schools close to them, it's ridiculous that some schools are 10% FARMS and some are 70%. That's MESSED UP as the challenges that are facing schools with such high poverty are real. What they really need to do is to stop with this piecemeal crap. In the Upcounty boundary study, there are still significant variances in FARMS rates among schools that are a few miles away from each other because some schools were omitted from the study. They need to just do a whole county boundary update and call it a day.

FARMS kids ARE the challenges that the schools face. As the saying goes, wherever they go, there they are. Why should middle and upper class kids suffer because FARMS kids can't get their act together?