Just IN!!!! Youtube video of Boundary Analysis Discussion / Board of Education Jan. 9, 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m glad Silvestre asked that question, although I’m not sure we have a better answer for it. I have no problem at all with diversity being included as one of the criteria, but when you include language like that, you’re leaving it open to interpretation what you mean. So instead of each of the four factors having equal weight, diversity supposedly has higher weight, but how much more? With housing segregation being what it is, what happens when you have a scenario that pits diversity vs. walkability?

"strive to", which is what it was before, is also open to interpretation, of course.

Who, associated with BoE or MCPS, has said that the demographics factor has greater weight?

Jill Ortman Fouse the person who started all this was heard on record multiple times that this wording puts more weight on diversity.

How did she vote on the boundary analysis in January 2019 - for or against?

How did she vote on the upcounty boundary study last fall?

She was a board member from 2014-2018.

IOW, she's not on the BoE anymore.

Correct but she was the main driver of the policy which she voted for last year and heavily encouraged her fellow board members to vote for it as well.

The number of votes she currently has on the Board of Education is 0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. They will never change the socioeconomic makeup of the W schools...as much as they would like. It's just to difficult with the geography. They claim that adjustments would be made with adjacent schools, which will accomplish nothing. Thy only way they will make any impact to diversity in these schools is to create islands and bus across the county...and the board has already said this will not happen. So we (W school people) have nothing to worry about.

There are plenty of folks who can be moved, with detrimental results to their families. We already know from previous such experiments in other counties, that busing does not help underachieving children, so this is not about education. It's about redistributing wealth, social equity at the expense of middle class families, basically socialism.

WJ will certainly be impacted, and then likely many other neighborhoods along 270 where "good" and "bad" schools share a boundary.

I have come to believe that what I would like to see is a hard look at the boundaries in Takoma Park. I think that's the only way this runaway train of redistricting can be stopped, if the Takoma Park crowd has as much at stake as WJ / Wootton parents do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. They will never change the socioeconomic makeup of the W schools...as much as they would like. It's just to difficult with the geography. They claim that adjustments would be made with adjacent schools, which will accomplish nothing. Thy only way they will make any impact to diversity in these schools is to create islands and bus across the county...and the board has already said this will not happen. So we (W school people) have nothing to worry about.

There are plenty of folks who can be moved, with detrimental results to their families. We already know from previous such experiments in other counties, that busing does not help underachieving children, so this is not about education. It's about redistributing wealth, social equity at the expense of middle class families, basically socialism.

WJ will certainly be impacted, and then likely many other neighborhoods along 270 where "good" and "bad" schools share a boundary.

I have come to believe that what I would like to see is a hard look at the boundaries in Takoma Park. I think that's the only way this runaway train of redistricting can be stopped, if the Takoma Park crowd has as much at stake as WJ / Wootton parents do.

A runaway train.

Wealth redistribution.

Socialism.

I think I'm going to make up a boundary analysis bingo card. Anyone with me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m glad Silvestre asked that question, although I’m not sure we have a better answer for it. I have no problem at all with diversity being included as one of the criteria, but when you include language like that, you’re leaving it open to interpretation what you mean. So instead of each of the four factors having equal weight, diversity supposedly has higher weight, but how much more? With housing segregation being what it is, what happens when you have a scenario that pits diversity vs. walkability?

"strive to", which is what it was before, is also open to interpretation, of course.

Who, associated with BoE or MCPS, has said that the demographics factor has greater weight?

Jill Ortman Fouse the person who started all this was heard on record multiple times that this wording puts more weight on diversity.

How did she vote on the boundary analysis in January 2019 - for or against?

How did she vote on the upcounty boundary study last fall?

She was a board member from 2014-2018.

IOW, she's not on the BoE anymore.

Correct but she was the main driver of the policy which she voted for last year and heavily encouraged her fellow board members to vote for it as well.

The number of votes she currently has on the Board of Education is 0.

So The policy was amended to have that word especially. It is the current and future Boards responsibility to adhere to that policy. It's done.

[Anonymous]

What percent of students SHOULD go to the closest school? Because that's not very realistic unless you draw a circle with a school in the middle and everyone in that circle goes to that school, and then do the same for every other school. Please try doing that with Northwood and Blair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m glad Silvestre asked that question, although I’m not sure we have a better answer for it. I have no problem at all with diversity being included as one of the criteria, but when you include language like that, you’re leaving it open to interpretation what you mean. So instead of each of the four factors having equal weight, diversity supposedly has higher weight, but how much more? With housing segregation being what it is, what happens when you have a scenario that pits diversity vs. walkability?

"strive to", which is what it was before, is also open to interpretation, of course.

Who, associated with BoE or MCPS, has said that the demographics factor has greater weight?

Jill Ortman Fouse the person who started all this was heard on record multiple times that this wording puts more weight on diversity.

How did she vote on the boundary analysis in January 2019 - for or against?

How did she vote on the upcounty boundary study last fall?

She was a board member from 2014-2018.

IOW, she's not on the BoE anymore.

Correct but she was the main driver of the policy which she voted for last year and heavily encouraged her fellow board members to vote for it as well.

The number of votes she currently has on the Board of Education is 0.

So The policy was amended to have that word especially. It is the current and future Boards responsibility to adhere to that policy. It's done.

You're the Antonin Scalia of Montgomery County Board of Education policies. Founders' intent!

[Anonymous]

Another way to solve capacity is to move the science and math magnets (HS and MS) to under capacity schools. This would also help demographics etc. Redistricting is not the only answer. MCPS, including the vaunted magnet programs, is for ALL students. Rotate them every ten years or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What percent of students SHOULD go to the closest school? Because that's not very realistic unless you draw a circle with a school in the middle and everyone in that circle goes to that school, and then do the same for every other school. Please try doing that with Northwood and Blair.

Since currently, only 37% of students attend the closest school, I don't think this is a real issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another way to solve capacity is to move the science and math magnets (HS and MS) to under capacity schools. This would also help demographics etc. Redistricting is not the only answer. MCPS, including the vaunted magnet programs, is for ALL students. Rotate them every ten years or something.

So much easier to move the magnets rather than redraw boundaries as those lstudents are already in a bus. I don’t see how MCPS avoids that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another way to solve capacity is to move the science and math magnets (HS and MS) to under capacity schools. This would also help demographics etc. Redistricting is not the only answer. MCPS, including the vaunted magnet programs, is for ALL students. Rotate them every ten years or something.

Easier to adjust the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to solve capacity is to move the science and math magnets (HS and MS) to under capacity schools. This would also help demographics etc. Redistricting is not the only answer. MCPS, including the vaunted magnet programs, is for ALL students. Rotate them every ten years or something.

Easier to adjust the boundaries.

Nah I don’t think so PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to solve capacity is to move the science and math magnets (HS and MS) to under capacity schools. This would also help demographics etc. Redistricting is not the only answer. MCPS, including the vaunted magnet programs, is for ALL students. Rotate them every ten years or something.

So much easier to move the magnets rather than redraw boundaries as those lstudents are already in a bus. I don’t see how MCPS avoids that.

Most of all MCPS students are already on a bus.

[Anonymous]

I think it would be equitable to move those very valuable magnets around. There are seats guaranteed to the students at the home school so the magnets really help a school and a community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percent of students SHOULD go to the closest school? Because that's not very realistic unless you draw a circle with a school in the middle and everyone in that circle goes to that school, and then do the same for every other school. Please try doing that with Northwood and Blair.

Since currently, only 37% of students attend the closest school, I don't think this is a real issue.

No. The presentation said 37% of elementary students *do not* attend their closest school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be equitable to move those very valuable magnets around. There are seats guaranteed to the students at the home school so the magnets really help a school and a community.

Only for some magnet programs.