Option 3 is def. an option you morons. The scores are too low in a bunch of schools and MCPS is all about optics. The kids bussed in will raise those scores which will make the school look good |
First, the kids would not be alone. They would be with many peers. Second, kids move and change schools all of the time. They will be OK. Last, someone has to move first, in order to change boundaries. |
Clearly your kid is not affected. Kids do not move from a school down the street to a school that is a 45 minute bus ride away all the time. |
That isn't going to happen. |
It would suck, but hyperbole like "recipe for disaster" for those kids isn't an adult response. |
No, Option 3 is extreme so that in September when they offer a modified version of it, it seems palatable. We will go with some version of option 3 and there will be some people who need to bus in unnecessarily — just not as many as is currently in the table. |
No they won’t because people with means who would improve those scores will go private or move. -DP |
Option 2 seems the more likely option to move forward, with some tweaks. It is the only option that leaves no school over capacity. They just need to make some changes at the margins of several areas to improve walkability. |
None of these options is moving forward. These are just for people to react to. They will change cone the fall. And you can bet that diversity will be an important complement. |
Utilization is going to be a greater factor, given the budget situation we are in and will continue to be in. |
Ok, if you say so. |
I would fire you immediately if you were my agent. |
I think so too. You can talk openly about utilization without any demographic undertones. And it's borne out by pure numbers. However it also needs to look a population projections since we aren't resisting every 5 years. |
Yeah I would keep my eye on this because I think they are (somewhat quietly) planning to change this paradigm in a pretty significant way. I think Niki Hazel and the superintendent put out a very short survey that did not really ask the right questions. My strong sense is they’ve already decided they want to completely change many of the programs and locations and already know what they plan to do but needed to do a performative “survey” as part of their process. I bet this has been decided mostly behind closed doors already and they’re going to push it through quickly while we are distracted by the boundary discussions because they need to do a lot of work shifting resources, processes, staff and spaces before implementation. At the last board meeting, even the board was unclear on the timeline and order of when this would happen. And it’s hard to know if you are for or against a change for programs and consortia when you don’t even know what your home assigned school option will be yet. |
The board needs to read the room about DEI. There is a lot of appetite for DEI-based lawsuits right now and I can imagine the federal government trying to get involved. |