Woodward HS boundary study - BCC, Blair, Einstein, WJ, Kennedy, Northwood, Wheaton, Whitman impacts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a person who's child may be rezoned from WJ to Einstein and is favor of this change if it's not too disruptive to their high school experience.

My DH does not feel similarly and thinks that the recent supreme court decision on affirmative action may limit MCPS's ability to use diversity as a factor in boundary studies/rezoning. He thinks that any legal action on those grounds may been seen as having merit. Thoughts?

MCPS doesn't use race. They use SES which just happens to be a really good proxy in MoCo.

What they use is the FARMS rate.

Another really good proxy!

No, it's not, it's a bad proxy. If you know that a student receives FARMS, you will not be able to predict the student's race/ethnicity with any reliability. If you know a student's race/ethnicity, your prediction of the student's FARMS status will frequently be unreliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a person who's child may be rezoned from WJ to Einstein and is favor of this change if it's not too disruptive to their high school experience.

My DH does not feel similarly and thinks that the recent supreme court decision on affirmative action may limit MCPS's ability to use diversity as a factor in boundary studies/rezoning. He thinks that any legal action on those grounds may been seen as having merit. Thoughts?

MCPS doesn't use race. They use SES which just happens to be a really good proxy in MoCo.

What they use is the FARMS rate.

Another really good proxy!

No, it's not, it's a bad proxy. If you know that a student receives FARMS, you will not be able to predict the student's race/ethnicity with any reliability. If you know a student's race/ethnicity, your prediction of the student's FARMS status will frequently be unreliable.

Have some overall facts on SES and race in MoCo:

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2019%20Reports/RevisedOLO2019-7.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a person who's child may be rezoned from WJ to Einstein and is favor of this change if it's not too disruptive to their high school experience.

My DH does not feel similarly and thinks that the recent supreme court decision on affirmative action may limit MCPS's ability to use diversity as a factor in boundary studies/rezoning. He thinks that any legal action on those grounds may been seen as having merit. Thoughts?

No. MCPS was already not allowed to make decisions based on the race or gender of a student.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/14/eisenber.pdf

But they used race anyway. The Supreme Court decision wasn’t on point but it does give insight into its thinking. Policy FAA is on shakier ground now for sure.

For the demographic factor, Policy FAA says:

Demographic characteristics of student population
Analyses of options take into account the impact of various options on the
overall populations of affected schools. Options should especially strive to
create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment
with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education. Demographic data
showing the impact of various options include the following: racial/ethnic
composition of the student population, the socioeconomic composition of
the student population, the level of English language learners, and other
reliable demographic indicators and participation in specific educational
programs.

The Supreme Court held that universities may not consider the race of an individual applicant in the decision to admit or not admit that applicant. That does not apply here. MCPS is not considering the race of any individual student.

Yes, that’s what the Supreme Court held in that case (why it wasn’t on point). Do you think the Supreme Court generally likes or dislikes education policies that consider race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a person who's child may be rezoned from WJ to Einstein and is favor of this change if it's not too disruptive to their high school experience.

My DH does not feel similarly and thinks that the recent supreme court decision on affirmative action may limit MCPS's ability to use diversity as a factor in boundary studies/rezoning. He thinks that any legal action on those grounds may been seen as having merit. Thoughts?

No. MCPS was already not allowed to make decisions based on the race or gender of a student.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/14/eisenber.pdf

But they used race anyway. The Supreme Court decision wasn’t on point but it does give insight into its thinking. Policy FAA is on shakier ground now for sure.

For the demographic factor, Policy FAA says:

Demographic characteristics of student population
Analyses of options take into account the impact of various options on the
overall populations of affected schools. Options should especially strive to
create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment
with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education. Demographic data
showing the impact of various options include the following: racial/ethnic
composition of the student population, the socioeconomic composition of
the student population, the level of English language learners, and other
reliable demographic indicators and participation in specific educational
programs.

The Supreme Court held that universities may not consider the race of an individual applicant in the decision to admit or not admit that applicant. That does not apply here. MCPS is not considering the race of any individual student.

Yes, that’s what the Supreme Court held in that case (why it wasn’t on point). Do you think the Supreme Court generally likes or dislikes education policies that consider race?

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, our legal system is not based on the Supreme Court's potential opinions on general topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a person who's child may be rezoned from WJ to Einstein and is favor of this change if it's not too disruptive to their high school experience.

My DH does not feel similarly and thinks that the recent supreme court decision on affirmative action may limit MCPS's ability to use diversity as a factor in boundary studies/rezoning. He thinks that any legal action on those grounds may been seen as having merit. Thoughts?

No. MCPS was already not allowed to make decisions based on the race or gender of a student.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/14/eisenber.pdf

But they used race anyway. The Supreme Court decision wasn’t on point but it does give insight into its thinking. Policy FAA is on shakier ground now for sure.

For the demographic factor, Policy FAA says:

Demographic characteristics of student population
Analyses of options take into account the impact of various options on the
overall populations of affected schools. Options should especially strive to
create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment
with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education. Demographic data
showing the impact of various options include the following: racial/ethnic
composition of the student population, the socioeconomic composition of
the student population, the level of English language learners, and other
reliable demographic indicators and participation in specific educational
programs.

The Supreme Court held that universities may not consider the race of an individual applicant in the decision to admit or not admit that applicant. That does not apply here. MCPS is not considering the race of any individual student.

Yes, that’s what the Supreme Court held in that case (why it wasn’t on point). Do you think the Supreme Court generally likes or dislikes education policies that consider race?

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, our legal system is not based on the Supreme Court's potential opinions on general topics.

+1 Except I am a lawyer. If MCPS were selecting students for magnet programs based on a racial checkbox, I could see potential overlap from yesterday's case. Except they don't, and we're not talking about magnets in this discussion, we're talking about school boundaries. There is absolutely case law on the authority of school boards to set their own attendance boundaries, and to consider diversity when doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a person who's child may be rezoned from WJ to Einstein and is favor of this change if it's not too disruptive to their high school experience.

My DH does not feel similarly and thinks that the recent supreme court decision on affirmative action may limit MCPS's ability to use diversity as a factor in boundary studies/rezoning. He thinks that any legal action on those grounds may been seen as having merit. Thoughts?

MCPS doesn't use race. They use SES which just happens to be a really good proxy in MoCo.

What they use is the FARMS rate.

Another really good proxy!

No, it's not, it's a bad proxy. If you know that a student receives FARMS, you will not be able to predict the student's race/ethnicity with any reliability. If you know a student's race/ethnicity, your prediction of the student's FARMS status will frequently be unreliable.

^^^

Looking at the 2022-2023 data:

0-20% of white students, 60% of black students, 71% of Hispanic students, and 0-36% of Asian-American students receive FARMS. So even if someone says, "Here is a Hispanic student in MCPS, does this student receive FARMS?" the answer will be no for 3 out of 10 Hispanic students. If you say yes, you will be wrong 30% of the time.

Also, of students who receive FARMS, 30% are black, 56% are Hispanic, and 15% are neither black or Hispanic. (Yes, that's 101%, because of rounding.) So even if someone says, "Here is a student in MCPS who receives FARMS, is this student Hispanic?" the answer will be no for 5 out of 10 students who receive FARMS. If you say yes, you will be wrong basically half the time. Even if someone says, "Here is a student in MCPS who receives FARMS, is this student Hispanic or black?" the answer will be no for 3 out of 20 students. If you say yes, you will be wrong 15% of the time.

This is why FARMS is a bad proxy for race/ethnicity in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

It may not be a great proxy, but it's the data they have available so they will use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It may not be a great proxy, but it's the data they have available so they will use it.

Why would they use FARMS status as a proxy for race/ethnicity when they have the actual race/ethnicity data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a person who's child may be rezoned from WJ to Einstein and is favor of this change if it's not too disruptive to their high school experience.

My DH does not feel similarly and thinks that the recent supreme court decision on affirmative action may limit MCPS's ability to use diversity as a factor in boundary studies/rezoning. He thinks that any legal action on those grounds may been seen as having merit. Thoughts?

No. MCPS was already not allowed to make decisions based on the race or gender of a student.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/14/eisenber.pdf

But they used race anyway. The Supreme Court decision wasn’t on point but it does give insight into its thinking. Policy FAA is on shakier ground now for sure.

For the demographic factor, Policy FAA says:

Demographic characteristics of student population
Analyses of options take into account the impact of various options on the
overall populations of affected schools. Options should especially strive to
create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment
with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education. Demographic data
showing the impact of various options include the following: racial/ethnic
composition of the student population, the socioeconomic composition of
the student population, the level of English language learners, and other
reliable demographic indicators and participation in specific educational
programs.

The Supreme Court held that universities may not consider the race of an individual applicant in the decision to admit or not admit that applicant. That does not apply here. MCPS is not considering the race of any individual student.

Yes, that’s what the Supreme Court held in that case (why it wasn’t on point). Do you think the Supreme Court generally likes or dislikes education policies that consider race?

I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know, our legal system is not based on the Supreme Court's potential opinions on general topics.

It depends on your appetite for litigation, really. Government agencies choose not to push into questionable territory all the time, especially when rolling back policies would be very disruptive or costly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may not be a great proxy, but it's the data they have available so they will use it.

Why would they use FARMS status as a proxy for race/ethnicity when they have the actual race/ethnicity data?

In the recent boundary studies, they have cited the effects on the FARMS and ESOL rates moreso than the race/ethnicity data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may not be a great proxy, but it's the data they have available so they will use it.

Why would they use FARMS status as a proxy for race/ethnicity when they have the actual race/ethnicity data?

They do but we don't. There is no other way for us to estimate these things.

[Anonymous]

All I know is the board decided that diversity would be the number #1 priority when redoing the boundaries so I expect some big changes, especially with the segregated school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may not be a great proxy, but it's the data they have available so they will use it.

Why would they use FARMS status as a proxy for race/ethnicity when they have the actual race/ethnicity data?

They do but we don't. There is no other way for us to estimate these things.

I am confused. We also have the actual race/ethnicity data. MCPS publishes it in the same place they publish the FARMS data.

[Anonymous]

Boundaries are decided based on neighborhoods, not individuals. This isn’t selective admissions. The SC case isn’t going to be a driver in this boundary decision.

[Anonymous]

Woodward and WJ are going to look similar to what Einstein is right now.