Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

Option 3 has most wacky boundaries and you’re looking for even more wacky boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

They said all 4 criteria would be equally important. And many people, including low-income ones, highly value geographic proximity, and consider option #3 to be a non-starter.

Anyway, these are not the final options. There is no way everybody will be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farmland ES is proposed to go to Kennedy HS in option 3? It's SO far

And would remove Farmland from Tilden which is walking distance for most.

I thought they would keep students within walking zones. Makes no sense to move Farmland away from Tilden and Woodward for that matter. To Kennedy.

This seems like an intentional poison pill

But it truly is impossible to achieve the different goals without moving any walkers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

Option 3 has most wacky boundaries and you’re looking for even more wacky boundaries

I think there are ways to fix #3 (especially if you focus on "kids not having too long of a commute" and not "avoiding boundaries that look weird") so let's figure that out and advocate for those changes.

[Anonymous]

Do all county-based school systems around the country do this? Try to make everything equal among all schools in a county? I mean, technically, the schools are teaching the same curriculum, and in theory, the teachers are no better or worse in certain schools, regardless of demographics. While I understand the concern over having some schools with higher FARMs rates, I don't understand artificially modifying boundaries and forcing kids to travel half way across the county in the name trying to achieve equal demographic and socioeconomic distribution. Kids should go to school in or close to their community. Tilden MS is less than 1/2 mile from Farmland ES, and Woodward is probably a mile away, but you're proposing busing those students 30+ minutes to Parkland and Kennedy to attend school with kids who live no where near them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do all county-based school systems around the country do this? Try to make everything equal among all schools in a county? I mean, technically, the schools are teaching the same curriculum, and in theory, the teachers are no better or worse in certain schools, regardless of demographics. While I understand the concern over having some schools with higher FARMs rates, I don't understand artificially modifying boundaries and forcing kids to travel half way across the county in the name trying to achieve equal demographic and socioeconomic distribution. Kids should go to school in or close to their community. Tilden MS is less than 1/2 mile from Farmland ES, and Woodward is probably a mile away, but you're proposing busing those students 30+ minutes to Parkland and Kennedy to attend school with kids who live no where near them?

If you're familiar with MCPS and you've looked at the data, which is highly variable school by school, you know this is not true. So I don't know why you're even trying to float this is a plausibility. In theory and practice, there are "good" schools, "ok" schools and "bad" schools in MCPS. MCPS even admits this and this boundary adjustment is an attempt to address that. But how much they will be able to address that is not clear, since solving for the equity problem creates other problems, such as proximity, cost and freedom of choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do all county-based school systems around the country do this? Try to make everything equal among all schools in a county? I mean, technically, the schools are teaching the same curriculum, and in theory, the teachers are no better or worse in certain schools, regardless of demographics. While I understand the concern over having some schools with higher FARMs rates, I don't understand artificially modifying boundaries and forcing kids to travel half way across the county in the name trying to achieve equal demographic and socioeconomic distribution. Kids should go to school in or close to their community. Tilden MS is less than 1/2 mile from Farmland ES, and Woodward is probably a mile away, but you're proposing busing those students 30+ minutes to Parkland and Kennedy to attend school with kids who live no where near them?

Girl the current boundaries are "artificial". They do not occur in nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

They said all 4 criteria would be equally important. And many people, including low-income ones, highly value geographic proximity, and consider option #3 to be a non-starter.

Anyway, these are not the final options. There is no way everybody will be happy.

Well whatever the board said about their priorities, the contractor doesn't appear to be listening, because 3 of the 4 options don't improve demographics/diversity at all. We need to make sure the next round of options are better.

Frankly it's honestly not in anyone's interest to only have one option out there that addresses demographic balance and diversity rather than multiple choices that do, because I don't know that the Board is going to be willing to okay something that makes zero progress on that front. So regardless of your personal opinion on the importance of that, it behooves us all to figure out some better versions of option 3 that we can advocate for and try to get on the final menu of options in the fall.

[Anonymous]

All four metrics are supposed to be weighted equally. #3 doesn’t do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All four metrics are supposed to be weighted equally. #3 doesn’t do that.

None of the four options weight the factors equally, they each have one factor they focus on and it's unclear how much the others were considered if at all. #1 prioritizes stability, #2 prioritizes utilization, #3 prioritizes demographics, and #4 prioritizes geography.

[Anonymous]

Then what are we paying these consultants for?

[Anonymous]

It would have been much more helpful if they looked for options with the best balance of all 4 factors, but clearly they didn't do that. They have zero options that attempt to weight all 4 factors equally or anywhere close.

[Anonymous]

I really like the way Option 3 increases the neighborhoods in the southern part of the county that are zoned for Blair. Surprised by this being in play but it’s the closest school. But that’s just my view from this part of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

They said all 4 criteria would be equally important. And many people, including low-income ones, highly value geographic proximity, and consider option #3 to be a non-starter.

Anyway, these are not the final options. There is no way everybody will be happy.

Well whatever the board said about their priorities, the contractor doesn't appear to be listening, because 3 of the 4 options don't improve demographics/diversity at all. We need to make sure the next round of options are better.

Frankly it's honestly not in anyone's interest to only have one option out there that addresses demographic balance and diversity rather than multiple choices that do, because I don't know that the Board is going to be willing to okay something that makes zero progress on that front. So regardless of your personal opinion on the importance of that, it behooves us all to figure out some better versions of option 3 that we can advocate for and try to get on the final menu of options in the fall.

I think it's really difficult to come up with a better plan without having any of the data. How do you imagine having normal boundaries and little busing and still increasing the Whitman FARMS rate meaningfully? The huge disparity is due to the enormous differences in housing affordability across this region (which is not even the whole county). Why don't you go fix that?

[Anonymous]

Was the purple line even a consideration in these options?