MCPS Boundary Reassessment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even schools that are close can add to traffic/congestation woes and lengthen commutes to unbearable. Luxmanor ES, currently under renovation is at the Grosvenor holding school less than .5 miles away. Bus rides for the kids have more than doubled, some to an hour.

It looks like 2-3 miles to me, on the map. 6201 Tilden Lane to 5701 Grosvenor Lane.

[Anonymous]

And its added 30+ minutes to the kids commute!

Why should MCPS contribute to more traffic (when it is already awful), and spend money on more busses and bus drivers (could be better spent on improving facilities and teachers or more paraeducators), when kids can walk to their neighborhood school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. But I don't see how that's inconsistent with the above: "It may not be feasible to revise all boundaries, however, there are many schools in MCPS with
adjacent school boundaries that have both significant disparities in socioeconomic and racial demographics and disparities in facility utilization."

I really don't think there are that many. And for at least some of the schools with adjacent boundaries that have significant disparities, it is not the communities close to the boundary line that are materially different from the less diverse school. So you cannot "balance" out the schools by including neighborhoods that are near the boundary line. You'd have to move kids/neighborhoods that are much further away, toward the other side of the second school's boundary line, in order to change the demographics at the first school. At least that is my observation in my little area. I'm not saying there might not be tweaks that would make some improvement. But I think overall it's going to be very small improvements unless it is a pretty radical change in moving kids longer distances to go to elementary school (as some clusters in the County already do - see RH/NCC/CC).

I don't understand why more people don't embrace diversity bussing.

Some of us lived through it in the 70s...

[Anonymous]

For those interested in the Clarksburg, Northwest, and Seneca Valley High Schools Boundary Study:

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_FlyerPIM1English.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those interested in the Clarksburg, Northwest, and Seneca Valley High Schools Boundary Study:

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_FlyerPIM1English.pdf

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. But I don't see how that's inconsistent with the above: "It may not be feasible to revise all boundaries, however, there are many schools in MCPS with
adjacent school boundaries that have both significant disparities in socioeconomic and racial demographics and disparities in facility utilization."

I really don't think there are that many. And for at least some of the schools with adjacent boundaries that have significant disparities, it is not the communities close to the boundary line that are materially different from the less diverse school. So you cannot "balance" out the schools by including neighborhoods that are near the boundary line. You'd have to move kids/neighborhoods that are much further away, toward the other side of the second school's boundary line, in order to change the demographics at the first school. At least that is my observation in my little area. I'm not saying there might not be tweaks that would make some improvement. But I think overall it's going to be very small improvements unless it is a pretty radical change in moving kids longer distances to go to elementary school (as some clusters in the County already do - see RH/NCC/CC).

I don't understand why more people don't embrace diversity bussing.

Some of us lived through it in the 70s...

No, that was actual desegregation busing. And it worked.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/23/forced-busing-didnt-fail-desegregation-is-the-best-way-to-improve-our-schools/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ac5f68ac1409