Cliff Notes summary of MCPS boundary study fight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has had recent significant growth, while use of facilities is uneven. Some schools are overcrowded and some underutilized. The district hired a consultant to review all current boundaries with an eye to how they affect overcrowding, diversity, and students’ proximity to their schools. The consultants will not recommend any boundary changes and the county will not make any boundary changes during this initial process.

Parents on DCUM and Facebook groups have spread the rumor that children will be bussed far from home in order to balance out school demographics, and that their home values will suffer as a result. MCPS has specifically responded that they are only looking at schools and clusters adjacent to one another and have no intention of bussing students across the county.

It would appear to be the case---not be rumored---that this actually just occurred with a Clarksburg neighborhood (Branch something) that was moved from CHS to Seneca Valley.

"One of the superintendent’s reasons for the option he recommends, option 11a, is that it would more evenly distribute the FARMs rate between schools as well as increase diversity in some schools, with the latter being a priority in a board of education policy known as Policy FAA"

PLEASE look at a map. Clarksburg HS and Seneca Valley HS are adjacent high schools.

And when Seneca Valley opened it was much bigger than before.

Obviously. You'd think that they would assign kids closest to Seneca Valley TO Seneca Valley. How the heck did Cabin Branch and Rural Boyds get pulled into this?

Why would you think that? MCPS has long used FOUR factors to establish school boundaries, of which geography is only one.

Also, I don't know where this "Rural Boyds" business comes from. The people I know who live in Boyds ("Home In The Country") just call it Boyds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has been proposed yet. Racist parents in fear that their kid might have a minority kid(read brown kid) of any background started lashing out as if browness is contagious. They are not opposed to only busing their white kids, they are opposed to brownish kids coming to their white school. For example, Westland parents are going nuts thinking that more brown kids will be added to their underused school. They are getting ready to cut off their kids from their wills if they take less than natural platinum blonde date to prom or homecoming.

It’s inflammatory comments like this that add fuel to the fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has had recent significant growth, while use of facilities is uneven. Some schools are overcrowded and some underutilized. The district hired a consultant to review all current boundaries with an eye to how they affect overcrowding, diversity, and students’ proximity to their schools. The consultants will not recommend any boundary changes and the county will not make any boundary changes during this initial process.

Parents on DCUM and Facebook groups have spread the rumor that children will be bussed far from home in order to balance out school demographics, and that their home values will suffer as a result. MCPS has specifically responded that they are only looking at schools and clusters adjacent to one another and have no intention of bussing students across the county.

It would appear to be the case---not be rumored---that this actually just occurred with a Clarksburg neighborhood (Branch something) that was moved from CHS to Seneca Valley.

"One of the superintendent’s reasons for the option he recommends, option 11a, is that it would more evenly distribute the FARMs rate between schools as well as increase diversity in some schools, with the latter being a priority in a board of education policy known as Policy FAA"

PLEASE look at a map. Clarksburg HS and Seneca Valley HS are adjacent high schools.

And when Seneca Valley opened it was much bigger than before.

Obviously. You'd think that they would assign kids closest to Seneca Valley TO Seneca Valley. How the heck did Cabin Branch and Rural Boyds get pulled into this?

Because the BOE decided that SVHS needed more white and Asian kids. The kids closer to SVHS are considered lesser by the BOE and would be a waste for the shiny grand programs at the new SVHS.

[Anonymous]

Those poor Cabin Branch kids were ripped from their school midway through and now have to sit on the bus longer with no AC breathing diesel fumes. You’ve been warned, other MC residents.

[Anonymous]

What do you think will happen to Wooten?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those poor Cabin Branch kids were ripped from their school midway through and now have to sit on the bus longer with no AC breathing diesel fumes. You’ve been warned, other MC residents.

I know 3 minutes longer and then there's the fact that their new schools has 2% higher FARMS! It's such a tragedy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has been proposed yet. Racist parents in fear that their kid might have a minority kid(read brown kid) of any background started lashing out as if browness is contagious. They are not opposed to only busing their white kids, they are opposed to brownish kids coming to their white school. For example, Westland parents are going nuts thinking that more brown kids will be added to their underused school. They are getting ready to cut off their kids from their wills if they take less than natural platinum blonde date to prom or homecoming.

Your little twisted and underdeveloped brain is confused. Westland MS had brown and black kids from SS for decades. After Silve Creek MS was built, kids from SS finally had a chance to not take the 45 min school bus ride every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the BOE decided that SVHS needed more white and Asian kids. The kids closer to SVHS are considered lesser by the BOE and would be a waste for the shiny grand programs at the new SVHS.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those poor Cabin Branch kids were ripped from their school midway through and now have to sit on the bus longer with no AC breathing diesel fumes. You’ve been warned, other MC residents.

Well, the current 7th graders (8th graders next year) are staying at Rocky Hill MS. And so are current 10th & 11th graders at Clarksburg HS, plus 9th graders at Clarksburg HS in the APPS program. So the only students who will get "ripped from their school" are kids who live in Cabin Branch or the Milestone neighborhood who are either current 6th graders at Rocky Hill or current 9th graders at Clarksburg HS who aren't in the APPS program.

Plus every middle-schooler/high-schooler in Cabin Branch already got ripped from wherever they were living before their parents moved them to Cabin Branch within the last 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has had recent significant growth, while use of facilities is uneven. Some schools are overcrowded and some underutilized. The district hired a consultant to review all current boundaries with an eye to how they affect overcrowding, diversity, and students’ proximity to their schools. The consultants will not recommend any boundary changes and the county will not make any boundary changes during this initial process.

Parents on DCUM and Facebook groups have spread the rumor that children will be bussed far from home in order to balance out school demographics, and that their home values will suffer as a result. MCPS has specifically responded that they are only looking at schools and clusters adjacent to one another and have no intention of bussing students across the county.[/quote]

PP, can you point to the actual statement where they said this? If so, I think that should quell some (but certainly not all) of the concerns.

From the email we all received the other day:

“A Focus on Adjacency: We have received messages from some community members who have heard rumors that the districtwide boundary analysis will result in a “busing plan” that will reassign students from one end of the county to the other to address issues of overcrowding and diverse learning environments. First, as stated above, the analysis will not result in any specific recommendations for student reassignments. Second, as the Board’s resolution references and the consultant will show, at the regional meetings, schools and school clusters adjacent to one another across the county can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity. Finally, MCPS has and will continue to maximize walkers, in no small part, because it is economically efficient. However, there always will be a need for some students to ride buses to school. Currently, the majority of our student body (more than 100,000 students) is eligible to ride a school bus every day.”

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has had recent significant growth, while use of facilities is uneven. Some schools are overcrowded and some underutilized. The district hired a consultant to review all current boundaries with an eye to how they affect overcrowding, diversity, and students’ proximity to their schools. The consultants will not recommend any boundary changes and the county will not make any boundary changes during this initial process.

Parents on DCUM and Facebook groups have spread the rumor that children will be bussed far from home in order to balance out school demographics, and that their home values will suffer as a result. MCPS has specifically responded that they are only looking at schools and clusters adjacent to one another and have no intention of bussing students across the county.[/quote]

PP, can you point to the actual statement where they said this? If so, I think that should quell some (but certainly not all) of the concerns.

From the email we all received the other day:

“A Focus on Adjacency: We have received messages from some community members who have heard rumors that the districtwide boundary analysis will result in a “busing plan” that will reassign students from one end of the county to the other to address issues of overcrowding and diverse learning environments. First, as stated above, the analysis will not result in any specific recommendations for student reassignments. Second, as the Board’s resolution references and the consultant will show, at the regional meetings, schools and school clusters adjacent to one another across the county can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity. Finally, MCPS has and will continue to maximize walkers, in no small part, because it is economically efficient. However, there always will be a need for some students to ride buses to school. Currently, the majority of our student body (more than 100,000 students) is eligible to ride a school bus every day.”

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

They have been saying so, for months. Here's one example: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/the-basics-what-to-know-about-the-mcps-districtwide-boundary-analysis/

"Wolff said she has heard many people concerned about “forced, long-distance busing,” like what happened in the 1960s after federal courts mandated that schools desegregate.

“There’s been a lot of talk about busing, and that’s not something we’re trying to address at all,” Wolff said. “We have underutilized and overutilized schools, some within a mile or so of each other. We’re trying to balance those out because you can’t keep going to the county asking for money (for building projects) if you have empty seats.”"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

PP, they have been. You just couldn't hear it over all of the hollering about "FORCED BUSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watch the videos! The "experts" are not looking too confident. lol

https://www.mymcmedia.org/boundary-study-meeting-gets-heated/?fbclid=IwAR1g4D1-_tE1ZhDX5smSD0QqRaga5vZxoGXshIouMsOaQK4vqUa7M2JpQoA

? You wouldn't either if you had an angry mob heckling you.

Hey - as project leads, you need to prepare for that reaction. They didn't do their research. Know your audience! No one EVER guarantees you'll face a respectful audience.

Prepare for the worst.

So, I guess they should've had armed guards to prepare for the worst? Oh, wait... now that we know how crazy some people are getting about this, BoE have brought in MoCo police and security to attend these meetings. Who would've thought.... staid, liberal MoCo needed mob control.

I live in the RM cluster, and it's really shameful how some of these parents are behaving. I see it on Nextdoor, too.

I'm also a project lead, and people may not like what I have to say and where the project is leading, but no one has ever cursed or yelled at me, ever, in the 20 years I've been working in this capacity.

Well, no clue what area you're in . . . But with hot topics like education, be prepared for the worst. I've been in education for almost half of my life. I've trained, facilitated, and presented. I can honestly say that while most audiences were civil, there were a few instances where people pushed back. However, we anticipated obstacles and worked with them. The key is transparency from the start.

Those dodos weren't honest with their goals from the start.

Look - MCPS has an agenda. I'm sure the consultants were aware of this agenda - or the system's "possible" plans. But they never shared ALL avenues with stakeholders. Controversial topics 1) cannot remain hidden and 2) must be worked into any presentation or training.

We are taxpayers who are owed answers. We may not all like the truth, but at least it's out there.

What is the "hidden agenda"? Creating diversity in schools? They aren't hiding that fact. Is it that you think this firm was hired to draw new boundaries? They won't. That was explicitly stated. They may make recommendations, and yes, BoE may take those recommendations, but that's not a hidden agenda.

What "ALL avenues" are you referring to?

Here's the truth.... some schools are way over capacity, while the neighboring ones are under capacity. The boundaries for some schools make zero sense. There are many cases of islands being created. MCPS needs to redraw boundaries. They should've done this years ago when the population was steadily increasing.

Here are some examples of current boundaries that make no sense:
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/FallsmeadES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/LakewoodES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RitchieParkES.pdf

I believe in the presentation it showed the % of students who don't live near their assigned schools. If they called this out, to me, that states that they will be looking at proximity.

So again,what is that "hidden agenda" you're referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

PP, they have been. You just couldn't hear it over all of the hollering about "FORCED BUSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"

Forced bussing is just a figment of the reactionary rights imagination and used as a scare tactic to fight change. Bottom line is things have changed a lot in the 40 years since these boundaries were updated. They need to be reviewed.

[Anonymous]

Does Lakewood ES have any students in the walk zone? I wish that MCPS published walk zone maps.

And look at the students assigned to Lakewood ES (presumably with a bus) who could walk to Stone Mill ES.