MCPS High School Boundary Map? Current.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is why some folks in the western part of the county worry that redistricting could mean long bus rides for kids if diversifying student populations is a key goal of the effort. It's not a crazy thing to worry about when you try to square the rhetoric with the geography.

Geography is part of the rhetoric. Geography is included in the rhetoric. So you don't have to square anything. It's already in there.

All the more reason to be concerned.

If MCPS weren't talking about geography, you'd be concerned. But MCPS is talking about geography, so - you're concerned.

Let's be clear that this is not about MCPS. It's about you.

OK smarty pants. How do you propose to bring more "diversity" to Whitman and Churchill, two clusters adjacent to three other clusters (Wootton, BCC, Walter Johnson) that allegedly also need more diversity. It's easy to see how you make those three more diverse without long bus commutes, because they border clusters of schools that tend to have at least somewhat higher FARMS rates. That's much less true of Whitman and Churchill. So let us know how you plan to redraw boundaries for Churchill and Whitman in a way that significantly improves diversity but does not require long bus commutes on the part of students coming in or out.

MCPS is looking at three things:

-diversity
-capacity
-geography (including transportation)

Not one thing. THREE things.

You didn't remotely respond to PP's post. She is not saying that they are only looking at diversity. She is saying, correctly, that in some cases the three criteria all point in different directions. Therefore, the key issue will be how they balance the three competing factors when making decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does anyone propose to bring more diversity to east county schools? That's a whole lot of poors and majority minority. I bet if the BOE asked for volunteers from these schools to get on a long bus ride to go to the western counties, enough would sign up to solve the diversity issue. some of us in the east dont want to be here. PM

But you moved there, you want your cake and other people’s too

I’ll bet that very few eastern county students would want to travel 45-60 minutes each way every day. They’d prefer to attend school with their own kind.

Half of them don’t realize that they are among their own. They rationalize why they live where they live

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is why some folks in the western part of the county worry that redistricting could mean long bus rides for kids if diversifying student populations is a key goal of the effort. It's not a crazy thing to worry about when you try to square the rhetoric with the geography.

Geography is part of the rhetoric. Geography is included in the rhetoric. So you don't have to square anything. It's already in there.

All the more reason to be concerned.

If MCPS weren't talking about geography, you'd be concerned. But MCPS is talking about geography, so - you're concerned.

Let's be clear that this is not about MCPS. It's about you.

OK smarty pants. How do you propose to bring more "diversity" to Whitman and Churchill, two clusters adjacent to three other clusters (Wootton, BCC, Walter Johnson) that allegedly also need more diversity. It's easy to see how you make those three more diverse without long bus commutes, because they border clusters of schools that tend to have at least somewhat higher FARMS rates. That's much less true of Whitman and Churchill. So let us know how you plan to redraw boundaries for Churchill and Whitman in a way that significantly improves diversity but does not require long bus commutes on the part of students coming in or out.

+1. Something will have to give. Either MCPS will have to accept that Whitman and Churchill will remain very low FARMS. Or, they will have to accept longer bus rides than they otherwise would.

It isn't remotely crazy to think that either option is possible. Therefore, I don't see how it is crazy for a parent to worry that long bus rides are a real possibility, although far from a certainty. Geography and diversity are both in the mix, but at times one will have to take primary consideration over the other.

If you can come up with a way to change boundaries so that Whitman/Churchill are diversified without people having long bus rides, I would love to hear it. (It might be possible for bus people into Whitman/Churchill and to do it on a voluntary basis, so parents who were willing to have a longer commute to attend a "better" school could it, but no one would be forced to. But I have no idea if that would be considered.)

This is the dilemma. I don't think MCPS can afford to bus tons of people long distances, plus no one (rich or poor) wants their kid on a bus in traffic for hours each day. It sucks, and it's killer for extracurriculars, parent engagement, etc. Especially for lower income kids. Which is why they opted against diversity considerations when they drew the boundaries for the new BCC MS. MCPS could have balanced race/ethnicity/SES, but chose to split the zone based on geography mostly to avoid busing the more "diverse" neighborhood a longer distance.

OTOH I don't think they can blow up the boundaries for a bunch of other schools and leave Whitman and Churchill as-is. It just won't sell to keep the whitest/richest schools as enclaves of privilege. I don't have a good solution here (other than maybe much more aggressive changes in zoning to push lower income housing into those neighborhoods.) I think on balance they won't do much beyond posturing, simply because a holistic solution isn't really possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is why some folks in the western part of the county worry that redistricting could mean long bus rides for kids if diversifying student populations is a key goal of the effort. It's not a crazy thing to worry about when you try to square the rhetoric with the geography.

Geography is part of the rhetoric. Geography is included in the rhetoric. So you don't have to square anything. It's already in there.

All the more reason to be concerned.

If MCPS weren't talking about geography, you'd be concerned. But MCPS is talking about geography, so - you're concerned.

Let's be clear that this is not about MCPS. It's about you.

OK smarty pants. How do you propose to bring more "diversity" to Whitman and Churchill, two clusters adjacent to three other clusters (Wootton, BCC, Walter Johnson) that allegedly also need more diversity. It's easy to see how you make those three more diverse without long bus commutes, because they border clusters of schools that tend to have at least somewhat higher FARMS rates. That's much less true of Whitman and Churchill. So let us know how you plan to redraw boundaries for Churchill and Whitman in a way that significantly improves diversity but does not require long bus commutes on the part of students coming in or out.

+1. Something will have to give. Either MCPS will have to accept that Whitman and Churchill will remain very low FARMS. Or, they will have to accept longer bus rides than they otherwise would.

It isn't remotely crazy to think that either option is possible. Therefore, I don't see how it is crazy for a parent to worry that long bus rides are a real possibility, although far from a certainty. Geography and diversity are both in the mix, but at times one will have to take primary consideration over the other.

If you can come up with a way to change boundaries so that Whitman/Churchill are diversified without people having long bus rides, I would love to hear it. (It might be possible for bus people into Whitman/Churchill and to do it on a voluntary basis, so parents who were willing to have a longer commute to attend a "better" school could it, but no one would be forced to. But I have no idea if that would be considered.)

This is the dilemma. I don't think MCPS can afford to bus tons of people long distances, plus no one (rich or poor) wants their kid on a bus in traffic for hours each day. It sucks, and it's killer for extracurriculars, parent engagement, etc. Especially for lower income kids. Which is why they opted against diversity considerations when they drew the boundaries for the new BCC MS. MCPS could have balanced race/ethnicity/SES, but chose to split the zone based on geography mostly to avoid busing the more "diverse" neighborhood a longer distance.

OTOH I don't think they can blow up the boundaries for a bunch of other schools and leave Whitman and Churchill as-is. It just won't sell to keep the whitest/richest schools as enclaves of privilege. I don't have a good solution here (other than maybe much more aggressive changes in zoning to push lower income housing into those neighborhoods.) I think on balance they won't do much beyond posturing, simply because a holistic solution isn't really possible.

I wonder if the people who bought in silver spring knew how much they wouldn’t want to go to school with their neighbors. Mix the schools all you want, you still live over there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which is why some folks in the western part of the county worry that redistricting could mean long bus rides for kids if diversifying student populations is a key goal of the effort. It's not a crazy thing to worry about when you try to square the rhetoric with the geography.

Geography is part of the rhetoric. Geography is included in the rhetoric. So you don't have to square anything. It's already in there.

All the more reason to be concerned.

If MCPS weren't talking about geography, you'd be concerned. But MCPS is talking about geography, so - you're concerned.

Let's be clear that this is not about MCPS. It's about you.

OK smarty pants. How do you propose to bring more "diversity" to Whitman and Churchill, two clusters adjacent to three other clusters (Wootton, BCC, Walter Johnson) that allegedly also need more diversity. It's easy to see how you make those three more diverse without long bus commutes, because they border clusters of schools that tend to have at least somewhat higher FARMS rates. That's much less true of Whitman and Churchill. So let us know how you plan to redraw boundaries for Churchill and Whitman in a way that significantly improves diversity but does not require long bus commutes on the part of students coming in or out.

+1. Something will have to give. Either MCPS will have to accept that Whitman and Churchill will remain very low FARMS. Or, they will have to accept longer bus rides than they otherwise would.

It isn't remotely crazy to think that either option is possible. Therefore, I don't see how it is crazy for a parent to worry that long bus rides are a real possibility, although far from a certainty. Geography and diversity are both in the mix, but at times one will have to take primary consideration over the other.

If you can come up with a way to change boundaries so that Whitman/Churchill are diversified without people having long bus rides, I would love to hear it. (It might be possible for bus people into Whitman/Churchill and to do it on a voluntary basis, so parents who were willing to have a longer commute to attend a "better" school could it, but no one would be forced to. But I have no idea if that would be considered.)

This is the dilemma. I don't think MCPS can afford to bus tons of people long distances, plus no one (rich or poor) wants their kid on a bus in traffic for hours each day. It sucks, and it's killer for extracurriculars, parent engagement, etc. Especially for lower income kids. Which is why they opted against diversity considerations when they drew the boundaries for the new BCC MS. MCPS could have balanced race/ethnicity/SES, but chose to split the zone based on geography mostly to avoid busing the more "diverse" neighborhood a longer distance.

OTOH I don't think they can blow up the boundaries for a bunch of other schools and leave Whitman and Churchill as-is. It just won't sell to keep the whitest/richest schools as enclaves of privilege. I don't have a good solution here (other than maybe much more aggressive changes in zoning to push lower income housing into those neighborhoods.) I think on balance they won't do much beyond posturing, simply because a holistic solution isn't really possible.

I wonder if the people who bought in silver spring knew how much they wouldn’t want to go to school with their neighbors. Mix the schools all you want, you still live over there

The issue is concentrating poverty in some schools while others have almost none when this has been shown to impact the quality of education. Presently, MCPS already busses many kids who are closer to Einstein or Wheaton to a W. The reverse is also possible.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

On DCUM? Nah. "Bad school" = "school with lots of poor/black/Hispanic kids"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

On DCUM? Nah. "Bad school" = "school with lots of poor/black/Hispanic kids"

Sadly, it is true that the "bad schools" have mostly poor people of color. Many of these same kids come from families that do not support them at the same level as families in other school districts. This is the biggest problem...it starts in the home. Absenteeism is ridiculously high at these schools...why aren't the parents making these kids go to school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

This is a lie.

I've spent the bulk of my career in challenging schools. This is the first year I've experienced a so-called "good" school. I am not impressed by my colleagues at all. The BEST teachers can handle all kids - from those in gangs to kids earning impressive scores on AP and IB exams. Those teachers don't coast. They work, and they know how to plan.

Please don't ASSume that all the best are at the "good" schools. I can out plan all of my colleagues, but they REFUSE to listen to any advice I share, thinking their way is the best way.

the REAL problem? Moving kids from A to B takes time - much more time and emotional/mental effort in challenging schools. But a move from A to B means little to the county, as the county wants a move from A to G. This is why good teachers burn out. I've seen some of the best leave before year five. But even more painful is watching a year 15 move out. Each year, I watch experienced, talented teachers - those who make wonderful mentors - just walk out.

I'm so tired of people like you who talk out of their a**es. Please don't post lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

This is a lie.

I've spent the bulk of my career in challenging schools. This is the first year I've experienced a so-called "good" school. I am not impressed by my colleagues at all. The BEST teachers can handle all kids - from those in gangs to kids earning impressive scores on AP and IB exams. Those teachers don't coast. They work, and they know how to plan.

Please don't ASSume that all the best are at the "good" schools. I can out plan all of my colleagues, but they REFUSE to listen to any advice I share, thinking their way is the best way.

the REAL problem? Moving kids from A to B takes time - much more time and emotional/mental effort in challenging schools. But a move from A to B means little to the county, as the county wants a move from A to G. This is why good teachers burn out. I've seen some of the best leave before year five. But even more painful is watching a year 15 move out. Each year, I watch experienced, talented teachers - those who make wonderful mentors - just walk out.

I'm so tired of people like you who talk out of their a**es. Please don't post lies.

Nope. You must be one of THOSE teachers. I have heard about your type. My friend who used to teach beside you and eventually ended up at a W school told me all about you. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

This is a lie.

I've spent the bulk of my career in challenging schools. This is the first year I've experienced a so-called "good" school. I am not impressed by my colleagues at all. The BEST teachers can handle all kids - from those in gangs to kids earning impressive scores on AP and IB exams. Those teachers don't coast. They work, and they know how to plan.

Please don't ASSume that all the best are at the "good" schools. I can out plan all of my colleagues, but they REFUSE to listen to any advice I share, thinking their way is the best way.

the REAL problem? Moving kids from A to B takes time - much more time and emotional/mental effort in challenging schools. But a move from A to B means little to the county, as the county wants a move from A to G. This is why good teachers burn out. I've seen some of the best leave before year five. But even more painful is watching a year 15 move out. Each year, I watch experienced, talented teachers - those who make wonderful mentors - just walk out.

I'm so tired of people like you who talk out of their a**es. Please don't post lies.

Thank you for your dedication and service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

On DCUM? Nah. "Bad school" = "school with lots of poor/black/Hispanic kids"

Sadly, it is true that the "bad schools" have mostly poor people of color. Many of these same kids come from families that do not support them at the same level as families in other school districts. This is the biggest problem...it starts in the home. Absenteeism is ridiculously high at these schools...why aren't the parents making these kids go to school?

Many low income parents care about their children, but they may work two jobs, and/or rely on their HS aged kids for things like childcare and bringing in extra income. Plus, if the parents aren't home much because they have to work two jobs, it's kinda hard for them to be involved in their kids' schooling.

I know it's hard for most DCUMers to comprehend, but growing up low income is hard. Kids largely have to raise themselves if they have no other family around.

I grew up lower income to immigrant, non English speaking parents who worked a lot. My siblings and I pretty much raised ourselves. Yes, we all graduated HS, and some of us went off to college, but my one sibling barely graduated HS (almost flunked out). This sibling has an undiagnosed learning disability that my parents probably knew nothing about, and it's not like the teachers back then helped, either. The sibling was just seen as a "bad" student.

Have you ever read about how expensive it was to be poor? Walk a mile in their shoes, then come back and post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why schools with more colored or poor students are labeled low quality? Is the quality measured by test score? Does MCPS assign less qualified teachers the these schools? Does MCPS assign ineffective principles and admins to magnge the schools? Do the low quality schools have worse facilities?

A lot of factors are taken into consideration. Graduation rate, test scores, experience of teachers, etc. The problem is that experienced and good teachers are all at the "good" schools...mainly because they would never take a job at the other schools.

I think the biggest problem is absenteeism. The rate at those schools are ridiculously high...hence the low graduation rate and high dropout rate.

This is a lie.

I've spent the bulk of my career in challenging schools. This is the first year I've experienced a so-called "good" school. I am not impressed by my colleagues at all. The BEST teachers can handle all kids - from those in gangs to kids earning impressive scores on AP and IB exams. Those teachers don't coast. They work, and they know how to plan.

Please don't ASSume that all the best are at the "good" schools. I can out plan all of my colleagues, but they REFUSE to listen to any advice I share, thinking their way is the best way.

the REAL problem? Moving kids from A to B takes time - much more time and emotional/mental effort in challenging schools. But a move from A to B means little to the county, as the county wants a move from A to G. This is why good teachers burn out. I've seen some of the best leave before year five. But even more painful is watching a year 15 move out. Each year, I watch experienced, talented teachers - those who make wonderful mentors - just walk out.

I'm so tired of people like you who talk out of their a**es. Please don't post lies.

Nope. You must be one of THOSE teachers. I have heard about your type. My friend who used to teach beside you and eventually ended up at a W school told me all about you. Nice try.

DP.. we've all heard about your *type* as well. You must be one of THOSE parents.

I appreciate all the hard work that good teachers do, not the ones who coast along. I've seen those kinds, too. My 14 yr old, now in a magnet, can tell which teachers just coast and which don't. DC told me some of the "bad" teachers (the ones who just coast along) at the previous MS where DC#2 goes to have left, and DC said thank goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly, it is true that the "bad schools" have mostly poor people of color. Many of these same kids come from families that do not support them at the same level as families in other school districts. This is the biggest problem...it starts in the home. Absenteeism is ridiculously high at these schools...why aren't the parents making these kids go to school?

Many low income parents care about their children, but they may work two jobs, and/or rely on their HS aged kids for things like childcare and bringing in extra income. Plus, if the parents aren't home much because they have to work two jobs, it's kinda hard for them to be involved in their kids' schooling.

I know it's hard for most DCUMers to comprehend, but growing up low income is hard. Kids largely have to raise themselves if they have no other family around.

I grew up lower income to immigrant, non English speaking parents who worked a lot. My siblings and I pretty much raised ourselves. Yes, we all graduated HS, and some of us went off to college, but my one sibling barely graduated HS (almost flunked out). This sibling has an undiagnosed learning disability that my parents probably knew nothing about, and it's not like the teachers back then helped, either. The sibling was just seen as a "bad" student.

Have you ever read about how expensive it was to be poor? Walk a mile in their shoes, then come back and post.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Would you please tell us what made you and some of your sibilings successful?