Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The focus of discussion has been on option 3 because frankly it is insane. So what’s in options 1,2, and 4 that they’d prefer we don’t look at?

1 and 4 leave Wheaton significantly overcrowded while other schools are under capacity. It will cost money and time to build the capacity they need, if they even get the money to do it.

Option 2 is split articulation on steroids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all 43 pages of this thread and am pretty disheartened. I have not seen one comment in favor of the more disruptive (to the current status quo) options say a single thing about the prospective quality of education improvement that the potential new Whitman and BCC students would receive. Instead, it’s all about sending Whitman and BCC bus loads of poor kids to somehow stick it to them? If those poor kids have to spend 45 minutes on a bus to (somehow?) upset the rich kids, great!

The kids being bussed from poor communities? Those are kids, not props in your vendetta fantasies. The rich kids you’re sticking it to? Also, just kids. The “foolish” communities that want to stay together? Communities of people (that just want to stay together).

Let’s make every school better and every kid’s life better. Let’s not use them as props against each other.

As a poor family. I sorry you don’t want our kids. Actually some of us aren’t that poor, we make different life choices. The best solution would be to open up another hs lower dcc.

Want to give you a big hug. Your kids are wanted. All kids are wanted. To be fair, from what I have read, I think everyone here welcomes diversity of income, culture and race. The problem is that no one of any income level wants to be bused away from their neighborhoods and rightfully so. Every school needs to be stronger and some underperforming schools need more money, support and staff. Whatever it takes, they should get it.

We are wanted as long as we are not in your schools or competition for your kids. No one wants their kids bussed but maybe this will give those kids opportunities they don’t have to get ahead. Our kids don’t have the same opportunities.

Unfortunately it’s a zero sum game and we don’t get do overs with our kids’ education. I’d support funding more opportunities for your kids through modestly higher property taxes but not at the expense of my own kids’ opportunities or busing them across town. Everyone wants the best opportunities for their children (which is why most of us moved to the best place we could afford) and are looking to preserve that as much as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.

Wow we are all on the same team PP. it’s not a zero sum game.

Are we? There's only one (or few) valedictorians and there's an implicit quota in how many kids from each school matriculate to a particular university. We're not in this together and that's been apparent since I set foot in this county or on DCUM and seen others asking questions about the "preferred preschool to get into the Ivy League" or "my DD has the following stats but they don't have a hook and therefore, didn't get into [insert highly selective university]", especially as our kids get closer and closer to high school. We're more like participants running the gauntlet in The Hunger Games where "may the odds ever be in your favor". This is the meritocracy that we find ourselves in and the system that each of us has to face (or ignore). So forgive me if I don't want my kids being bussed across town to a different school and not the neighborhood school I've already paid a high cost entry fee to get into.

You did not pay a "fee" to "get into" your neighborhood. You purchased an asset, which you can sell or rent out if you want.

I purchased an asset at a several hundred thousand dollar premium to comparable assets because of its access to a desirable public school cluster.

OK, you purchased an asset. All assets come with risk and reward. Society doesn't have an obligation to make sure your asset pays out. Your house as an asset came with the risk that you wouldn't always be zoned to the same school -- that's a headline risk you should have thought about.

And the school board members who echo this sentiment are going to lose their jobs.

And the county will lose property tax dollars that fund MCPS. It cuts both ways when you mess with the golden goose. And this at a time when Federal spending and jobs cuts are going to blow a hole in the county's budget.

Daddy Donald is not going to save you here. Boundary revisions are within the purview of local school districts, as long as they do not intentionally promote or maintain segregation. You might claim that one option is "DEI" but it's one thing to make that claim rhetorically. It's another to demonstrate it in court.

Oh, I'm not expecting him to but his actions are likely going to devastate the tax base in MCPS due to Federal budget cuts and layoffs as well as cause significant demographic shifts. That's not even including immigrant enforcement if they decide to make an example of Maryland. I'll just move across the river if we decide MCPS takes things too far. You'll miss my tax dollars when they're gone. Freedom of choice, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe what makes the most sense is to create more low income housing in the west part of the county then the farms rates at those schools will increase and it will be balanced.

I live in west county and agree. Diversify neighborhoods through housing policy and send kids to schools that minimize commuting

Agreed. But so far there is a ton of pushback on this. So it's left to MCPS to do the work the county can't manage.

What? No. That’s not the role of the schools.

Well these choices impact the schools and the quality of education that students receive.

The most offensive thing about this thread is how people talk about low income kids (which we all know in this county are mainly Black and Latino but of course some are White and Asian), as though they are all the same. They are all disruptive, none of them want to learn, their families are all bad. The rich White and Asian (and some Latino) kids are well-behaved and come from good families. GMAFB.

Most low-income kids come from families that care about their kids' education. Most low-income kids want to learn. But they are disproportionately placed in schools with much higher percentages of kids that are disruptive, whose home circumstances prevent them from learning. And in these schools there are numerous kids that want and can do advanced classes, but the numbers aren't quite enough to have the variety of classes that are available in the wealthier schools. These are tangible ways that MCPS education is directly impacted by housing segregation. Not to mention, having less diversity at the wealthy schools is not great for those kids either. I attended one of those school many years ago. I very much wish it had been more diverse.

I don't know what the answer is. I very much sympathize with families (of all backgrounds) that do not want their kids to have a long bus ride to school. I would not want that for my kid. But let's stop pretending that segregation doesn't impact education or that low-income kids don't want to learn. That's a pretty offensive and blatantly incorrect assumption.

Fwiw I’ve read all pages of this thread and no one has stated anything like what you said.

I have definitely seen these attitudes in this thread and commonly expressed on DCUM

I’m sure you have seen them on DCUM but not on this thread. You’ve made up a straw man in order to make a moral judgement.

Also, we're now talking about economic segregation, not racial or ethnic (although admittedly there's a lot of history that driving correlations between the two). I'm all for diversity at our schools as long as they can afford the UMC incomes and housing costs that go with it. However, I don't want poor, disruptive kids with all kinds of behavioral challenges at my schools. I don't think any of us do. And if there are smart, driven less affluent kids who want to attend, then give them the opportunity to attend. Oh wait, the county already does that.

As a Chevy Chase parent who sent kids to middle school magnets, which have "poor" kids and also to BCC which has a lot of wealthy kids, I can tell you your conflation of Poor=disruptive is completely wrong. MoCo has many poor immigrant kids who are extremely bright, whose families value education as the sole means to success in the US, and who have much stricter family discipline than US families. By contrast, at wealthy BCC, I saw a lot of wealthy kids who were very disruptive -- school drug dealers, rapists, and insubordinate privilege takers.

This is very politically correct of you, but unfortunately, as anyone who has kids at BCc can tell you, the overwhelming majority of the kids who are very serious about their studies are white and Asian, while the kids that get into fights and hang around chipotle while skipping school are of other minorities/recent immigrant descent. Just ask your kids. No doubt there are exceptions, but there is a reason that wealthier parents are concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe what makes the most sense is to create more low income housing in the west part of the county then the farms rates at those schools will increase and it will be balanced.

I live in west county and agree. Diversify neighborhoods through housing policy and send kids to schools that minimize commuting

Agreed. But so far there is a ton of pushback on this. So it's left to MCPS to do the work the county can't manage.

What? No. That’s not the role of the schools.

Well these choices impact the schools and the quality of education that students receive.

The most offensive thing about this thread is how people talk about low income kids (which we all know in this county are mainly Black and Latino but of course some are White and Asian), as though they are all the same. They are all disruptive, none of them want to learn, their families are all bad. The rich White and Asian (and some Latino) kids are well-behaved and come from good families. GMAFB.

Most low-income kids come from families that care about their kids' education. Most low-income kids want to learn. But they are disproportionately placed in schools with much higher percentages of kids that are disruptive, whose home circumstances prevent them from learning. And in these schools there are numerous kids that want and can do advanced classes, but the numbers aren't quite enough to have the variety of classes that are available in the wealthier schools. These are tangible ways that MCPS education is directly impacted by housing segregation. Not to mention, having less diversity at the wealthy schools is not great for those kids either. I attended one of those school many years ago. I very much wish it had been more diverse.

I don't know what the answer is. I very much sympathize with families (of all backgrounds) that do not want their kids to have a long bus ride to school. I would not want that for my kid. But let's stop pretending that segregation doesn't impact education or that low-income kids don't want to learn. That's a pretty offensive and blatantly incorrect assumption.

Fwiw I’ve read all pages of this thread and no one has stated anything like what you said.

I have definitely seen these attitudes in this thread and commonly expressed on DCUM

I’m sure you have seen them on DCUM but not on this thread. You’ve made up a straw man in order to make a moral judgement.

Also, we're now talking about economic segregation, not racial or ethnic (although admittedly there's a lot of history that driving correlations between the two). I'm all for diversity at our schools as long as they can afford the UMC incomes and housing costs that go with it. However, I don't want poor, disruptive kids with all kinds of behavioral challenges at my schools. I don't think any of us do. And if there are smart, driven less affluent kids who want to attend, then give them the opportunity to attend. Oh wait, the county already does that.

As a Chevy Chase parent who sent kids to middle school magnets, which have "poor" kids and also to BCC which has a lot of wealthy kids, I can tell you your conflation of Poor=disruptive is completely wrong. MoCo has many poor immigrant kids who are extremely bright, whose families value education as the sole means to success in the US, and who have much stricter family discipline than US families. By contrast, at wealthy BCC, I saw a lot of wealthy kids who were very disruptive -- school drug dealers, rapists, and insubordinate privilege takers.

This is very politically correct of you, but unfortunately, as anyone who has kids at BCc can tell you, the overwhelming majority of the kids who are very serious about their studies are white and Asian, while the kids that get into fights and hang around chipotle while skipping school are of other minorities/recent immigrant descent. Just ask your kids. No doubt there are exceptions, but there is a reason that wealthier parents are concerned.

I do have kids at BCC, and I stand by my statement. Maybe your kids don't tell you what's going on outside of the news you hear about a specific incident on the BCC list serve? There's plenty of stuff going on in HS that doesn't make the evening news.

[Anonymous]

As a dual-working family whose life would be completely upended by the logistics of anything that looks like Option 3, I attended one of the in-person meetings this week. It was not well attended so it gave attendees access to directly speak with the FLO people that developed the maps, MCPS officials and a BOE member.

These four maps are not the options - they are solely to demonstrate what each map could look like if they prioritized each of the four factors. I think they did a terrible job communicating that. That said, I left with an understanding that they want to balance the FARMS rate and I'm not totally convinced that some of our kids may be sacrificed to do it. Maybe not to the extent of Option 3, but some form of that.

Based on what I heard at the meeting, most parents, no matter where they lived, are worried about lack of proximity. Parents whose children were being bussed into a "W" school were just as upset as those being bussed out.

I hope parents are loud enough now that our voices are considered in developing the actual options that will be released in the fall. And if you get the opportunity to go to an in-person, I highly recommend it. In-person conversations seem much more productive in showing that our kids are more than just a set of demographic numbers.

[Anonymous]

So with all the discussion around the Blair borders one thing I don't really understand is why they have to skip a bunch of already middle class neighborhoods in Silver Spring that are not zoned for Blair (but would love to be -- it's the closest school) and instead draw from W neighborhoods. I had understood Blair to be overcrowded so I was not expecting a bunch of neighborhoods to be added, but I also didn't expect them to be drawing from elsewhere. Option 3 does add the immediate area around SCES to Blair but still leaves large chunks of the school zoned to Northwood. The schools feeding into SSIMS continue to be a split articulation mess according to any option, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all 43 pages of this thread and am pretty disheartened. I have not seen one comment in favor of the more disruptive (to the current status quo) options say a single thing about the prospective quality of education improvement that the potential new Whitman and BCC students would receive. Instead, it’s all about sending Whitman and BCC bus loads of poor kids to somehow stick it to them? If those poor kids have to spend 45 minutes on a bus to (somehow?) upset the rich kids, great!

The kids being bussed from poor communities? Those are kids, not props in your vendetta fantasies. The rich kids you’re sticking it to? Also, just kids. The “foolish” communities that want to stay together? Communities of people (that just want to stay together).

Let’s make every school better and every kid’s life better. Let’s not use them as props against each other.

As a poor family. I sorry you don’t want our kids. Actually some of us aren’t that poor, we make different life choices. The best solution would be to open up another hs lower dcc.

Want to give you a big hug. Your kids are wanted. All kids are wanted. To be fair, from what I have read, I think everyone here welcomes diversity of income, culture and race. The problem is that no one of any income level wants to be bused away from their neighborhoods and rightfully so. Every school needs to be stronger and some underperforming schools need more money, support and staff. Whatever it takes, they should get it.

We are wanted as long as we are not in your schools or competition for your kids. No one wants their kids bussed but maybe this will give those kids opportunities they don’t have to get ahead. Our kids don’t have the same opportunities.

Unfortunately it’s a zero sum game and we don’t get do overs with our kids’ education. I’d support funding more opportunities for your kids through modestly higher property taxes but not at the expense of my own kids’ opportunities or busing them across town. Everyone wants the best opportunities for their children (which is why most of us moved to the best place we could afford) and are looking to preserve that as much as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.

Wow we are all on the same team PP. it’s not a zero sum game.

Are we? There's only one (or few) valedictorians and there's an implicit quota in how many kids from each school matriculate to a particular university. We're not in this together and that's been apparent since I set foot in this county or on DCUM and seen others asking questions about the "preferred preschool to get into the Ivy League" or "my DD has the following stats but they don't have a hook and therefore, didn't get into [insert highly selective university]", especially as our kids get closer and closer to high school. We're more like participants running the gauntlet in The Hunger Games where "may the odds ever be in your favor". This is the meritocracy that we find ourselves in and the system that each of us has to face (or ignore). So forgive me if I don't want my kids being bussed across town to a different school and not the neighborhood school I've already paid a high cost entry fee to get into.

You did not pay a "fee" to "get into" your neighborhood. You purchased an asset, which you can sell or rent out if you want.

I purchased an asset at a several hundred thousand dollar premium to comparable assets because of its access to a desirable public school cluster.

OK, you purchased an asset. All assets come with risk and reward. Society doesn't have an obligation to make sure your asset pays out. Your house as an asset came with the risk that you wouldn't always be zoned to the same school -- that's a headline risk you should have thought about.

And the school board members who echo this sentiment are going to lose their jobs.

And the county will lose property tax dollars that fund MCPS. It cuts both ways when you mess with the golden goose. And this at a time when Federal spending and jobs cuts are going to blow a hole in the county's budget.

Daddy Donald is not going to save you here. Boundary revisions are within the purview of local school districts, as long as they do not intentionally promote or maintain segregation. You might claim that one option is "DEI" but it's one thing to make that claim rhetorically. It's another to demonstrate it in court.

The options don’t just show the changes in FARMS rates, they show how the racial make-up of each school would change under the different scenarios. Why include that data here unless racial composition of the schools is a motivating factor in the boundary decisions? That should be enough to attract King Donald’s attention. And maybe SCOTUS’s too. They should have stuck to FARMS rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a dual-working family whose life would be completely upended by the logistics of anything that looks like Option 3, I attended one of the in-person meetings this week. It was not well attended so it gave attendees access to directly speak with the FLO people that developed the maps, MCPS officials and a BOE member.

These four maps are not the options - they are solely to demonstrate what each map could look like if they prioritized each of the four factors. I think they did a terrible job communicating that. That said, I left with an understanding that they want to balance the FARMS rate and I'm not totally convinced that some of our kids may be sacrificed to do it. Maybe not to the extent of Option 3, but some form of that.

Based on what I heard at the meeting, most parents, no matter where they lived, are worried about lack of proximity. Parents whose children were being bussed into a "W" school were just as upset as those being bussed out.

I hope parents are loud enough now that our voices are considered in developing the actual options that will be released in the fall. And if you get the opportunity to go to an in-person, I highly recommend it. In-person conversations seem much more productive in showing that our kids are more than just a set of demographic numbers.

Thank you for sharing this. We are a UMC mixed race family living in the DCC and have no desire for our child to be bussed to Whitman. I will see if I can attend one of the in person meetings.

I do think it will be important for parents to advocate for our families in a way that is respectful. I do not think the headlines associated with the previous boundary analysis of parents shouting at the consultants were helpful to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all 43 pages of this thread and am pretty disheartened. I have not seen one comment in favor of the more disruptive (to the current status quo) options say a single thing about the prospective quality of education improvement that the potential new Whitman and BCC students would receive. Instead, it’s all about sending Whitman and BCC bus loads of poor kids to somehow stick it to them? If those poor kids have to spend 45 minutes on a bus to (somehow?) upset the rich kids, great!

The kids being bussed from poor communities? Those are kids, not props in your vendetta fantasies. The rich kids you’re sticking it to? Also, just kids. The “foolish” communities that want to stay together? Communities of people (that just want to stay together).

Let’s make every school better and every kid’s life better. Let’s not use them as props against each other.

As a poor family. I sorry you don’t want our kids. Actually some of us aren’t that poor, we make different life choices. The best solution would be to open up another hs lower dcc.

Want to give you a big hug. Your kids are wanted. All kids are wanted. To be fair, from what I have read, I think everyone here welcomes diversity of income, culture and race. The problem is that no one of any income level wants to be bused away from their neighborhoods and rightfully so. Every school needs to be stronger and some underperforming schools need more money, support and staff. Whatever it takes, they should get it.

We are wanted as long as we are not in your schools or competition for your kids. No one wants their kids bussed but maybe this will give those kids opportunities they don’t have to get ahead. Our kids don’t have the same opportunities.

Unfortunately it’s a zero sum game and we don’t get do overs with our kids’ education. I’d support funding more opportunities for your kids through modestly higher property taxes but not at the expense of my own kids’ opportunities or busing them across town. Everyone wants the best opportunities for their children (which is why most of us moved to the best place we could afford) and are looking to preserve that as much as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.

Wow we are all on the same team PP. it’s not a zero sum game.

Are we? There's only one (or few) valedictorians and there's an implicit quota in how many kids from each school matriculate to a particular university. We're not in this together and that's been apparent since I set foot in this county or on DCUM and seen others asking questions about the "preferred preschool to get into the Ivy League" or "my DD has the following stats but they don't have a hook and therefore, didn't get into [insert highly selective university]", especially as our kids get closer and closer to high school. We're more like participants running the gauntlet in The Hunger Games where "may the odds ever be in your favor". This is the meritocracy that we find ourselves in and the system that each of us has to face (or ignore). So forgive me if I don't want my kids being bussed across town to a different school and not the neighborhood school I've already paid a high cost entry fee to get into.

You did not pay a "fee" to "get into" your neighborhood. You purchased an asset, which you can sell or rent out if you want.

I purchased an asset at a several hundred thousand dollar premium to comparable assets because of its access to a desirable public school cluster.

OK, you purchased an asset. All assets come with risk and reward. Society doesn't have an obligation to make sure your asset pays out. Your house as an asset came with the risk that you wouldn't always be zoned to the same school -- that's a headline risk you should have thought about.

And the school board members who echo this sentiment are going to lose their jobs.

And the county will lose property tax dollars that fund MCPS. It cuts both ways when you mess with the golden goose. And this at a time when Federal spending and jobs cuts are going to blow a hole in the county's budget.

Daddy Donald is not going to save you here. Boundary revisions are within the purview of local school districts, as long as they do not intentionally promote or maintain segregation. You might claim that one option is "DEI" but it's one thing to make that claim rhetorically. It's another to demonstrate it in court.

The options don’t just show the changes in FARMS rates, they show how the racial make-up of each school would change under the different scenarios. Why include that data here unless racial composition of the schools is a motivating factor in the boundary decisions? That should be enough to attract King Donald’s attention. And maybe SCOTUS’s too. They should have stuck to FARMS rates.

Sounds like you want MCPS to obey in advance you fascist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a dual-working family whose life would be completely upended by the logistics of anything that looks like Option 3, I attended one of the in-person meetings this week. It was not well attended so it gave attendees access to directly speak with the FLO people that developed the maps, MCPS officials and a BOE member.

These four maps are not the options - they are solely to demonstrate what each map could look like if they prioritized each of the four factors. I think they did a terrible job communicating that. That said, I left with an understanding that they want to balance the FARMS rate and I'm not totally convinced that some of our kids may be sacrificed to do it. Maybe not to the extent of Option 3, but some form of that.

Based on what I heard at the meeting, most parents, no matter where they lived, are worried about lack of proximity. Parents whose children were being bussed into a "W" school were just as upset as those being bussed out.

I hope parents are loud enough now that our voices are considered in developing the actual options that will be released in the fall. And if you get the opportunity to go to an in-person, I highly recommend it. In-person conversations seem much more productive in showing that our kids are more than just a set of demographic numbers.

Thank you for sharing this. We are a UMC mixed race family living in the DCC and have no desire for our child to be bussed to Whitman. I will see if I can attend one of the in person meetings.

I do think it will be important for parents to advocate for our families in a way that is respectful. I do not think the headlines associated with the previous boundary analysis of parents shouting at the consultants were helpful to anyone.

Excellent point about being respectful! I'm the previous poster. Thankfully, the meeting I attended this week was nothing like the one I attended in 2019. It was good, two-way, calm, meaningful conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all 43 pages of this thread and am pretty disheartened. I have not seen one comment in favor of the more disruptive (to the current status quo) options say a single thing about the prospective quality of education improvement that the potential new Whitman and BCC students would receive. Instead, it’s all about sending Whitman and BCC bus loads of poor kids to somehow stick it to them? If those poor kids have to spend 45 minutes on a bus to (somehow?) upset the rich kids, great!

The kids being bussed from poor communities? Those are kids, not props in your vendetta fantasies. The rich kids you’re sticking it to? Also, just kids. The “foolish” communities that want to stay together? Communities of people (that just want to stay together).

Let’s make every school better and every kid’s life better. Let’s not use them as props against each other.

As a poor family. I sorry you don’t want our kids. Actually some of us aren’t that poor, we make different life choices. The best solution would be to open up another hs lower dcc.

Want to give you a big hug. Your kids are wanted. All kids are wanted. To be fair, from what I have read, I think everyone here welcomes diversity of income, culture and race. The problem is that no one of any income level wants to be bused away from their neighborhoods and rightfully so. Every school needs to be stronger and some underperforming schools need more money, support and staff. Whatever it takes, they should get it.

We are wanted as long as we are not in your schools or competition for your kids. No one wants their kids bussed but maybe this will give those kids opportunities they don’t have to get ahead. Our kids don’t have the same opportunities.

Unfortunately it’s a zero sum game and we don’t get do overs with our kids’ education. I’d support funding more opportunities for your kids through modestly higher property taxes but not at the expense of my own kids’ opportunities or busing them across town. Everyone wants the best opportunities for their children (which is why most of us moved to the best place we could afford) and are looking to preserve that as much as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.

Wow we are all on the same team PP. it’s not a zero sum game.

Are we? There's only one (or few) valedictorians and there's an implicit quota in how many kids from each school matriculate to a particular university. We're not in this together and that's been apparent since I set foot in this county or on DCUM and seen others asking questions about the "preferred preschool to get into the Ivy League" or "my DD has the following stats but they don't have a hook and therefore, didn't get into [insert highly selective university]", especially as our kids get closer and closer to high school. We're more like participants running the gauntlet in The Hunger Games where "may the odds ever be in your favor". This is the meritocracy that we find ourselves in and the system that each of us has to face (or ignore). So forgive me if I don't want my kids being bussed across town to a different school and not the neighborhood school I've already paid a high cost entry fee to get into.

You did not pay a "fee" to "get into" your neighborhood. You purchased an asset, which you can sell or rent out if you want.

I purchased an asset at a several hundred thousand dollar premium to comparable assets because of its access to a desirable public school cluster.

OK, you purchased an asset. All assets come with risk and reward. Society doesn't have an obligation to make sure your asset pays out. Your house as an asset came with the risk that you wouldn't always be zoned to the same school -- that's a headline risk you should have thought about.

And the school board members who echo this sentiment are going to lose their jobs.

And the county will lose property tax dollars that fund MCPS. It cuts both ways when you mess with the golden goose. And this at a time when Federal spending and jobs cuts are going to blow a hole in the county's budget.

Daddy Donald is not going to save you here. Boundary revisions are within the purview of local school districts, as long as they do not intentionally promote or maintain segregation. You might claim that one option is "DEI" but it's one thing to make that claim rhetorically. It's another to demonstrate it in court.

The options don’t just show the changes in FARMS rates, they show how the racial make-up of each school would change under the different scenarios. Why include that data here unless racial composition of the schools is a motivating factor in the boundary decisions? That should be enough to attract King Donald’s attention. And maybe SCOTUS’s too. They should have stuck to FARMS rates.

Sounds like you want MCPS to obey in advance you fascist

I want them to create the least amount of chaos for my kids in school while still enacting boundary changes that will lessen the burdens of school overcrowding. Better to understand the current political reality and make the changes in as bullet-proof a way as possible. This isn’t just about coping with Trump’s odious agenda. The Supreme Court seems poised to crack down on race-based public policy decisions too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all 43 pages of this thread and am pretty disheartened. I have not seen one comment in favor of the more disruptive (to the current status quo) options say a single thing about the prospective quality of education improvement that the potential new Whitman and BCC students would receive. Instead, it’s all about sending Whitman and BCC bus loads of poor kids to somehow stick it to them? If those poor kids have to spend 45 minutes on a bus to (somehow?) upset the rich kids, great!

The kids being bussed from poor communities? Those are kids, not props in your vendetta fantasies. The rich kids you’re sticking it to? Also, just kids. The “foolish” communities that want to stay together? Communities of people (that just want to stay together).

Let’s make every school better and every kid’s life better. Let’s not use them as props against each other.

As a poor family. I sorry you don’t want our kids. Actually some of us aren’t that poor, we make different life choices. The best solution would be to open up another hs lower dcc.

Want to give you a big hug. Your kids are wanted. All kids are wanted. To be fair, from what I have read, I think everyone here welcomes diversity of income, culture and race. The problem is that no one of any income level wants to be bused away from their neighborhoods and rightfully so. Every school needs to be stronger and some underperforming schools need more money, support and staff. Whatever it takes, they should get it.

We are wanted as long as we are not in your schools or competition for your kids. No one wants their kids bussed but maybe this will give those kids opportunities they don’t have to get ahead. Our kids don’t have the same opportunities.

Unfortunately it’s a zero sum game and we don’t get do overs with our kids’ education. I’d support funding more opportunities for your kids through modestly higher property taxes but not at the expense of my own kids’ opportunities or busing them across town. Everyone wants the best opportunities for their children (which is why most of us moved to the best place we could afford) and are looking to preserve that as much as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.

Wow we are all on the same team PP. it’s not a zero sum game.

Are we? There's only one (or few) valedictorians and there's an implicit quota in how many kids from each school matriculate to a particular university. We're not in this together and that's been apparent since I set foot in this county or on DCUM and seen others asking questions about the "preferred preschool to get into the Ivy League" or "my DD has the following stats but they don't have a hook and therefore, didn't get into [insert highly selective university]", especially as our kids get closer and closer to high school. We're more like participants running the gauntlet in The Hunger Games where "may the odds ever be in your favor". This is the meritocracy that we find ourselves in and the system that each of us has to face (or ignore). So forgive me if I don't want my kids being bussed across town to a different school and not the neighborhood school I've already paid a high cost entry fee to get into.

You did not pay a "fee" to "get into" your neighborhood. You purchased an asset, which you can sell or rent out if you want.

I purchased an asset at a several hundred thousand dollar premium to comparable assets because of its access to a desirable public school cluster.

Hard eye roll. You never signed a contract with MCPS to guarantee you that school. That’s a you problem.

You don’t need to be unkind. Even buyers without school age children can and should take school assignments into consideration because it directly impacts home value. While boundaries can and do change, it’s not an unreasonable position to feel you’re not getting what you felt you planned for or a reasonably comparable alternative. MCPS should not be in the position of making numerous families feel bait-and-switched.

Greetings from 2025. MCPS has several overcrowded high schools and has therefore worked to construct two new high schools to reduce or hopefully eliminate overcrowding. In order for that to happen, many students will need to be reassigned to different schools. There is simply no way around that.

Obviously some people will need to shift. But certain proposed options on the table create big changes that no one could have reasonably expected or anticipated. I’m not even personally in this position but it’s obviously upsetting for those who are and I don’t like all the anonymous victim blaming.

There are no victims right now. Nobody has been impacted by these decisions. Some may be worried that their home values are impacted by the simple consideration of them, but you have to understand how entitled and whiny that sounds. MCPS needs to manage its facilities effectively and efficiently. Having schools that are over capacity and others that are under capacity is not efficient. Concentrating poverty in certain schools undermines the kids' education, kids who by and large want to learn, despite some of the truly disgusting stereotypes articulated just in the last few pages of this thread.

I absolutely agree that long bus rides can be disruptive to families of all backgrounds and should be avoided. But this notion that MCPS should be held responsible for your property values is truly absurd and entitled. Learn a little something about how you have personally benefited from the history of oppression perpetrated by the government. Your home value would not be what it is today with is it redlining and racist exclusionary zoning. Jfc.

So let me make sure I understand this correctly... After calling families whiny and entitled and giving a short history lesson on how those families benefited from racist exclusionary zoning policies to get over their concerns... You want those same families to be open minded and embrace boundary changes that appear to have no meaningful benefit? Good luck with that.

Maybe try a different approach instead of being dismissive and condescending towards people that disagree while simultaneously looking for their support. Some of the people you are labeling as whiny and entitled that have unfairly benefited from exclusionary housing policies are the elected officials responsible for making the final decision on the boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read all 43 pages of this thread and am pretty disheartened. I have not seen one comment in favor of the more disruptive (to the current status quo) options say a single thing about the prospective quality of education improvement that the potential new Whitman and BCC students would receive. Instead, it’s all about sending Whitman and BCC bus loads of poor kids to somehow stick it to them? If those poor kids have to spend 45 minutes on a bus to (somehow?) upset the rich kids, great!

The kids being bussed from poor communities? Those are kids, not props in your vendetta fantasies. The rich kids you’re sticking it to? Also, just kids. The “foolish” communities that want to stay together? Communities of people (that just want to stay together).

Let’s make every school better and every kid’s life better. Let’s not use them as props against each other.

As a poor family. I sorry you don’t want our kids. Actually some of us aren’t that poor, we make different life choices. The best solution would be to open up another hs lower dcc.

Want to give you a big hug. Your kids are wanted. All kids are wanted. To be fair, from what I have read, I think everyone here welcomes diversity of income, culture and race. The problem is that no one of any income level wants to be bused away from their neighborhoods and rightfully so. Every school needs to be stronger and some underperforming schools need more money, support and staff. Whatever it takes, they should get it.

We are wanted as long as we are not in your schools or competition for your kids. No one wants their kids bussed but maybe this will give those kids opportunities they don’t have to get ahead. Our kids don’t have the same opportunities.

Unfortunately it’s a zero sum game and we don’t get do overs with our kids’ education. I’d support funding more opportunities for your kids through modestly higher property taxes but not at the expense of my own kids’ opportunities or busing them across town. Everyone wants the best opportunities for their children (which is why most of us moved to the best place we could afford) and are looking to preserve that as much as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.

Wow we are all on the same team PP. it’s not a zero sum game.

Are we? There's only one (or few) valedictorians and there's an implicit quota in how many kids from each school matriculate to a particular university. We're not in this together and that's been apparent since I set foot in this county or on DCUM and seen others asking questions about the "preferred preschool to get into the Ivy League" or "my DD has the following stats but they don't have a hook and therefore, didn't get into [insert highly selective university]", especially as our kids get closer and closer to high school. We're more like participants running the gauntlet in The Hunger Games where "may the odds ever be in your favor". This is the meritocracy that we find ourselves in and the system that each of us has to face (or ignore). So forgive me if I don't want my kids being bussed across town to a different school and not the neighborhood school I've already paid a high cost entry fee to get into.

You did not pay a "fee" to "get into" your neighborhood. You purchased an asset, which you can sell or rent out if you want.

I purchased an asset at a several hundred thousand dollar premium to comparable assets because of its access to a desirable public school cluster.

Hard eye roll. You never signed a contract with MCPS to guarantee you that school. That’s a you problem.

You don’t need to be unkind. Even buyers without school age children can and should take school assignments into consideration because it directly impacts home value. While boundaries can and do change, it’s not an unreasonable position to feel you’re not getting what you felt you planned for or a reasonably comparable alternative. MCPS should not be in the position of making numerous families feel bait-and-switched.

Greetings from 2025. MCPS has several overcrowded high schools and has therefore worked to construct two new high schools to reduce or hopefully eliminate overcrowding. In order for that to happen, many students will need to be reassigned to different schools. There is simply no way around that.

Obviously some people will need to shift. But certain proposed options on the table create big changes that no one could have reasonably expected or anticipated. I’m not even personally in this position but it’s obviously upsetting for those who are and I don’t like all the anonymous victim blaming.

There are no victims right now. Nobody has been impacted by these decisions. Some may be worried that their home values are impacted by the simple consideration of them, but you have to understand how entitled and whiny that sounds. MCPS needs to manage its facilities effectively and efficiently. Having schools that are over capacity and others that are under capacity is not efficient. Concentrating poverty in certain schools undermines the kids' education, kids who by and large want to learn, despite some of the truly disgusting stereotypes articulated just in the last few pages of this thread.

I absolutely agree that long bus rides can be disruptive to families of all backgrounds and should be avoided. But this notion that MCPS should be held responsible for your property values is truly absurd and entitled. Learn a little something about how you have personally benefited from the history of oppression perpetrated by the government. Your home value would not be what it is today with is it redlining and racist exclusionary zoning. Jfc.

Discrimination in housing was outlawed in 1968. In 1970, Montgomery County was 94.5% white, 4.1% black and 0.8% Asian. These minority populations were so small that they had almost no impact on housing locations or values. The small black population was concentrated in locations that many people now would believe had desirable schools: Scotland, Lincoln Park, Janetta, downtown Rockville, Ken-Gar, etc. If you are trying to say that it was racial discrimination that kept people out of the county entirely, I guess that I could listen to that argument.

Housing value is due to proximity to jobs and amenities.

The situation now in Montgomery County is so far from those days of racial discrimination that it is ridiculous to use those as a bludgeon to get the policies you desire. White students now make up only approximately 24% of MCPS. Just like it would have been pointless in 1970 to try and spread those black kids around the county to make sure that there was no segregation, it will now become pointless to try and spread white kids around to achieve racial balance. Instead of trying to achieve income balance, MCPS should stop wasting money on buses and spend the funds trying to provide a strong educational foundation for poor kids wherever they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a dual-working family whose life would be completely upended by the logistics of anything that looks like Option 3, I attended one of the in-person meetings this week. It was not well attended so it gave attendees access to directly speak with the FLO people that developed the maps, MCPS officials and a BOE member.

These four maps are not the options - they are solely to demonstrate what each map could look like if they prioritized each of the four factors. I think they did a terrible job communicating that. That said, I left with an understanding that they want to balance the FARMS rate and I'm not totally convinced that some of our kids may be sacrificed to do it. Maybe not to the extent of Option 3, but some form of that.

Based on what I heard at the meeting, most parents, no matter where they lived, are worried about lack of proximity. Parents whose children were being bussed into a "W" school were just as upset as those being bussed out.

I hope parents are loud enough now that our voices are considered in developing the actual options that will be released in the fall. And if you get the opportunity to go to an in-person, I highly recommend it. In-person conversations seem much more productive in showing that our kids are more than just a set of demographic numbers.

Sounds like they really need to send out an update with an official clarification about this.

[Anonymous]

If only there was research about whether busing kids for school had meaningful benefits….