Elementary school boundary studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. Instead we have a divwrsity-first boundary policy and stupid boundaries that can only get stupider when they are redrawn. Why? Because people of different SES don't live near each other. So the only way to get the perfect SES/racial balance that east county progressives want is with busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right. I'm the PP who brought up the Gburg cluster. I guess my larger point was that busing already happens to a certain degree. Those kids that live way up past Brink road are bused down to Gburg Middle because they are white.

So we need 2 things: -
- a rebalance of the boundary priorities, where diversity is not the number 1 consideration
- redrawing of the boundaries, because stupid clusters already exist.

They're bused to Gaithersburg MS because they go to Laytonsville ES. There isn't a middle school particularly close to Laytonsville. I'm looking at the map, and I see a bunch of them about 5-6 miles away. Which middle school would you have them be assigned to? And do that school and its feeder HS have room for another ES?

I don't live there, but based on what people I know have told me, they want to be reassigned to Rosa Parks MS and Sherwood HS.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/unityarea.aspx

Doing it this way would require MCPS to do away with the cluster model and create a system where people go to school closest to where they live as opposed to going to the MS that your ES feeds into. Because from a big-picture, practical standpoint, Laytonsville ES is 6 miles from G’burg MS and 5 miles from Rosa Parks MS, that is a negligible difference. Boundaries are never going to be able to please everyone and such a large school district cannot accommodate individualized preferences.

What you are saying is perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is to bus kids to schools many miles farther from home because of their skin color or family income like east county progressives want. According to the boundary analysis, 90% of the county agrees with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The problem isn't with doing the study or analysis. The problem is with the boundary policy that prioritizes diversity above all else. Yes, there are some wacky existing boundaries and yes, some places like Kensington seem to have fixed it so they always stay at WJ instead of Einstein. But there are more instances like PP mentioned in Gaithersburg that were done for diversity. It always was a factor but now it's the top factor. So any boundaries formed after the policy change will be even wackier.

I know there's no convincing you of this, but MCPS has been clear that only adjacent boundaries will be adjusted and that all four factors are under consideration.

What you call "prioritizing diversity above all else" is actually just "making diversity the tie breaking vote" and that's how we've seen it play out in all of the boundary studies that have come out since the new policy was adopted. Adjustments are made based on proximity, capacity, etc. but when those are equal and MCPS has to make a decision about which neighborhood goes where, the tie-breaking vote goes to diversity.

That honestly seems pretty legitimate to me.

Clusters become meaningless when they adjust multiple clusters all at once loo Ike for Woodward and Crown or when they do a county-wide boundary study to adjust all boundaries.

And unfortunately for you, most of the county doesn't agree that diversity should be the tie breaker. In fact, the boundary analysis showed that diversity isn't important at all to 90% of the county. It really should be removed entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Clusters become meaningless when they adjust multiple clusters all at once loo Ike for Woodward and Crown or when they do a county-wide boundary study to adjust all boundaries.

And unfortunately for you, most of the county doesn't agree that diversity should be the tie breaker. In fact, the boundary analysis showed that diversity isn't important at all to 90% of the county. It really should be removed entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right. I'm the PP who brought up the Gburg cluster. I guess my larger point was that busing already happens to a certain degree. Those kids that live way up past Brink road are bused down to Gburg Middle because they are white.

So we need 2 things: -
- a rebalance of the boundary priorities, where diversity is not the number 1 consideration
- redrawing of the boundaries, because stupid clusters already exist.

They're bused to Gaithersburg MS because they go to Laytonsville ES. There isn't a middle school particularly close to Laytonsville. I'm looking at the map, and I see a bunch of them about 5-6 miles away. Which middle school would you have them be assigned to? And do that school and its feeder HS have room for another ES?

You're not wrong. They are close. But if you live in the area, you know that we're talking about a difference of 20 minutes each way probably.

Plus, there is the community component. Nobody that lives in that area does their dining, sports, recreation, shopping in the Gaithersburg area. It all goes to Olney (or Damascus)

I don't live there, but based on what people I know have told me, they want to be reassigned to Rosa Parks MS and Sherwood HS.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/unityarea.aspx

Doing it this way would require MCPS to do away with the cluster model and create a system where people go to school closest to where they live as opposed to going to the MS that your ES feeds into. Because from a big-picture, practical standpoint, Laytonsville ES is 6 miles from G’burg MS and 5 miles from Rosa Parks MS, that is a negligible difference. Boundaries are never going to be able to please everyone and such a large school district cannot accommodate individualized preferences.

What you are saying is perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is to bus kids to schools many miles farther from home because of their skin color or family income like east county progressives want. According to the boundary analysis, 90% of the county agrees with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem isn't with doing the study or analysis. The problem is with the boundary policy that prioritizes diversity above all else. Yes, there are some wacky existing boundaries and yes, some places like Kensington seem to have fixed it so they always stay at WJ instead of Einstein. But there are more instances like PP mentioned in Gaithersburg that were done for diversity. It always was a factor but now it's the top factor. So any boundaries formed after the policy change will be even wackier.

I know there's no convincing you of this, but MCPS has been clear that only adjacent boundaries will be adjusted and that all four factors are under consideration.

What you call "prioritizing diversity above all else" is actually just "making diversity the tie breaking vote" and that's how we've seen it play out in all of the boundary studies that have come out since the new policy was adopted. Adjustments are made based on proximity, capacity, etc. but when those are equal and MCPS has to make a decision about which neighborhood goes where, the tie-breaking vote goes to diversity.

That honestly seems pretty legitimate to me.

Clusters become meaningless when they adjust multiple clusters all at once loo Ike for Woodward and Crown or when they do a county-wide boundary study to adjust all boundaries.

And unfortunately for you, most of the county doesn't agree that diversity should be the tie breaker. In fact, the boundary analysis showed that diversity isn't important at all to 90% of the county. It really should be removed entirely.

It would be removed as a factor if the people who wanted it removed could win election to the Board of Education. The fact that they can't tells you something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem isn't with doing the study or analysis. The problem is with the boundary policy that prioritizes diversity above all else. Yes, there are some wacky existing boundaries and yes, some places like Kensington seem to have fixed it so they always stay at WJ instead of Einstein. But there are more instances like PP mentioned in Gaithersburg that were done for diversity. It always was a factor but now it's the top factor. So any boundaries formed after the policy change will be even wackier.

I know there's no convincing you of this, but MCPS has been clear that only adjacent boundaries will be adjusted and that all four factors are under consideration.

What you call "prioritizing diversity above all else" is actually just "making diversity the tie breaking vote" and that's how we've seen it play out in all of the boundary studies that have come out since the new policy was adopted. Adjustments are made based on proximity, capacity, etc. but when those are equal and MCPS has to make a decision about which neighborhood goes where, the tie-breaking vote goes to diversity.

That honestly seems pretty legitimate to me.

Clusters become meaningless when they adjust multiple clusters all at once loo Ike for Woodward and Crown or when they do a county-wide boundary study to adjust all boundaries.

And unfortunately for you, most of the county doesn't agree that diversity should be the tie breaker. In fact, the boundary analysis showed that diversity isn't important at all to 90% of the county. It really should be removed entirely.

It would be removed as a factor if the people who wanted it removed could win election to the Board of Education. The fact that they can't tells you something.

Really? Everyone I know thinks just the opposite. We believe it should be the HIGHEST priority and well our BOE members keep winning so I think that tells you who the real majority is...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. Instead we have a divwrsity-first boundary policy and stupid boundaries that can only get stupider when they are redrawn. Why? Because people of different SES don't live near each other. So the only way to get the perfect SES/racial balance that east county progressives want is with busing.

Maybe not within the Whitman cluster, but pretty much everywhere else, yes they actually do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem isn't with doing the study or analysis. The problem is with the boundary policy that prioritizes diversity above all else. Yes, there are some wacky existing boundaries and yes, some places like Kensington seem to have fixed it so they always stay at WJ instead of Einstein. But there are more instances like PP mentioned in Gaithersburg that were done for diversity. It always was a factor but now it's the top factor. So any boundaries formed after the policy change will be even wackier.

I know there's no convincing you of this, but MCPS has been clear that only adjacent boundaries will be adjusted and that all four factors are under consideration.

What you call "prioritizing diversity above all else" is actually just "making diversity the tie breaking vote" and that's how we've seen it play out in all of the boundary studies that have come out since the new policy was adopted. Adjustments are made based on proximity, capacity, etc. but when those are equal and MCPS has to make a decision about which neighborhood goes where, the tie-breaking vote goes to diversity.

That honestly seems pretty legitimate to me.

Clusters become meaningless when they adjust multiple clusters all at once loo Ike for Woodward and Crown or when they do a county-wide boundary study to adjust all boundaries.

And unfortunately for you, most of the county doesn't agree that diversity should be the tie breaker. In fact, the boundary analysis showed that diversity isn't important at all to 90% of the county. It really should be removed entirely.

It would be removed as a factor if the people who wanted it removed could win election to the Board of Education. The fact that they can't tells you something.

Really? Everyone I know thinks just the opposite. We believe it should be the HIGHEST priority and well our BOE members keep winning so I think that tells you who the real majority is...

You should travel more than 2 miles from the co-op sometime. Then you'd encounter some diverse opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. Instead we have a divwrsity-first boundary policy and stupid boundaries that can only get stupider when they are redrawn. Why? Because people of different SES don't live near each other. So the only way to get the perfect SES/racial balance that east county progressives want is with busing.

Maybe not within the Whitman cluster, but pretty much everywhere else, yes they actually do.

Not they don't. Otherwise we could split the county in half so east and west county could live how they each want to live. But if that happened, east county would be bankrupt in 10 years without west county bankrolling it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. Instead we have a divwrsity-first boundary policy and stupid boundaries that can only get stupider when they are redrawn. Why? Because people of different SES don't live near each other. So the only way to get the perfect SES/racial balance that east county progressives want is with busing.

Maybe not within the Whitman cluster, but pretty much everywhere else, yes they actually do.

Not they don't. Otherwise we could split the county in half so east and west county could live how they each want to live. But if that happened, east county would be bankrupt in 10 years without west county bankrolling it.

Divide in 3, please.

Those of us north of the ICC dont feel any connection to your downcounty folks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. Instead we have a divwrsity-first boundary policy and stupid boundaries that can only get stupider when they are redrawn. Why? Because people of different SES don't live near each other. So the only way to get the perfect SES/racial balance that east county progressives want is with busing.

Maybe not within the Whitman cluster, but pretty much everywhere else, yes they actually do.

Not they don't. Otherwise we could split the county in half so east and west county could live how they each want to live. But if that happened, east county would be bankrupt in 10 years without west county bankrolling it.

News flash: there are people of higher SES in "east county" and people of lower SES in "west county" too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. Instead we have a divwrsity-first boundary policy and stupid boundaries that can only get stupider when they are redrawn. Why? Because people of different SES don't live near each other. So the only way to get the perfect SES/racial balance that east county progressives want is with busing.

Maybe not within the Whitman cluster, but pretty much everywhere else, yes they actually do.

There are a few maids that send their kids to schools in the Whitman cluster. The owner of homes just let them use their address, it’s much more common than people think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We never got the chance to weigh in on the boundary policy revision process when diversity was elevated to the top factor. Forums like this are the best way to make sure that doesn't happen again.

The unfortunate reality is that the boundary policy will be used in every boundary study until it is changed. So of course it has to be mentioned. I'll tell you what, if you mention it in the next thread about boundaries then I won't have to.

You are really overestimating your powers of persuasion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We never got the chance to weigh in on the boundary policy revision process when diversity was elevated to the top factor. Forums like this are the best way to make sure that doesn't happen again.

The unfortunate reality is that the boundary policy will be used in every boundary study until it is changed. So of course it has to be mentioned. I'll tell you what, if you mention it in the next thread about boundaries then I won't have to.

You are really overestimating your powers of persuasion.

Also: forums like this are the worst way to do everything.