RFP for county-wide boundary analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you screaming "busing," have you read the RFP? MCPS is looking for an analysis on the following:

-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede equitable use of facilities across the system;
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede facility utilization in terms of program capacity and enrollment in schools;
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede striving to create a diverse student body population in each school; and
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries otherwise advance or inhibit the four factors in Policy FAA for consideration in boundaries: student demographics, geography, stability of assignments over time, and facility utilization.

Diversity, student demographics is just 1 area they are looking to see where it can be improved.

The NEC and DCC were created to balance out demographics. Now that the three schools are majority minority, the goal has been met. There is no need for choice in this case.

So . . . do we assume that the NEC and DCC schools (and other clusters that are majority minority) are now OK?

What about the schools in Bethesda and Potomac, which are majority white and Asian? Do they remain the same, or do we now focus on FARMs distribution through another choice process - but one that affects the entire county?

Embedded in this this goal " . . . to create a diverse student body population in each school" is SES. So do you keep poor kids together, or do you make it a goal to "disperse them" throughout the system into "better" schools?

I wish MCPS would define better . . .

Read the RFP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you screaming "busing," have you read the RFP? MCPS is looking for an analysis on the following:

-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede equitable use of facilities across the system;
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede facility utilization in terms of program capacity and enrollment in schools;
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede striving to create a diverse student body population in each school; and
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries otherwise advance or inhibit the four factors in Policy FAA for consideration in boundaries: student demographics, geography, stability of assignments over time, and facility utilization.

Diversity, student demographics is just 1 area they are looking to see where it can be improved.

The NEC and DCC were created to balance out demographics. Now that the three schools are majority minority, the goal has been met. There is no need for choice in this case.

So . . . do we assume that the NEC and DCC schools (and other clusters that are majority minority) are now OK?

What about the schools in Bethesda and Potomac, which are majority white and Asian? Do they remain the same, or do we now focus on FARMs distribution through another choice process - but one that affects the entire county?

Embedded in this this goal " . . . to create a diverse student body population in each school" is SES. So do you keep poor kids together, or do you make it a goal to "disperse them" throughout the system into "better" schools?

I wish MCPS would define better . . .

MCPS didn't use the word "better"--that was you. Did you read the RFP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

DP. I agree that the report is likely to influence any future boundary changes. But I also agree that there's nothing to complain (or cheer) about yet, since we don't know anything yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone provide links/evidence that a boundary analysis equals busing? Did I miss something? MCPS can barely afford the current busing levels.

You didn't miss anything. When the BOE discussed and approved the boundary analysis, they repeatedly made note that this was not about busing. You can watch the recorded meetings.

However, they voted last year to prioritize diversity above all other criteria when making boundaries going forward.

Sigh. No, that is not what they voted on. They voted to reword the demographic characteristics factor, adding that options should especially strive for a diverse student body.

Which will mean kids will be bussed passes some schools to go to others. Just like some are now. There are many schools that are doing this right now. Look at the boundary lines for many and you will see. Are you saying they will decrease this?

I remember when RM was getting a new school, they came extremely close to bussing kids that were in walking distance to the school, to another school further away all based on diversity. There was a huge issue with it.

And speaking of RM, they moved Ritchie Park away from walking to Frost and Wootton and they currently get bused to RM now instead.

There is whole sections of Rachel Carson that get bussed there that were to a closer school, even with it is overcrowded.

Blair and Springbrook are a hot mess. They do this all of the time.

This article shows how the schools growing have huge poverty levels. And the ones underutilized hardly have any poverty. MCPS will indeed be making drastic changes and the only way to do this is to bus even more kids away from their areas.

I mean how do you expect a school like Cold Spring at like 75% capacity to take anymore kids and even out poverty without bussing kids at least past 3-4 schools. Potomac and parts of Bethesda - are just too white and rich.

https://ggwash.org/view/66650/are-bad-school-boundaries-spurring-inequality-in-montgomery-schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone provide links/evidence that a boundary analysis equals busing? Did I miss something? MCPS can barely afford the current busing levels.

You didn't miss anything. When the BOE discussed and approved the boundary analysis, they repeatedly made note that this was not about busing. You can watch the recorded meetings.

However, they voted last year to prioritize diversity above all other criteria when making boundaries going forward.

Sigh. No, that is not what they voted on. They voted to reword the demographic characteristics factor, adding that options should especially strive for a diverse student body.

Which will mean kids will be bussed passes some schools to go to others. Just like some are now. There are many schools that are doing this right now. Look at the boundary lines for many and you will see. Are you saying they will decrease this?

I remember when RM was getting a new school, they came extremely close to bussing kids that were in walking distance to the school, to another school further away all based on diversity. There was a huge issue with it.

And speaking of RM, they moved Ritchie Park away from walking to Frost and Wootton and they currently get bused to RM now instead.

There is whole sections of Rachel Carson that get bussed there that were to a closer school, even with it is overcrowded.

Blair and Springbrook are a hot mess. They do this all of the time.

This article shows how the schools growing have huge poverty levels. And the ones underutilized hardly have any poverty. MCPS will indeed be making drastic changes and the only way to do this is to bus even more kids away from their areas.

I mean how do you expect a school like Cold Spring at like 75% capacity to take anymore kids and even out poverty without bussing kids at least past 3-4 schools. Potomac and parts of Bethesda - are just too white and rich.

https://ggwash.org/view/66650/are-bad-school-boundaries-spurring-inequality-in-montgomery-schools

Gee, maybe MCPS ought to hire a consultant to do a countywide boundary analysis to sort all this out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

75% utilization at Cold Spring? That is generous. Actually, Cold Spring ES has a capacity of 458 and enrollment of 327, which is 71%. Then also remember that about 100 of those students are nonlocal students being bussed in for the CES. Actual local enrollment is more like 227, for a utilization of under 50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

I'm not panicking, despite being one of the people about to lose my housing value. I think adjusting boundaries is the right thing to do. But do you really not think the report will be used to justify future changes? Why pay for it if not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

No one is panicking. I think many people want to know why the board hasn't done it's job for years to keep the schools equal (at least with under/over capacity) and now think the only way to do that is to go on some long winding (and expensive) road of getting a survey done - that they may or may not use. And if they use it, it sounds like it will be substantial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

I'm not panicking, despite being one of the people about to lose my housing value. I think adjusting boundaries is the right thing to do. But do you really not think the report will be used to justify future changes? Why pay for it if not?

Of course the report will influence future changes (whatever they are). That's the whole point of the report.

But PPs' position seems to be that studying the issue is bad, because BoE will then make changes based on the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No one is panicking. I think many people want to know why the board hasn't done it's job for years to keep the schools equal (at least with under/over capacity) and now think the only way to do that is to go on some long winding (and expensive) road of getting a survey done - that they may or may not use. And if they use it, it sounds like it will be substantial.

The study is supposed to be complete by next summer. Is that long-winding, in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

75% utilization at Cold Spring? That is generous. Actually, Cold Spring ES has a capacity of 458 and enrollment of 327, which is 71%. Then also remember that about 100 of those students are nonlocal students being bussed in for the CES. Actual local enrollment is more like 227, for a utilization of under 50%

Cold Spring is a huge issue of what the council and board are blind to. There were two easy options.

1. Close the school and move the kids into Beverly Farms and Wayside. Both under capacity. Move the CES into another school that is under capacity or needs a different SES/FARMS level.

2. Move Horizon Hill out of Rtichie Park and into Cold Spring. It would have alleviated buses since Horizon Hill is in walking distance to Cold Spring, but currently gets bused to Ritchie Park. And it would have alleviated how overcrowded Ritchie Park is with 6 portables while Cold Spring has 1-2 empty classrooms open PER GRADE!

This is a very common sense move. It doesn't require much thought at all into it. It could have been done years ago.

And don't get started on Rachel Carson. That is a train wreck. Almost 1200 kids in one elementary school. You move all the other neighborhoods BUT Kentlands and Lakelands out to Dufief which is also at about 70% capacity and a ghost town.

Why these schools, both with sister schools right up the street weren't easily adjusted years ago is embarrassing. But let's pay someone millions to look into it. How about we demand more of our sh*tty board who does NOTHING

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is panicking. I think many people want to know why the board hasn't done it's job for years to keep the schools equal (at least with under/over capacity) and now think the only way to do that is to go on some long winding (and expensive) road of getting a survey done - that they may or may not use. And if they use it, it sounds like it will be substantial.

The study is supposed to be complete by next summer. Is that long-winding, in your opinion?

Yes, it is. They mentioned this last year. So not even having anyone decided yet. Yes - it is taking too long. Why haven't they hired anyone yet? They are just now bidding this all out so even if they get done next summer (which is doubtful) they won't do anything with it for minimum 2 more school years. Probably 3 years. So yes, I would stay that is 5-7 years too late to the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

I'm not panicking, despite being one of the people about to lose my housing value. I think adjusting boundaries is the right thing to do. But do you really not think the report will be used to justify future changes? Why pay for it if not?

Of course the report will influence future changes (whatever they are). That's the whole point of the report.

But PPs' position seems to be that studying the issue is bad, because BoE will then make changes based on the study.

The board said point blank, they might not do anything with the study. And yes, they have done studies before and paid them - and then have done nothing with them. So saying that is the whole point is laughable. It isn't the point. It is to have someone else do the job they haven't been able to and have a crutch when things get worse. "We are awaiting the study!"