Cliff Notes summary of MCPS boundary study fight?

[Anonymous]

One way to handle this is to embrace forced busing by making it more like the Google bus with wifi. They could even hand out Chromebooks when kids board so they can start on their assignments or maybe install a couple of promethium boards to provide offline lessons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One way to handle this is to embrace forced busing by making it more like the Google bus with wifi. They could even hand out Chromebooks when kids board so they can start on their assignments or maybe install a couple of promethium boards to provide offline lessons.

There is not going to be any "forced busing," and it's Promethean boards - like Prometheus. Not like promethium, which is the secret chemical that will power the next breakthrough in warp drives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you think will happen to Wooten?

there is no school named Wooten. So nothing.

[Anonymous]

Wooten is safe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

This is factually incorrect.

[Anonymous]

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

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

Exactly.. Fallsgrove should go to Lakewood, and that area that is closest to Stone Mill but zoned for Lakewood could walk to Stone Mill, while portions of Stone Mill could be zoned for Travilah ES, which is very much under enrolled. That little island that goes to Lakewood is also *much* closer to Travliah ES, again, an under enrolled school. I seriously do not understand the current boundaries.

This boundary analysis is past due, and I'm glad MCPS is doing it. They really should've done it a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

That's been in there for a long time, decades, I would imagine. You are objecting because any boundary analysis just might cause you to lose on your home value. I get it. No one wants to lose out on home values, but boundaries need to be redrawn, and someone is going to have to move, and in some cases, it might mean that you are closer to a school with a higher FARMs rate, and even if you aren't, someone has to move because of capacity issues. Why not you? Why not me?

[Anonymous]

MCPS should do a reference boundary study without using diversity as a criterion, but only balancing school populations. Comparison of this reference map with actual proposed boundary changes will tell us if there is any forced (or unnecessary) busing being proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should do a reference boundary study without using diversity as a criterion, but only balancing school populations. Comparison of this reference map with actual proposed boundary changes will tell us if there is any forced (or unnecessary) busing being proposed.

Here's what you need to do.

1. Run for a seat on the Board of Education.
2. Win.
3. Propose a change to MCPS policies/regulations on boundaries.
4. Get a majority of the other members to vote for it.

Until you've done that, MCPS boundary studies have four factors:

1. geography
2. demographics
3. facility utilization
4. stability of school assignments

and any analysis of boundaries that didn't include those four factors would be ridiculous (not to mention counter to MCPS policies/regulations).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Exactly.. Fallsgrove should go to Lakewood, and that area that is closest to Stone Mill but zoned for Lakewood could walk to Stone Mill, while portions of Stone Mill could be zoned for Travilah ES, which is very much under enrolled. That little island that goes to Lakewood is also *much* closer to Travliah ES, again, an under enrolled school. I seriously do not understand the current boundaries.

This boundary analysis is past due, and I'm glad MCPS is doing it. They really should've done it a long time ago.

Unfortunately, it was not board’s intention to fix the issues you pointed out when they proposed the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Exactly.. Fallsgrove should go to Lakewood, and that area that is closest to Stone Mill but zoned for Lakewood could walk to Stone Mill, while portions of Stone Mill could be zoned for Travilah ES, which is very much under enrolled. That little island that goes to Lakewood is also *much* closer to Travliah ES, again, an under enrolled school. I seriously do not understand the current boundaries.

This boundary analysis is past due, and I'm glad MCPS is doing it. They really should've done it a long time ago.

Unfortunately, it was not board’s intention to fix the issues you pointed out when they proposed the study.

Was the analysis proposed in order to shift boundaries among elementary schools in Potomac? Nope.

Could one of the results of the analysis be: a proposal to shift boundaries among elementary schools in Potomac? Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Exactly.. Fallsgrove should go to Lakewood, and that area that is closest to Stone Mill but zoned for Lakewood could walk to Stone Mill, while portions of Stone Mill could be zoned for Travilah ES, which is very much under enrolled. That little island that goes to Lakewood is also *much* closer to Travliah ES, again, an under enrolled school. I seriously do not understand the current boundaries.

This boundary analysis is past due, and I'm glad MCPS is doing it. They really should've done it a long time ago.

Unfortunately, it was not board’s intention to fix the issues you pointed out when they proposed the study.

How do you know that was not their intent to fix ridiculous boundaries such as those? The analysis is county wide not limited to only clusters where there is high FARMS rate. The presentation by the consultant showed the % of kids who don't go to school near where they live. That goes directly to the issues that I pointed out in those boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

because they're racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nobody is objecting to reviewing the boundaries. They are objecting to diversity being used as one of the major criteria to adjust the boundaries.

because they're racist?

Because they're worried about their property values.