Reply to MCPS BOE petition re: making student demographics the primary factor in redistricting decisions

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "MCPS BOE petition re: making student demographics the primary factor in redistricting decisions"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Has anyone looked at the options for RM #5 that they were voting on?  Look at options C and D.  They're busing kids all over the place past one another.  In case you didn't know, they voted for Option B.
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf [/quote]
Two points:

- Having lived through that RM#5 process, I don't believe that the outcome would have been any different had this policy change been in effect. In that particular case, the other factors weighed so heavily in favor of Option B (and the other similar option) that I don't think anything would have changed even if diversity was given greater weight than any of the other three. (Remember, they are not proposing that diversity gets greater weight than the other three factors combined - just that it gets more individual weight than any of the other three.)

- Part of the reason Options C and D looked somewhat crazy was that MCPS was limited to redrawing ES boundaries within the RM cluster, which is already a very gerrymandered cluster going back to when Fallsgrove was moved from Wootton to RM 15 years ago. If the same process had involved looking at boundaries from neighboring clusters (as it likely will with Crown HS), I think they could have achieved better SES diversity while coming up with maps that would have had good geographic continuity.

[/quote]

This policy change was introduced by Jill Ortman Fouse in response to what happened in the RMES #5 boundary study.  She explicitly said so on her public Facebook page - you can go read it.  Both Jill Ortman Fouse and Matt Post wanted options C and D - they did not think those looked crazy, those are the options that they wanted to be chosen.  The idea behind this policy is so that options like C and D will become more likely to pass in future boundary studies.[/quote]
I get that she voted that way, and that this is designed to make diversity more influential in the final decision. My point is just that, even if this new policy were in effect, I don't think it would have changed a single vote on RM#5. All it's saying is that diversity now counts for more than 25% (30? 35? who knows) - it's not saying diversity trumps every other factor.

Separately, I still go back to the fact that RM had a unique map where it was hard to balance these competing interests. I think many of the future decisions coming up are ones where there will be an opportunity to better balance diversity without resorting to anything too crazy from a geographic standpoint.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics