Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this thread has lost the plot.

There isn't really that much to discuss. There are 4 initial options that aren't really going to be considered because they made zero effort to balance the 4 factors mandated by BOE policy. This is a nothingburger.

No surprise people started bickering instead.

I think it's an indication that Flo Analytics and the MCPS board are terrible at their jobs, by releasing maps that will just make people bicker and not try to reach and sort of workable solutions.

***My spouse is a management consultant (yes, I know, haha, but they advise in the industrial sector not human resources ie they don’t get people fired)… When I shared the boundary study info and options with them, they were astounded by the ineptitude. They said it’s wasting all stakeholders’ time and money to have concocted any options - preliminary or otherwise - that each optimize for only one of the four key factors. Period, full stop.

And now the thread has devolved into bickering about home values. Look what those a$$hat consultants and MCPS have made us do: We are turning on each other when instead we need to coalesce to lobby on behalf of MoCo children — our own kids and our neighbors’. Don’t let the bastards grind you down! <—“Handmaid’s Tale”

I agree! And I think the consultants must have known that. I have to think that MCPS told them to do it this way.

Yes. The ultimate study must follow the FAA policy. It’s really misleading to present options that do not.

I hope we get a reasonable time to provide comments after the next round, which hopefully reflect all (equally or pretty close). And solving behavioral problems or housing policy are not the policies.

What is the FAA policy?

See slides 5-6:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oj7Rb5lhcHi-zNmpMZ9XenrzakZg0BE0/view

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It
may actually be good for your kid.

Show me the data that supports bussing my black child to a white school for their benefit. You’ll see data supporting how it benefits the white students, not the non-white students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this thread has lost the plot.

There isn't really that much to discuss. There are 4 initial options that aren't really going to be considered because they made zero effort to balance the 4 factors mandated by BOE policy. This is a nothingburger.

No surprise people started bickering instead.

I think it's an indication that Flo Analytics and the MCPS board are terrible at their jobs, by releasing maps that will just make people bicker and not try to reach and sort of workable solutions.

***My spouse is a management consultant (yes, I know, haha, but they advise in the industrial sector not human resources ie they don’t get people fired)… When I shared the boundary study info and options with them, they were astounded by the ineptitude. They said it’s wasting all stakeholders’ time and money to have concocted any options - preliminary or otherwise - that each optimize for only one of the four key factors. Period, full stop.

And now the thread has devolved into bickering about home values. Look what those a$$hat consultants and MCPS have made us do: We are turning on each other when instead we need to coalesce to lobby on behalf of MoCo children — our own kids and our neighbors’. Don’t let the bastards grind you down! <—“Handmaid’s Tale”

I agree! And I think the consultants must have known that. I have to think that MCPS told them to do it this way.

Yes. The ultimate study must follow the FAA policy. It’s really misleading to present options that do not.

I hope we get a reasonable time to provide comments after the next round, which hopefully reflect all (equally or pretty close). And solving behavioral problems or housing policy are not the policies.

What is the FAA policy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.

lol. Trying to stir things up, right? Nothing about option 3 will actually fix any issues. Please tell me how bussing kids around and mixing them together, will actually help the majority of these low performing students ? It’s all optics. The money should be spent on more programs and tutoring to help these kids; also on addressing home-life issues. Really, everything starts at HOME. If kids don’t have involved parents holding them accountable and supporting their academic development from a young age, the majority won’t go on to be very successful students.

dp.. let me start off by stating that Option 3 is ridiculous. Expecting low income kids to take a longer bus ride to school (that starts at 7:40am) is cruel. A lot of these kids already have a harder time at home, and expecting them to get up earlier to make MCPS DEI people feel better about themselves is cruel. Not to mention the higher transportation cost to the school, funds that could be used to hire more teachers. FWIW, I grew up lower income (immigrant family).

That said, there are some studies that have found that low income kids can do better in schools that don't have a very high FARMs rate. It's not because they become high achieving by osmosis, but more that the school probably has more challenging classes, less behavioral issues, and high achieving academic peers. Years ago when there was another boundary study here, someone provided a link that showed that low income kids do best when the FARMs rate at the school is less than 30%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this thread has lost the plot.

There isn't really that much to discuss. There are 4 initial options that aren't really going to be considered because they made zero effort to balance the 4 factors mandated by BOE policy. This is a nothingburger.

No surprise people started bickering instead.

I think it's an indication that Flo Analytics and the MCPS board are terrible at their jobs, by releasing maps that will just make people bicker and not try to reach and sort of workable solutions.

***My spouse is a management consultant (yes, I know, haha, but they advise in the industrial sector not human resources ie they don’t get people fired)… When I shared the boundary study info and options with them, they were astounded by the ineptitude. They said it’s wasting all stakeholders’ time and money to have concocted any options - preliminary or otherwise - that each optimize for only one of the four key factors. Period, full stop.

And now the thread has devolved into bickering about home values. Look what those a$$hat consultants and MCPS have made us do: We are turning on each other when instead we need to coalesce to lobby on behalf of MoCo children — our own kids and our neighbors’. Don’t let the bastards grind you down! <—“Handmaid’s Tale”

I agree! And I think the consultants must have known that. I have to think that MCPS told them to do it this way.

Yes. The ultimate study must follow the FAA policy. It’s really misleading to present options that do not.

I hope we get a reasonable time to provide comments after the next round, which hopefully reflect all (equally or pretty close). And solving behavioral problems or housing policy are not the policies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.

lol. Trying to stir things up, right? Nothing about option 3 will actually fix any issues. Please tell me how bussing kids around and mixing them together, will actually help the majority of these low performing students ? It’s all optics. The money should be spent on more programs and tutoring to help these kids; also on addressing home-life issues. Really, everything starts at HOME. If kids don’t have involved parents holding them accountable and supporting their academic development from a young age, the majority won’t go on to be very successful students.

dp.. let me start off by stating that Option 3 is ridiculous. Expecting low income kids to take a longer bus ride to school (that starts at 7:40am) is cruel. A lot of these kids already have a harder time at home, and expecting them to get up earlier to make MCPS DEI people feel better about themselves is cruel. Not to mention the higher transportation cost to the school, funds that could be used to hire more teachers. FWIW, I grew up lower income (immigrant family).

That said, there are some studies that have found that low income kids can do better in schools that don't have a very high FARMs rate. It's not because they become high achieving by osmosis, but more that the school probably has more challenging classes, less behavioral issues, and high achieving academic peers. Years ago when there was another boundary study here, someone provided a link that showed that low income kids do best when the FARMs rate at the school is less than 30%.

+1 the benefits to low income kids are very obvious. Low income kids aren't that different from high income kids. For the same reason high income parents don't want to send their kids to schools with concentrated poverty, low income kids benefit from not being in concentrated poverty. But of course to justify segregation, high income parents convince themselves that low income kids are all the same - not smart, don't want to learn, and are all disruptive. Smh

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It
may actually be good for your kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted the slides from last week's meetings:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oj7Rb5lhcHi-zNmpMZ9XenrzakZg0BE0/view?usp=sharing

From a walk zone perspective, option 4 makes the most sense, along with contiguous boundaries.

But it's terrible on utilization. And no it is not cheaper to build more space vs bussing kids to a school that already has space.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted the slides from last week's meetings:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oj7Rb5lhcHi-zNmpMZ9XenrzakZg0BE0/view?usp=sharing

From a walk zone perspective, option 4 makes the most sense, along with contiguous boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted the slides from last week's meetings:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oj7Rb5lhcHi-zNmpMZ9XenrzakZg0BE0/view?usp=sharing

From a walk zone perspective, option 4 makes the most sense, along with contiguous boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.

lol. Trying to stir things up, right? Nothing about option 3 will actually fix any issues. Please tell me how bussing kids around and mixing them together, will actually help the majority of these low performing students ? It’s all optics. The money should be spent on more programs and tutoring to help these kids; also on addressing home-life issues. Really, everything starts at HOME. If kids don’t have involved parents holding them accountable and supporting their academic development from a young age, the majority won’t go on to be very successful students.

dp.. let me start off by stating that Option 3 is ridiculous. Expecting low income kids to take a longer bus ride to school (that starts at 7:40am) is cruel. A lot of these kids already have a harder time at home, and expecting them to get up earlier to make MCPS DEI people feel better about themselves is cruel. Not to mention the higher transportation cost to the school, funds that could be used to hire more teachers. FWIW, I grew up lower income (immigrant family).

That said, there are some studies that have found that low income kids can do better in schools that don't have a very high FARMs rate. It's not because they become high achieving by osmosis, but more that the school probably has more challenging classes, less behavioral issues, and high achieving academic peers. Years ago when there was another boundary study here, someone provided a link that showed that low income kids do best when the FARMs rate at the school is less than 30%.

+1 the benefits to low income kids are very obvious. Low income kids aren't that different from high income kids. For the same reason high income parents don't want to send their kids to schools with concentrated poverty, low income kids benefit from not being in concentrated poverty. But of course to justify segregation, high income parents convince themselves that low income kids are all the same - not smart, don't want to learn, and are all disruptive. Smh

This is odd. While acknowledging that low income kids do better in places with fewer low income kids, you are saying people
Shouldn’t stereotype low income kids.

Maybe Google "concentrated poverty" and you will understand. Or don't and continue sounding incredibly ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:They posted the slides from last week's meetings:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oj7Rb5lhcHi-zNmpMZ9XenrzakZg0BE0/view?usp=sharing