Anonymous wrote:

I know of research that shows that outcomes for kids from high-poverty schools bused to lower-poverty schools show minimal to no impact. It's one of those things we are tempted to do because the motivation is good, and we don't know what else to do. The real issues: poverty in the home environment and lack of family support/resources, are a lot harder to address than simply putting a bunch of kids on buses and telling ourselves at least we're doing something. But we really aren't. Meanwhile ,you're using those llimited resources for busing instead of directing them toward productive uses.

MCPS buses kids basically across the street. If you're worried about resources wasted on busing, my suggestion is to start there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what sense? If the outcomes are the same for the kids as they were in the home schools, that's no benefit. If the kids associate socially with their own neighborhood friends anyway, that's not socioeconomic integration. It's the same as the magnet schools. There's social stratification anyway. If you want socioeconomic integration, it has to be done at the housing level. Busing just doesn't accomplish that.

But they aren't.

Yes, there needs to be socioeconomic integration at the housing level. But that doesn't preclude busing as another solution.

It appears that they actually are. The research on this is, as i said mixed, but most show no real effects.

I know of no research that shows that it's just as good for poor kids to go to high-poverty schools. Do you?

I know of research that shows that outcomes for kids from high-poverty schools bused to lower-poverty schools show minimal to no impact. It's one of those things we are tempted to do because the motivation is good, and we don't know what else to do. The real issues: poverty in the home environment and lack of family support/resources, are a lot harder to address than simply putting a bunch of kids on buses and telling ourselves at least we're doing something. But we really aren't. Meanwhile ,you're using those llimited resources for busing instead of directing them toward productive uses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what sense? If the outcomes are the same for the kids as they were in the home schools, that's no benefit. If the kids associate socially with their own neighborhood friends anyway, that's not socioeconomic integration. It's the same as the magnet schools. There's social stratification anyway. If you want socioeconomic integration, it has to be done at the housing level. Busing just doesn't accomplish that.

But they aren't.

Yes, there needs to be socioeconomic integration at the housing level. But that doesn't preclude busing as another solution.

It appears that they actually are. The research on this is, as i said mixed, but most show no real effects.

I know of no research that shows that it's just as good for poor kids to go to high-poverty schools. Do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what sense? If the outcomes are the same for the kids as they were in the home schools, that's no benefit. If the kids associate socially with their own neighborhood friends anyway, that's not socioeconomic integration. It's the same as the magnet schools. There's social stratification anyway. If you want socioeconomic integration, it has to be done at the housing level. Busing just doesn't accomplish that.

But they aren't.

Yes, there needs to be socioeconomic integration at the housing level. But that doesn't preclude busing as another solution.

It appears that they actually are. The research on this is, as i said mixed, but most show no real effects.

Anonymous wrote:

In what sense? If the outcomes are the same for the kids as they were in the home schools, that's no benefit. If the kids associate socially with their own neighborhood friends anyway, that's not socioeconomic integration. It's the same as the magnet schools. There's social stratification anyway. If you want socioeconomic integration, it has to be done at the housing level. Busing just doesn't accomplish that.

But they aren't.

Yes, there needs to be socioeconomic integration at the housing level. But that doesn't preclude busing as another solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, but what is the negative impact of minimizing busing? And can the saved funds from minimizing busing be used to address those impacts? Seems like the biggest problem MCPS has overall is not enough resources to do all it needs to do to meet the needs of the kids. So why opt to spend money on busing unless there is a truly compelling reason?

Everything is a trade-off, eh? Minimizing busing is good, maximizing socioeconomic segregation is bad. Ideally you will have just enough busing for just enough non-segregation, but optimization works a lot better in computer models than in real life with real people.

But does busing actually address socioeconomic integration? The research is pretty darned mixed.

Yes, of course it does. Look at some of the recent boundary studies. The MCPS materials include tables showing what the demographic data would be like for a school under different zoning scenarios, with or without busing.

Does busing solve all of the educational problems associated with poverty? No. But it does address socioeconomic integration.

In what sense? If the outcomes are the same for the kids as they were in the home schools, that's no benefit. If the kids associate socially with their own neighborhood friends anyway, that's not socioeconomic integration. It's the same as the magnet schools. There's social stratification anyway. If you want socioeconomic integration, it has to be done at the housing level. Busing just doesn't accomplish that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, but what is the negative impact of minimizing busing? And can the saved funds from minimizing busing be used to address those impacts? Seems like the biggest problem MCPS has overall is not enough resources to do all it needs to do to meet the needs of the kids. So why opt to spend money on busing unless there is a truly compelling reason?

Everything is a trade-off, eh? Minimizing busing is good, maximizing socioeconomic segregation is bad. Ideally you will have just enough busing for just enough non-segregation, but optimization works a lot better in computer models than in real life with real people.

But does busing actually address socioeconomic integration? The research is pretty darned mixed.

Yes, of course it does. Look at some of the recent boundary studies. The MCPS materials include tables showing what the demographic data would be like for a school under different zoning scenarios, with or without busing.

Does busing solve all of the educational problems associated with poverty? No. But it does address socioeconomic integration.

Anonymous wrote:

It's a good suggestion, though, when the affluent parents oppose something based on their concern!!1! for the non-affluent parents, without asking the non-affluent parents to find out what the non-affluent parents actually want.

If I were to hazard a guess it would be that all parents want their children to attend the closest middle school.

I am not sure why the more "affluent" parents have a responsibility to ask the "non-affluent" parents what they want. It is very patronizing and insulting to place one group of parents above another based on perceived personal income.

Guessing is not the same as knowing.

Also, patronizing and insulting is when the affluent parents speak on behalf of the non-affluent parents without knowing whether or not that's what the non-affluent parents actually want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, but what is the negative impact of minimizing busing? And can the saved funds from minimizing busing be used to address those impacts? Seems like the biggest problem MCPS has overall is not enough resources to do all it needs to do to meet the needs of the kids. So why opt to spend money on busing unless there is a truly compelling reason?

Everything is a trade-off, eh? Minimizing busing is good, maximizing socioeconomic segregation is bad. Ideally you will have just enough busing for just enough non-segregation, but optimization works a lot better in computer models than in real life with real people.

But does busing actually address socioeconomic integration? The research is pretty darned mixed.

I actually think all it does is hide poor people in areas where the metrics wouldn't show their failings. Put a handful of low performers in BCC and it knocks it down a notch but the reason becomes muddled. I would love to see how many of the dropouts over the last 40 years came from RCF. Not all for sure but I would put my 401k on a disproportionate amount. It actually might put additional pressures like the natural (keeping up with the jones) will be impossible on so many levels.

Save for some outliers, I am pretty sure it is the people that make the poverty and the recidivism for their children is pretty high no matter where they are. Breakout a dropout factory and you just have a bunch of kids dropping out at different schools. A few of the better ones might use the opportunity but I am pretty sure the bad kids will pull down the lower functioning rich kids making it a net gain of nothing.

Even the most progressive of urban settlers trumpet opinions like "the school might look bad but the rich white kids do fine", "low test scores are just the poor neighborhood kids". These opinions show that even they think mixing the kids does little but adjust the schools test results downward. Concentrations of poverty are simply more apparent and harder to hide. I fear by mixing it all together we will end up making nowhere nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, but what is the negative impact of minimizing busing? And can the saved funds from minimizing busing be used to address those impacts? Seems like the biggest problem MCPS has overall is not enough resources to do all it needs to do to meet the needs of the kids. So why opt to spend money on busing unless there is a truly compelling reason?

Everything is a trade-off, eh? Minimizing busing is good, maximizing socioeconomic segregation is bad. Ideally you will have just enough busing for just enough non-segregation, but optimization works a lot better in computer models than in real life with real people.

But does busing actually address socioeconomic integration? The research is pretty darned mixed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how about this for groupings:

CC, NCC, and Somerset
RCF, Bethesda, and Westbrook

One goes to one MS, the other goes to a different MS.

The groups are pretty balanced in size, probably balanced for SES and race.

Then the decision would be which group gets which building? One groups goes to Westland, another goes to MS #2.

Why not do it in such a way that busing is minimized? Saves money, allows for greater scheduling flexibility, and makes families happier. Not to mention, makes life a little less stressful for the kids (oh yeah, the kids, who cares about them?)

Because there are also other criteria to consider (which also affect the kids).

Sure, but what is the negative impact of minimizing busing? And can the saved funds from minimizing busing be used to address those impacts? Seems like the biggest problem MCPS has overall is not enough resources to do all it needs to do to meet the needs of the kids. So why opt to spend money on busing unless there is a truly compelling reason?

I'm not sure how you could think resources is the issue. If that was the case the FARMS schools would be the best performing. I would say that school environment via peers is actually priceless. Bus my kid to the better school anyday!

When class sizes are 27 kids in kindergarten and one teacher, there is a resource problem. The FARmS schools get more resources, but need even more than they're getting. I am all for kids being bused to other schools *if their parents want it*. Most won't.

I think the schools need to provide similar environments leading into high school. If that means a longer comute so be it.

It's a good suggestion, though, when the affluent parents oppose something based on their concern!!1! for the non-affluent parents, without asking the non-affluent parents to find out what the non-affluent parents actually want.

If I were to hazard a guess it would be that all parents want their children to attend the closest middle school.

I am not sure why the more "affluent" parents have a responsibility to ask the "non-affluent" parents what they want. It is very patronizing and insulting to place one group of parents above another based on perceived personal income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I dont see why having to travel 30 min to school is such a big deal. I grew up going to private school and always had a 30 min commute to school. My kids are young now but I commute with them daily for over 30min to daycare. We live in the cluster and I think what is most important is ensuring both schools are equally as good and have the same expectations and ability to prepare kids to succeed at BCC and beyond.

Is not just the students commute, it is prohibitive to parent evolvement particularly for lower income.

OK, then bus the affluent kids.

That simply isn't the way the world works, wait and see.

It's a good suggestion, though, when the affluent parents oppose something based on their concern!!1! for the non-affluent parents, without asking the non-affluent parents to find out what the non-affluent parents actually want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I dont see why having to travel 30 min to school is such a big deal. I grew up going to private school and always had a 30 min commute to school. My kids are young now but I commute with them daily for over 30min to daycare. We live in the cluster and I think what is most important is ensuring both schools are equally as good and have the same expectations and ability to prepare kids to succeed at BCC and beyond.

Is not just the students commute, it is prohibitive to parent evolvement particularly for lower income.

OK, then bus the affluent kids.

That simply isn't the way the world works, wait and see.