Anonymous wrote:These options couldn’t have been worse for splitting up the entire county? Can we tell them to go back to the drawing board? There are two new high schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thought of driving right by Woodward all the way over to Kennedy to pick kids up for doctors appointments or meetings or games is unreal. Not to mention film the time they will spend on the bus. Heartbreaking.

Again, this kind of thing is unavoidable, happens now, and will happen to some extent with every option.

Anonymous wrote:The thought of driving right by Woodward all the way over to Kennedy to pick kids up for doctors appointments or meetings or games is unreal. Not to mention film the time they will spend on the bus. Heartbreaking.

Anonymous wrote:The Garrett Park to Wheaton commute is also a nightmare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do all county-based school systems around the country do this? Try to make everything equal among all schools in a county? I mean, technically, the schools are teaching the same curriculum, and in theory, the teachers are no better or worse in certain schools, regardless of demographics. While I understand the concern over having some schools with higher FARMs rates, I don't understand artificially modifying boundaries and forcing kids to travel half way across the county in the name trying to achieve equal demographic and socioeconomic distribution. Kids should go to school in or close to their community. Tilden MS is less than 1/2 mile from Farmland ES, and Woodward is probably a mile away, but you're proposing busing those students 30+ minutes to Parkland and Kennedy to attend school with kids who live no where near them?

They could address some of this by providing enough differential funding to schools with populations of more highly heterogeneous academic need. Enough to ensure that no student's options for classes, extracurriculars, etc., are different at one school than they would be at another. If they start with the assumptions that students of all backgrounds have similar distribution of capability but that there are background-associated needs for differential supports to bring that capability to fruition, the need to ensure certain demographic homogeneity becomes less exigent with that approach (not that diversity should be avoided), and the system can reap cost savings (which can support a portion of the needed funding) & other community benefits associated with geographic proximity.

That would require "rich" schools to accept considerably greater funding differentials than currently exist, however, and, likely, higher tax rates overall both to bring the same breadth & level of non-magnet classes to all schools and to ensure that the burden of teaching to heterogeneous classroom populations is met by a commensurately low student-to-teacher ratio. It better would address the achievement deficit, however, and not just achievement gaps.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to even see the larger map? Google doc is not working, it doesn't open as a legible map. And is there a way to superimpose these draft options onto a current boundary map?

When are any of these proposed draft changes supposed to take effect? Will kids be started at one school and then sent to another??

Having trouble demystifying much of this....

Anonymous wrote:I hate the split articulation across the board. I know it already happens at some school, but this is just bad for kids’ social development. They’ll make news friends in middle school only to be separated from them in high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

Disasgree. Option 3 will be off the table quickly. Look at how many HS have noncontiguous boundaries. You just can't level the FARMs rates in schools in a county that has so much housing segregation.

Yeah. If kids in summit hills (which is going to be expanded in the next 10 years) go to Whitman then kids from Whitman can be bussed to Wheaton. They have to commit to something based on geographies and then level the resources based on FARMS rates to balance more.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why MCPS would keep the RHES/NCC/CCES split articulation structure if they are going to send the kids from NCC and CCES to different middle and high schools. Am I reading that wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

Disasgree. Option 3 will be off the table quickly. Look at how many HS have noncontiguous boundaries. You just can't level the FARMs rates in schools in a county that has so much housing segregation.