Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has any state tried giving generous vouchers to low-income families?

I can see how that would help reduce racial and SES segregation.

Yes. It doesn't work. It doesn't help reduce segregation, and it doesn't help education. Kids do no better, or worse.

Wrong.

Mike Keri did and the AA students accepted did slightly better. V popular and now a lotto system
lA did too and their charter schools are coveted. V popular and now a lotto system
dC did as well for charter schools, v popular and now a lotto system.

In all cases the teachers unions take offense, gather national funds to lobby against and they bully local politicians w union votes and power.

People keep talking about "busing" kids across the county, but I don't think that always has to be the case. In the Kojo show, an East Silver Spring parent talked about the inequities/differences in diversity at two k-5 schools/pyramids that are right next to each other: East Silver Spring (k-5) and Takoma Elementary (k-2)/PBES (3-5). In this case, we are not talking about "busing" kids miles away from their homes. These schools are all less than a mile from each other. However the boundaries for TPES/PBES have been deliberately drawn to keep the majority of the high SES families in those two schools. It's also not a surprise that the more affluent schools are also home to a primary magnet program (that no other school in the county has, to my knowledge), a dedicated STEM teacher for grades K-2, and a local CES. East Silver Spring has none of these three programs.

How is this equitable? If the boundaries for these schools were redrawn to evenly distribute SES diversity across all three schools, wouldn't that be an easy solution? Why do kids who go to TPES/PBES get so many more programs than the kids at ESS? In the very least, TPES should not have access to magnet programs and specialized teachers that kids at ESS (or other elementary schools across the county) do not. I think we need to ask ourselves why TPES -- the wealthiest school on the eastern side of the county -- gets such special treatment. It can't be a coincidence.

I think there are probably similar situations across the county -- where boundary lines could be slightly altered/redrawn to balance the inequities at schools that are literally in the same neighborhoods as one another. I know this won't solve the problem of east v west, but it could at least fix some glaring inequalities that exist within our own neighborhood schools.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: there's no proof that the W schools actually have better teachers. In fact, some parents feel like those pyramids have lazy teachers who do the bare minimum and can get away with it bc the affluent kids come to school equipped to learn and receive supplementation at home.

My sister's white UMC kids thrived at a title I school with small class sizes and additional resources. They were accelerated and fast tracked for magnets. I think the teachers there were truly talented and dedicated.

Studies show that kids thrive primarily because of their home situation: SES, family stability, resources, etc. In fact, a moco housing study for homeless/low-income families established this: it's not the school/teachers---which is why busing doesn't work. Rather, it's the cultural norms established by housing stability with a peer cohort of married parents, academic emphasis, behavior expectations, etc.

Single parent. Both my kids have straight A’s in high school and very high SAT scores. We are at a W school. Stop it with the smugness, my kids are great with a wonderful single parent!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Oh wow, listening right now--what a tough account from the young lady who described the loneliness and discrimination she and others experienced being one of the very few visible minority students at Whitman.

My nieces (nonwhite) who lived in another state when to a school where there were only a handful of kids of their race. They *HATED* it. I vowed never to allow my kids to go through that.

I think that it all depends on the school, community, and how the staff at schools handle issues. I grew up in western PA. There were 5 black students in my graduating class of 150, including myself. In each high school grade level, I could count the number black students on one hand. I never had an issue and there weren't any race-related issues publicized in the school.

I do think redrawing boundaries makes sense when neighboring schools have such a vast difference in school demographics. That said, we should also focus on other things beyond diversity to improve schools like:
-At title 1 schools, allow teacher aides in class rooms including high school level
-Bring back discipline in all schools so that kids are held accountable once again
-Stop punishing schools for reporting school suspensions and other disciplinary actions
-For students who are failing at title one schools, require attendance at Saturday school
-Finally I do think we need to allow some school choice so that for example, kids in neighboring schools who want to attend a biomed program at a nearby school, should be allowed to go there if that option doesn't exist in their assigned school.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: there's no proof that the W schools actually have better teachers. In fact, some parents feel like those pyramids have lazy teachers who do the bare minimum and can get away with it bc the affluent kids come to school equipped to learn and receive supplementation at home.

My sister's white UMC kids thrived at a title I school with small class sizes and additional resources. They were accelerated and fast tracked for magnets. I think the teachers there were truly talented and dedicated.

Studies show that kids thrive primarily because of their home situation: SES, family stability, resources, etc. In fact, a moco housing study for homeless/low-income families established this: it's not the school/teachers---which is why busing doesn't work. Rather, it's the cultural norms established by housing stability with a peer cohort of married parents, academic emphasis, behavior expectations, etc.

If you're referring to the study that I'm thinking of, the study showed exactly the opposite - it DOES work. Or rather, desegregation does work. Nobody thrives in high-poverty schools.

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

Here's the thing: there's no proof that the W schools actually have better teachers. In fact, some parents feel like those pyramids have lazy teachers who do the bare minimum and can get away with it bc the affluent kids come to school equipped to learn and receive supplementation at home.

My sister's white UMC kids thrived at a title I school with small class sizes and additional resources. They were accelerated and fast tracked for magnets. I think the teachers there were truly talented and dedicated.

Studies show that kids thrive primarily because of their home situation: SES, family stability, resources, etc. In fact, a moco housing study for homeless/low-income families established this: it's not the school/teachers---which is why busing doesn't work. Rather, it's the cultural norms established by housing stability with a peer cohort of married parents, academic emphasis, behavior expectations, etc.

So...mcps felt that all children needed to sleep more.
Money was spent to change times, bells, busses etc.

Mcps feels like more diversity is needed and are willing to spend 300,000$ for a consultant.

Seems like a lot of cash waste that could be utilized to pay teachers more, increase retention etc.

Some studies say that diversity may benefit one’s education.
Some studies say that it there is no proven benefit.
Some studies say that parental involvement improves one’s education.
Some studies do not not support this notion.

All studies support that excellent teachers benefit a child’s education.

Why is mcps fooling with the children instead of supporting the teachers who directly impact the quality of education.

Ex: At Kennedy there are 100 children completing a bridge project? Then get more teachers in there to teach. You can’t expect one teacher to put in all this extra time to help these children in a meaningful way—leads to teacher burn out.


This is a ploy to take attention away from overcowded and underfunded schools and undervalued teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has any state tried giving generous vouchers to low-income families?

I can see how that would help reduce racial and SES segregation.

But it wouldn't. All the research shows that low income people aren't able to ship their kids to a school outside the neighborhood because they are working 2-3 jobs.

Chapter 220 bussing program. Failed to incr grades or test scores, eventually ran out of money, became minuscule.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any student who is income eligible should be able to attend a school with a low farms rate. This would help low income, motivated families get their kids into a schools where high achievement is expected for all.

The county also needs to get class sizes down in schools where poverty is concentrated. It will mean larger class sizes elsewhere. Wealthier people have a choice, maybe some will move to a school with smaller class sizes.

"Where high achievement is expected for all" That is a nice concept but when the population starts to include lots of new immigrants with unstable living conditions/food and language struggles, will Whitman be able to achieve the same success as their current student population. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the kids or the quality of the instruction.

+1

+ average and above students will get further neglect in home non magnet schools

Anonymous wrote:

Has any state tried giving generous vouchers to low-income families?

I can see how that would help reduce racial and SES segregation.

Yes. It doesn't work. It doesn't help reduce segregation, and it doesn't help education. Kids do no better, or worse.

Agree that it is much better to work on improving each school than wasting time and money busing kids around to other schools.

MCPS already does that nonsense. My kids are zoned for a MS that is farther away, even though there is a MS within walking distance to my house.

Most families would prefer to attend the school that is closest to them. And they would prefer that MCPS work on making that school stronger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Has any state tried giving generous vouchers to low-income families?

I can see how that would help reduce racial and SES segregation.

But it wouldn't. All the research shows that low income people aren't able to ship their kids to a school outside the neighborhood because they are working 2-3 jobs.

And a lot of low income kids dont want the stigma of being seen as the kid who gets to go to a rich school because he's poor. People don't want to be seen as charity recipients. Same reason why MCPS schools that provide free breakfast will make it available to all rather than singling out the poor kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Has any state tried giving generous vouchers to low-income families?

I can see how that would help reduce racial and SES segregation.

But it wouldn't. All the research shows that low income people aren't able to ship their kids to a school outside the neighborhood because they are working 2-3 jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Already stated in the PP. And isn't that obvious? Any other rules that you think would work better than this (other than merit based schools)? Schools with racial quota? Remember, we are talking about rules, that is something that can be followed with very little personal choices from the administrators. Things like "we should make the school diverse" are not rules. They are slogans.

No, it's not obvious. That's why I'm asking.

So do you have any other obvious rules can be used instead? Again, RULES, not something that different school administrators can easily do differently by just following the "spirit".
If not, it becomes obvious that we should just keep using the current rules.

Under the current rules, right here in MCPS, plenty of students already do not go to their "neighborhood schools".

Please elaborate - other than merit based schools/programs.
Exceptions always exist - as long as there are good reasons and as long as they are limited to "exceptions" (that is, statistically insignificant, which is clearly not something useful to achieve "diversity").

There are many MCPS schools located fairly close to their own boundary lines. The effect is that kids living just across the line are zoned to a different school than the one that may be closest to their house.
There are also MCPS school zones which have components which are not contiguous to each other, such that kids from the further away zones are bussed to their school, sometimes passing other schools along the way.

Example -- we live in a neighborhood that was once part of QO cluster. Now it is part of NW cluster. We are being considered as part of the boundary changes for Seneca Valley HS. So while none of these schools is all that far from our house - you could argue we don't go to our "neighborhood" HS which would be QO (closest). I don't think this is the only example of this kind of thing....

When I say "neighborhood", it implies the neighborhood zoned by the county to go into that school
I am aware of situations like that. I am not saying I support those zoning decisions - but those are what they are. I do not see a good reason to change them.

My opinion is simple: to change what things are right now, one needs a strong reason. Neither "increasing diversity" nor "deceasing diversity" is a good reason to me to initiate a change like that.

I just think people are too obsessed about tuning the racial diversity in schools. It is not something we should try to control. Instead, one should simply focus on eliminating/preventing policies that discriminate against races.