Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget that Purple Line is going to be a gamechanger too in terms of economic development. The county promised east/west light rail for years. It’s finally happening.

No it isnt. Purple like ridership will be lower than low. 20 stops, one hour, from college park to bethesda? Who is that? Not even worth a park and ride person.

Purple line was t going to happen due to terrrible feasibility and ridership studies. Then a Trump waved the federal infrastructure money at Hogan and here we are. What a waste. Metro is a poorly managed Pension union that runs some badly maintained subways on the side.

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not forget that Purple Line is going to be a gamechanger too in terms of economic development. The county promised east/west light rail for years. It’s finally happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am super ready for "number of families using private schools" to be used as a metric to tell us how terrible Chevy Chase public schools are. I mean, why would any families be at SFS or GDS or Prep?

Must be because the local schools are terrible.

The difference is that there is still a huge amount of wealthy/UMC kids who go to BCC. Parents haven’t lost faith in the public schools in Chevy Chase. BCC has great sports, IB, I think they have Spanish immersion, plus great spirit/engagement and open campus at lunch. My point is that some DCC parents (too many) have lost faith in DCC schools and pay for private/Catholic schools. They could move but don’t because SS is a nice place too (great close-in location, walkable etc).

Now I don’t have any idea of what’s going on up county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could just keep building schools and moving boundaries around and never address the quality of education and resources provided in the different schools.

bingo

plus the erosion of disciplinary measures (Code of Conduct) and lack of rigor through fear-based leadership

Why deal with the root causes when we can throw money at addressing the symptoms?

Why believe that there is only one issue, which must be addressed completely by one action?

Are the differences in educational offerings and resources between schools a problem? Yes. Will adjusting boundaries help fix those problems? Probably not much.

Are school capacities and segregation problems? Yes. Will adjusting boundaries solve those problems completely? No.

Will adjusting boundaries help fix those problems? Yes.

No, I disagree.

School cultures are different. Parents with money can oftentimes "privatize" a public school through the creation of foundations, for examples. If adjusting boundaries helped, you'd have more mixed housing units - subsidized housing - in Bethesda, Potomac, Chevy Chase, etc.

Let's say Kennedy, BCC, the new Woodward, and WJ formed a new consortium. How often do you think kids from outside of their normal school boundary will hang out with kids at their new school? Distance is a factor, but so is SES. It sounds harsh, eh? But this is the truth.

People segregate. Walk through a high school cafeteria. Guess who's eating in the cafeteria? kids on FARMs

People buy homes they can afford. These areas either draw in a sh*t ton of money or they struggle. (The "in between" folks are shrinking.) Schools reflect that. So kids form friendships with those in their community. Is that bad?

point is this - Empower communities instead of implementing forced busing.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.

Will adjusting boundaries so that some kids zoned for over-capacity schools are rezoned for under-capacity schools, help with capacity? Yep, it sure will.

Will adjusting boundaries so that some kids from poor families zoned for high-poverty schools are rezoned for low-poverty schools, help with reducing high-poverty schools? Yep, it sure will.

You just don't get it.

Moving low SES kids to a high-SES school looks good (however temporarily) ON PAPER. It doesn't solve the issues facing poor communities, nor does it connect culture to culture, however you wish to define that term.

It's a simplistic and ignorant measure that doesn't have long-lasting effects.

You should hear the dispute around the boundary issues between CHS and SVHS. The conversations aren't pretty.

Again, you're looking at addressing the symptoms and not the root issues.

People in high SES areas have means, and if they believe the "system has failed them," they will go private.

Again - What's the message we're sending to kids in high-poverty schools? You're not good enough. So let's either send you to a white, wealthy school, or let's send in some wealthy kids (mostly white) to your school.

How is this healthy and normal?

Anonymous wrote:
You just don't get it.

Moving low SES kids to a high-SES school looks good (however temporarily) ON PAPER. It doesn't solve the issues facing poor communities, nor does it connect culture to culture, however you wish to define that term.

It's a simplistic and ignorant measure that doesn't have long-lasting effects.

You should hear the dispute around the boundary issues between CHS and SVHS. The conversations aren't pretty.

Again, you're looking at addressing the symptoms and not the root issues.

People in high SES areas have means, and if they believe the "system has failed them," they will go private.

Again - What's the message we're sending to kids in high-poverty schools? You're not good enough. So let's either send you to a white, wealthy school, or let's send in some wealthy kids (mostly white) to your school.

How is this healthy and normal?

Anonymous wrote:

That must be why Darnestown ES, Little.Bennett ES, and now Cabin Branch families are holding community meetings coming up with ANY argument outside their property values not to be moved to Seneca Valley.

That must be why the homes for sale are hanging for weeks in those areas, as potential home owners fully on board with diverse, integrated schools are falling over themselves to buy a home in a disputed area. Right.

That must be why Gibbs families are planning to celebrate all the way to Neelsville Middle School. They really won the diversity prize this round. Bethesda and Kensington are next!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You just don't get it.

Moving low SES kids to a high-SES school looks good (however temporarily) ON PAPER. It doesn't solve the issues facing poor communities, nor does it connect culture to culture, however you wish to define that term.

It's a simplistic and ignorant measure that doesn't have long-lasting effects.

You should hear the dispute around the boundary issues between CHS and SVHS. The conversations aren't pretty.

Again, you're looking at addressing the symptoms and not the root issues.

People in high SES areas have means, and if they believe the "system has failed them," they will go private.

Again - What's the message we're sending to kids in high-poverty schools? You're not good enough. So let's either send you to a white, wealthy school, or let's send in some wealthy kids (mostly white) to your school.

How is this healthy and normal?

It's not intended to "solve the issues facing poor communities." It's intended to have schools that are less segregated and more equal in terms of capacity. And it will do that.

I am hearing the disputes around the CHS/SVHS/NW boundary study because I am part of it. All three of those schools are ALREADY diverse. Take your fear-mongering elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You just don't get it.

Moving low SES kids to a high-SES school looks good (however temporarily) ON PAPER. It doesn't solve the issues facing poor communities, nor does it connect culture to culture, however you wish to define that term.

It's a simplistic and ignorant measure that doesn't have long-lasting effects.

You should hear the dispute around the boundary issues between CHS and SVHS. The conversations aren't pretty.

Again, you're looking at addressing the symptoms and not the root issues.

People in high SES areas have means, and if they believe the "system has failed them," they will go private.

Again - What's the message we're sending to kids in high-poverty schools? You're not good enough. So let's either send you to a white, wealthy school, or let's send in some wealthy kids (mostly white) to your school.

How is this healthy and normal?

It's not intended to "solve the issues facing poor communities." It's intended to have schools that are less segregated and more equal in terms of capacity. And it will do that.

I am hearing the disputes around the CHS/SVHS/NW boundary study because I am part of it. All three of those schools are ALREADY diverse. Take your fear-mongering elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:I lived in DCC for seven years.

Anonymous wrote:

You just don't get it.

Moving low SES kids to a high-SES school looks good (however temporarily) ON PAPER. It doesn't solve the issues facing poor communities, nor does it connect culture to culture, however you wish to define that term.

It's a simplistic and ignorant measure that doesn't have long-lasting effects.

You should hear the dispute around the boundary issues between CHS and SVHS. The conversations aren't pretty.

Again, you're looking at addressing the symptoms and not the root issues.

People in high SES areas have means, and if they believe the "system has failed them," they will go private.

Again - What's the message we're sending to kids in high-poverty schools? You're not good enough. So let's either send you to a white, wealthy school, or let's send in some wealthy kids (mostly white) to your school.

How is this healthy and normal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could just keep building schools and moving boundaries around and never address the quality of education and resources provided in the different schools.

bingo

plus the erosion of disciplinary measures (Code of Conduct) and lack of rigor through fear-based leadership

Why deal with the root causes when we can throw money at addressing the symptoms?

Why believe that there is only one issue, which must be addressed completely by one action?

Are the differences in educational offerings and resources between schools a problem? Yes. Will adjusting boundaries help fix those problems? Probably not much.

Are school capacities and segregation problems? Yes. Will adjusting boundaries solve those problems completely? No.

Will adjusting boundaries help fix those problems? Yes.

No, I disagree.

School cultures are different. Parents with money can oftentimes "privatize" a public school through the creation of foundations, for examples. If adjusting boundaries helped, you'd have more mixed housing units - subsidized housing - in Bethesda, Potomac, Chevy Chase, etc.

Let's say Kennedy, BCC, the new Woodward, and WJ formed a new consortium. How often do you think kids from outside of their normal school boundary will hang out with kids at their new school? Distance is a factor, but so is SES. It sounds harsh, eh? But this is the truth.

People segregate. Walk through a high school cafeteria. Guess who's eating in the cafeteria? kids on FARMs

People buy homes they can afford. These areas either draw in a sh*t ton of money or they struggle. (The "in between" folks are shrinking.) Schools reflect that. So kids form friendships with those in their community. Is that bad?

point is this - Empower communities instead of implementing forced busing.

You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.

Will adjusting boundaries so that some kids zoned for over-capacity schools are rezoned for under-capacity schools, help with capacity? Yep, it sure will.

Will adjusting boundaries so that some kids from poor families zoned for high-poverty schools are rezoned for low-poverty schools, help with reducing high-poverty schools? Yep, it sure will.