Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 14 pages... is there or is there not video of the crazy parents that boo'd the speaker and all the other crazy antics.

There is. On Twitter.

Can you post a link? I can't find it on Twitter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 14 pages... is there or is there not video of the crazy parents that boo'd the speaker and all the other crazy antics.

There is. On Twitter.

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 14 pages... is there or is there not video of the crazy parents that boo'd the speaker and all the other crazy antics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you aware that the County currently has a $100 million budget shortfall?

All the more reason to conduct the boundary analysis. Capital funding for new schools will be limited. MCPS will have to address overcrowding through boundary changes at existing schools.

I agree. They can’t keep building and building.

+1 especially since there are under capacity schools next to over capacity ones. Ridiculous that MCPS hasn't redrawn boundaries sooner.

Ridiculous? See what happens when MCPS just does a STUDY about the POSSIBILITIES for redrawing boundaries. No wonder they haven't done anything sooner.

It's fking insane. These people are supposedly adults, but they're acting like 3 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Having lower income kids in a school does *not* equal "lower education standards" for all kids. Jesus Christ. And again, the data shows that white kids perform similarly in a poor school than if they were in a wealthy enclave school full of high achievers. Since this is true, why does it matter so much?

If you are concerned with social status stuff and increasing the possibility your kid will have a friend network similar to the wealthy elite, then guess what? That aint going to happen unless you go to elite private schools or hang with that crowd. And....those kids are *not* more academically motivated than anyone else. They are more connected. And if you are in *this* conversation, you aint part of the club.

The data does show that it helps when you include FARMs. Thats the discussion we are having. FARMs in this case and many urban areas = black and latino kids. We wouldn't be having this discussion of schools with high FARMs concentrations were meeting state standards. if the FARMs kids were mostly white, I would support the county in doing the same thing. Funny, though I highly doubt there would be as much push back from the community. Hypothetical of course.

Maybe not as much, but I bet there'd be a lot. There's plenty of classism involved here too.

Classism and cohortism - our "lily white" ES that is frequently raised here is actually pretty racially diverse and parents discuss that as a selling point for the school. The push back I hear is concerns about peer groups and rigor. It is not a "dog whistle" for racism. It's about attending a school where significant numbers of students don't graduate and the academic standards are not as high, even when accessing the same curriculum.

It's about attending a school with poor kids.

No, it's about attending a school with kids who don't give a crap about school, don't do their share of group projects, misbehave in class while dragging the rest of the class down, and, best cast scenario, just stare at their phones all day long. Our relative went to middle school like that and after a semester his parents decided to switch to private, despite that being quite a financial stretch. FWIW, the kid went to a magnet in elementary, so that 'diverse' middle was quite a rude awakening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you aware that the County currently has a $100 million budget shortfall?

All the more reason to conduct the boundary analysis. Capital funding for new schools will be limited. MCPS will have to address overcrowding through boundary changes at existing schools.

I agree. They can’t keep building and building.

+1 especially since there are under capacity schools next to over capacity ones. Ridiculous that MCPS hasn't redrawn boundaries sooner.

Ridiculous? See what happens when MCPS just does a STUDY about the POSSIBILITIES for redrawing boundaries. No wonder they haven't done anything sooner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you aware that the County currently has a $100 million budget shortfall?

All the more reason to conduct the boundary analysis. Capital funding for new schools will be limited. MCPS will have to address overcrowding through boundary changes at existing schools.

I agree. They can’t keep building and building.

+1 especially since there are under capacity schools next to over capacity ones. Ridiculous that MCPS hasn't redrawn boundaries sooner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you aware that the County currently has a $100 million budget shortfall?

All the more reason to conduct the boundary analysis. Capital funding for new schools will be limited. MCPS will have to address overcrowding through boundary changes at existing schools.

I agree. They can’t keep building and building.

+1 especially since there are under capacity schools next to over capacity ones. Ridiculous that MCPS hasn't redrawn boundaries sooner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you aware that the County currently has a $100 million budget shortfall?

All the more reason to conduct the boundary analysis. Capital funding for new schools will be limited. MCPS will have to address overcrowding through boundary changes at existing schools.

I agree. They can’t keep building and building.

Anonymous wrote:I share the BOE's concerns regarding the lack of diversity and need to address the segregated schools throughout the county. Where I think the BOE/MCPS and allies of redistricting are being disingenuous is that this current county wide study/analysis only makes sense if comprehensive boundary changes are considered and eventually adopted. The county is too big and too segregated to think you can make any real change without making modifications to significant changes to boundaries or how school enrollment is managed. If the Board/MCPS is just looking to make marginal, common sense, and incremental changes that will aid in addressing some of the diversity issues (See Garrett Park/Kensington), you really don't need this type of study.

So while I disagree with MoCo folks that are against boundary changes, I completely understand their frustrations because they/we are either being lied to and/or this entire process is being mismanaged. You cannot realistically address decades of community and school segregation by simply moving around a few lines on a piece of paper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But that doesn’t mean they need a countywide redistricting based especially on diversity.

I’m all for switching boundaries for utilization.

Good news! There are no plans for "a countywide redistricting based especially on diversity." None. No plans. NO. PLANS.

If no plan to address more than utilization, opening up the space of under-capacity schools to out-of-boundary students can be done very easily and cheaply. the majority don't against that. Bottom line, there were never strong objections to where BOE decided to locate special programs to attract more voluntary long bus ride. Tax-payers should be given a choice if they prefer proximity over diversity.

I disagree. If that were true, people wouldn't already be in a total tizzy about the possibility of being reassigned to Crown HS - a high school that doesn't even exist yet.

It's totally different things to be reassigned to a different school vs. to be allowed to attend a different school when space is available.

A plan to address overcrowding by allowing people at overcrowded schools to attend undercrowded schools is a plan that doesn't effectively address overcrowding.

Well, if everyone in the school prefer overcrowdiness to a different school, they should have that option.
They are not the problem of the utilization.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Having lower income kids in a school does *not* equal "lower education standards" for all kids. Jesus Christ. And again, the data shows that white kids perform similarly in a poor school than if they were in a wealthy enclave school full of high achievers. Since this is true, why does it matter so much?

If you are concerned with social status stuff and increasing the possibility your kid will have a friend network similar to the wealthy elite, then guess what? That aint going to happen unless you go to elite private schools or hang with that crowd. And....those kids are *not* more academically motivated than anyone else. They are more connected. And if you are in *this* conversation, you aint part of the club.

The data does show that it helps when you include FARMs. Thats the discussion we are having. FARMs in this case and many urban areas = black and latino kids. We wouldn't be having this discussion of schools with high FARMs concentrations were meeting state standards. if the FARMs kids were mostly white, I would support the county in doing the same thing. Funny, though I highly doubt there would be as much push back from the community. Hypothetical of course.

Maybe not as much, but I bet there'd be a lot. There's plenty of classism involved here too.

Classism and cohortism - our "lily white" ES that is frequently raised here is actually pretty racially diverse and parents discuss that as a selling point for the school. The push back I hear is concerns about peer groups and rigor. It is not a "dog whistle" for racism. It's about attending a school where significant numbers of students don't graduate and the academic standards are not as high, even when accessing the same curriculum.

It's about attending a school with poor kids.

No, it's about attending a school with kids who don't give a crap about school, don't do their share of group projects, misbehave in class while dragging the rest of the class down, and, best cast scenario, just stare at their phones all day long. Our relative went to middle school like that and after a semester his parents decided to switch to private, despite that being quite a financial stretch. FWIW, the kid went to a magnet in elementary, so that 'diverse' middle was quite a rude awakening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Having lower income kids in a school does *not* equal "lower education standards" for all kids. Jesus Christ. And again, the data shows that white kids perform similarly in a poor school than if they were in a wealthy enclave school full of high achievers. Since this is true, why does it matter so much?

If you are concerned with social status stuff and increasing the possibility your kid will have a friend network similar to the wealthy elite, then guess what? That aint going to happen unless you go to elite private schools or hang with that crowd. And....those kids are *not* more academically motivated than anyone else. They are more connected. And if you are in *this* conversation, you aint part of the club.

The data does show that it helps when you include FARMs. Thats the discussion we are having. FARMs in this case and many urban areas = black and latino kids. We wouldn't be having this discussion of schools with high FARMs concentrations were meeting state standards. if the FARMs kids were mostly white, I would support the county in doing the same thing. Funny, though I highly doubt there would be as much push back from the community. Hypothetical of course.

Maybe not as much, but I bet there'd be a lot. There's plenty of classism involved here too.

Classism and cohortism - our "lily white" ES that is frequently raised here is actually pretty racially diverse and parents discuss that as a selling point for the school. The push back I hear is concerns about peer groups and rigor. It is not a "dog whistle" for racism. It's about attending a school where significant numbers of students don't graduate and the academic standards are not as high, even when accessing the same curriculum.

It's about attending a school with poor kids.