Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Westbrook is 25% nonwhite. It's racially integrated, though I'll grant you it's safe to say that it is predominantly white.

You make a stronger case with New Hampshire Estates, which is 72 percent Hispanic, 21 percent black and less than 5 percent white. Maybe adjusting boundaries will improve the socioeconomic mix in a school like that.

Westbrook Elementary is in the southwest corner of the county, in Bethesda. You'd have to bus kids pretty far in or out of there to appreciably change the racial mix, given the racial and econonic mix of that area of the county.

NHE is 67% ESOL and almost 90% FARMs. It's also 71% Hispanic.

and 8 miles down the road . . .

Westbrook - fewer than 5% in FARMs and ESOL and 74% white. I don't consider this integrated.

These schools have TWO VERY DIFFERENT cultures. Do you honestly think the folks in Bethesda would go for some "trading" based on these statistics? Liberal elites are all talk.

No one is suggesting "trading" NHE and Westbrook kids. The choice of NHE is also kind of weird because it is somewhat unique. It is K-2, but the overall school zone (NHE and Oak View) isn't contiguous. It is also bounded on two sides by very busy multi-lane roads, and one of its boundaries is the border with PG County. http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/NewHampshireEstatesOakViewES.pdf

So, it is unique in several ways, not just the degree to which it is dealing with concentrated poverty.

A better example might be Sligo Creek ES, which is 9 percent FARMS but surrounded by schools that are over 40 percent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Westbrook is 25% nonwhite. It's racially integrated, though I'll grant you it's safe to say that it is predominantly white.

You make a stronger case with New Hampshire Estates, which is 72 percent Hispanic, 21 percent black and less than 5 percent white. Maybe adjusting boundaries will improve the socioeconomic mix in a school like that.

Westbrook Elementary is in the southwest corner of the county, in Bethesda. You'd have to bus kids pretty far in or out of there to appreciably change the racial mix, given the racial and econonic mix of that area of the county.

NHE is 67% ESOL and almost 90% FARMs. It's also 71% Hispanic.

and 8 miles down the road . . .

Westbrook - fewer than 5% in FARMs and ESOL and 74% white. I don't consider this integrated.

These schools have TWO VERY DIFFERENT cultures. Do you honestly think the folks in Bethesda would go for some "trading" based on these statistics? Liberal elites are all talk.

I don't think families at either school would welcome having their kids take that long bus ride, which Google suggests could routinely be as long as 45 or 50 minutes each way. You're talking about very congested roads in a heavily developed part of the county, at or near rush hour. Common sense says few parents would welcome that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[q

What's wrong with being concerned about our property values? For a lot of people, their homes are a big investment, and any positive outcome in a well-managed investment will most likely be inherited by the children. I mean isn't that the goal for most people? To give the next generation a chance at a better life? For some, it's having elected officials redraw the school boundaries to their benefit. For others, it's maintaining a certain amount of wealth for the future (which doesn't mean they were all born with money), and making sure their kids attend top-notch schools. I don't believe either point of view is necessarily wrong when everyone has different needs.

What is wrong is that the superintendent and BOE are doing a terrible job of funding and maintaining schools. Maybe we wouldn't be having this fight to begin with if they had better decision-making and money management to fit the needs of each school. Instead, they just want to cover up their mistakes. I've always been told every school in MCPS is fantastic, but clearly that isn't the case.

It is fine for you to be concerned about your property value.

It is not fine for MCPS and the board of education to make decisions based on your concern about your property value.

It's also not fine for MCPS and the BOE to act like they're Robin Hood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Westbrook is 25% nonwhite. It's racially integrated, though I'll grant you it's safe to say that it is predominantly white.

You make a stronger case with New Hampshire Estates, which is 72 percent Hispanic, 21 percent black and less than 5 percent white. Maybe adjusting boundaries will improve the socioeconomic mix in a school like that.

Westbrook Elementary is in the southwest corner of the county, in Bethesda. You'd have to bus kids pretty far in or out of there to appreciably change the racial mix, given the racial and econonic mix of that area of the county.

NHE is 67% ESOL and almost 90% FARMs. It's also 71% Hispanic.

and 8 miles down the road . . .

Westbrook - fewer than 5% in FARMs and ESOL and 74% white. I don't consider this integrated.

These schools have TWO VERY DIFFERENT cultures. Do you honestly think the folks in Bethesda would go for some "trading" based on these statistics? Liberal elites are all talk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Westbrook is 25% nonwhite. It's racially integrated, though I'll grant you it's safe to say that it is predominantly white.

You make a stronger case with New Hampshire Estates, which is 72 percent Hispanic, 21 percent black and less than 5 percent white. Maybe adjusting boundaries will improve the socioeconomic mix in a school like that.

Westbrook Elementary is in the southwest corner of the county, in Bethesda. You'd have to bus kids pretty far in or out of there to appreciably change the racial mix, given the racial and econonic mix of that area of the county.

So, this example gets at a fundamental misunderstanding of what's being discussed here. No one, not the BoE, or randoms on DCUM, is proposing busing kids into Westbrook just to make it more integrated. However, there is a lot of development going on near Westbrook, AND the apartment/condos that feed into Somerset are drawing more young families. It is possible that some boundaries might shift between Somerset, Westbrook, Wood Acres, and Banockburn, for example. Not by much, just by a few streets here or there to deal with over- and under-utilization of the schools, as well as the new development and demographic shift.

The Westbard redevelopment is the biggest thing going on in that area, with new townhouses, apartments and commercial space. It'll happen over the course of 10 years or so, and while it will certainly draw more families to the area, it's doubtful that many of them will be low income. (Developers can command high prices and rents in that area.) It'll bring a few more middle class folks in for sure, though. It remains to be seen whether the new arrivals will be assigned to Wood Acres or Westbrook.

Let's look at the current picture at the four schools you mentioned:

Somerset - 36 percent nonwhite - 7.1 percent FARMS
Bannockburn - 32 percent nonwhite - less than 5 percent FARMS
Wood Acres - 32 percent nonwhite - less than 5 percent FARMS
Westbrook - 26 percent nonwhite - less than 5 percent FARMS

Shift the boundaries of these schools around all you want, but you're not going to appreciably change the racial and economic mix of the student bodies, because all of the schools are more or less predominantly white and have only a tiny share of poor students. And even if I'm wrong about Westbard not drawing lower income families, you think that new development is enough to further diversify FOUR elementary schools racially and economically? Move kids around among these schools and you can address capacity issues, but not much else. (And some people would say that's OK, capacity issues should be the number 1 factor in redistricting.)

The people who live in these areas know the numbers. That's why talk of redistricting for diversity makes some of them concerned about kids being put on buses for long commutes to school -- because reshuffling kids among these adjacent elementary school districts isn't going to achieve results that match the rhetoric.

I think those schools will wind up remaining pretty homogenous, but MCPS has been clear that they are talking about adjustments along contiguous boundaries, so that's just the way it will remain. I genuinely don't understand what specific "rhetoric" has folks concerned that MCPS is going after cross-county or long-distance busing. If a boundary is being revised, then diversity is part of the equation. If the adjoining school zones are pretty homogenous, then that factor becomes less important.

OR, MCPS looks at those four schools and finds the utilization is pretty consistent and the growth isn't going to throw anyone dramatically over capacity but there is some adjustment that should be made to the MS feeder patterns to deal with overages and underages there. You still aren't looking at cross-county busing, but these questions really should be asked periodically, particularly in a county where there is ongoing development going in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Westbrook is 25% nonwhite. It's racially integrated, though I'll grant you it's safe to say that it is predominantly white.

You make a stronger case with New Hampshire Estates, which is 72 percent Hispanic, 21 percent black and less than 5 percent white. Maybe adjusting boundaries will improve the socioeconomic mix in a school like that.

Westbrook Elementary is in the southwest corner of the county, in Bethesda. You'd have to bus kids pretty far in or out of there to appreciably change the racial mix, given the racial and econonic mix of that area of the county.

So, this example gets at a fundamental misunderstanding of what's being discussed here. No one, not the BoE, or randoms on DCUM, is proposing busing kids into Westbrook just to make it more integrated. However, there is a lot of development going on near Westbrook, AND the apartment/condos that feed into Somerset are drawing more young families. It is possible that some boundaries might shift between Somerset, Westbrook, Wood Acres, and Banockburn, for example. Not by much, just by a few streets here or there to deal with over- and under-utilization of the schools, as well as the new development and demographic shift.

The Westbard redevelopment is the biggest thing going on in that area, with new townhouses, apartments and commercial space. It'll happen over the course of 10 years or so, and while it will certainly draw more families to the area, it's doubtful that many of them will be low income. (Developers can command high prices and rents in that area.) It'll bring a few more middle class folks in for sure, though. It remains to be seen whether the new arrivals will be assigned to Wood Acres or Westbrook.

Let's look at the current picture at the four schools you mentioned:

Somerset - 36 percent nonwhite - 7.1 percent FARMS
Bannockburn - 32 percent nonwhite - less than 5 percent FARMS
Wood Acres - 32 percent nonwhite - less than 5 percent FARMS
Westbrook - 26 percent nonwhite - less than 5 percent FARMS

Shift the boundaries of these schools around all you want, but you're not going to appreciably change the racial and economic mix of the student bodies, because all of the schools are more or less predominantly white and have only a tiny share of poor students. And even if I'm wrong about Westbard not drawing lower income families, you think that new development is enough to further diversify FOUR elementary schools racially and economically? Move kids around among these schools and you can address capacity issues, but not much else. (And some people would say that's OK, capacity issues should be the number 1 factor in redistricting.)

The people who live in these areas know the numbers. That's why talk of redistricting for diversity makes some of them concerned about kids being put on buses for long commutes to school -- because reshuffling kids among these adjacent elementary school districts isn't going to achieve results that match the rhetoric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Westbrook is 25% nonwhite. It's racially integrated, though I'll grant you it's safe to say that it is predominantly white.

You make a stronger case with New Hampshire Estates, which is 72 percent Hispanic, 21 percent black and less than 5 percent white. Maybe adjusting boundaries will improve the socioeconomic mix in a school like that.

Westbrook Elementary is in the southwest corner of the county, in Bethesda. You'd have to bus kids pretty far in or out of there to appreciably change the racial mix, given the racial and econonic mix of that area of the county.

So, this example gets at a fundamental misunderstanding of what's being discussed here. No one, not the BoE, or randoms on DCUM, is proposing busing kids into Westbrook just to make it more integrated. However, there is a lot of development going on near Westbrook, AND the apartment/condos that feed into Somerset are drawing more young families. It is possible that some boundaries might shift between Somerset, Westbrook, Wood Acres, and Banockburn, for example. Not by much, just by a few streets here or there to deal with over- and under-utilization of the schools, as well as the new development and demographic shift.

There are many of us who don't care about diversity and we aren't racist

There are people across the county of all races and SES levels in fact based on the fact that people are choosing where to live

The PC bs the board is trying to force down everyones throats is tiresome and being called racist or classist if you disagree is also tiresome

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Westbrook is 25% nonwhite. It's racially integrated, though I'll grant you it's safe to say that it is predominantly white.

You make a stronger case with New Hampshire Estates, which is 72 percent Hispanic, 21 percent black and less than 5 percent white. Maybe adjusting boundaries will improve the socioeconomic mix in a school like that.

Westbrook Elementary is in the southwest corner of the county, in Bethesda. You'd have to bus kids pretty far in or out of there to appreciably change the racial mix, given the racial and econonic mix of that area of the county.

Anonymous wrote:

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

This is true only insofar as there is no school in MCPS that is 100% one particular race/ethnicity.

If you think New Hampshire Estates PS or Westbrook ES are racially integrated, then your definition of integration must be different from mine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rhetoric you choose matters. You can try to have a conversation with people whose opinions differ from yours, or you can try to demonize them.

Please tell us which words to use, then. Because "diversity" won't do it, either. "Study" doesn't even do it.

Why won't "diversity" do it? No MoCo school is "segregated" under the traditional meaning of the term. The student body of Wootton High is 56% nonwhite. Churchill is 50% nonwhite. Walter Johnson High is 46% nonwhite. BCC is 43% nonwhite. And even Whitman is about a third nonwhite. Nobody is going to be integrating these schools -- because they are already integrated.

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

Some less charged words/phrases include:

- Increasing socioeconomic diversity
- Reducing high concentrations of impoverished children in schools
- Achieving better economic balance in student populations

Better yet, focus the rhetoric on addressing "school capacity" issues by shifting students from "overcrowded schools" to "undercapacity schools".

That problem, and solution, is one that we all can relate to, even if we might not agree on the exact solutions proposed. Given that, in general, schools in wealthier areas are more likely to be at capacity or overcapacity, and schools in poorer areas are more likely to have extra space for more students, addressing imbalances in school capacity should help address imbalances in FARMS rates at the same time.

Ask the people who are pitching fits about it.

And your "better yet" solution not only avoids the issue, but ignores one of the specific aims of the analysis.The analysis is about capacity and geography; it is also about demographics.

It doesn't ignore it, because if you address capacity you will of necessity be adjusting demographics at the same time -- and probably in ways that are more palatable to opponents of redistricting than long-distance busing to "desegregate" schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rhetoric you choose matters. You can try to have a conversation with people whose opinions differ from yours, or you can try to demonize them.

Please tell us which words to use, then. Because "diversity" won't do it, either. "Study" doesn't even do it.

Why won't "diversity" do it? No MoCo school is "segregated" under the traditional meaning of the term. The student body of Wootton High is 56% nonwhite. Churchill is 50% nonwhite. Walter Johnson High is 46% nonwhite. BCC is 43% nonwhite. And even Whitman is about a third nonwhite. Nobody is going to be integrating these schools -- because they are already integrated.

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

Some less charged words/phrases include:

- Increasing socioeconomic diversity
- Reducing high concentrations of impoverished children in schools
- Achieving better economic balance in student populations

Better yet, focus the rhetoric on addressing "school capacity" issues by shifting students from "overcrowded schools" to "undercapacity schools".

That problem, and solution, is one that we all can relate to, even if we might not agree on the exact solutions proposed. Given that, in general, schools in wealthier areas are more likely to be at capacity or overcapacity, and schools in poorer areas are more likely to have extra space for more students, addressing imbalances in school capacity should help address imbalances in FARMS rates at the same time.

Ask the people who are pitching fits about it.

And your "better yet" solution not only avoids the issue, but ignores one of the specific aims of the analysis.The analysis is about capacity and geography; it is also about demographics.

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools.

This is exactly what the boundary study talks about, and what MCPS has put out there. The reason people are talking about racism is because a bunch of parents lost their minds and showed their a**es at a series of public meetings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rhetoric you choose matters. You can try to have a conversation with people whose opinions differ from yours, or you can try to demonize them.

Please tell us which words to use, then. Because "diversity" won't do it, either. "Study" doesn't even do it.

Why won't "diversity" do it? No MoCo school is "segregated" under the traditional meaning of the term. The student body of Wootton High is 56% nonwhite. Churchill is 50% nonwhite. Walter Johnson High is 46% nonwhite. BCC is 43% nonwhite. And even Whitman is about a third nonwhite. Nobody is going to be integrating these schools -- because they are already integrated.

So really what proponents are talking about is redisributing students to flatten out FARMS levels -- or at least make the differences in FARMS not so stark. Because race and class are correlated in this country, of course that may mean changes in the racial mix of the student bodies at various schools. But make no mistake, every school in MCPS --- EVERY school -- is already racially integrated.

Some less charged words/phrases include:

- Increasing socioeconomic diversity
- Reducing high concentrations of impoverished children in schools
- Achieving better economic balance in student populations

Better yet, focus the rhetoric on addressing "school capacity" issues by shifting students from "overcrowded schools" to "undercapacity schools".

That problem, and solution, is one that we all can relate to, even if we might not agree on the exact solutions proposed. Given that, in general, schools in wealthier areas are more likely to be at capacity or overcapacity, and schools in poorer areas are more likely to have extra space for more students, addressing imbalances in school capacity should help address imbalances in FARMS rates at the same time.

Anonymous wrote:

The rhetoric you choose matters. You can try to have a conversation with people whose opinions differ from yours, or you can try to demonize them.

Please tell us which words to use, then. Because "diversity" won't do it, either. "Study" doesn't even do it.