Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

+1. The amount of disinformation that is spread specifically about redrawing boundaries is appalling. Nobody in MCPS has ever said that "diversity" is the number one criteria when redrawing boundaries. Only fear mongers (and I am an mcps-hater who moved my kids to private pre-covid) continue to spread this nonsense. MCPS published a pre-boundary study before COVID I think, looking at different scenarios for redrawing cluster boundaries. All of these scenarios (one of which was economic diversity) included a walk zone around every school that could not be "drawn away". If you want your kids in a particular school, buy a house close to it. You will not be moved out of it if you are in the walk zone.

I think you better take a very close look at Gaithersburg ES #8 boundaries and Clarksburg boundaries at the ES level before making a final judgement. Everyone has their eyes on the HS boundaries, but that's not really where the issues are occurring at this moment. You may not have noticed, but some of the recent ES boundaries (and lesser extent MS boundaries) this board approved are very wonky. I don't trust them at all.

You also seem to forget the two high-schools coming on-line that will completely shake up Mid and DCC boundaries. Do you seriously think that this board and sup will pass up the chance to "bring equity" and fix "discrimination" to those locations? It's their entire and only agenda imho. MCPS is already in shambles, so I hope you're at least voting apple ballot.

Yes, Woodward impacts the adjacent schools mostly which are WJ, Einstein, and BCC. By peeling off some students from these schools they can shift other adjacent boundaries as well which will eventually propagate throughout all of MCPS.

For good or ill, BCC is not part of the Woodward study. Only WJ and the DCC are being included.

(Of course, that can change. But that's the current plan.)

Especially since BCC was originally supposed to be part of Woodward. But BCC parents whined and complained and it was removed.

Wonder what will happen when BCC outgrows their current space, which cannot be expanded any more?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

+1. The amount of disinformation that is spread specifically about redrawing boundaries is appalling. Nobody in MCPS has ever said that "diversity" is the number one criteria when redrawing boundaries. Only fear mongers (and I am an mcps-hater who moved my kids to private pre-covid) continue to spread this nonsense. MCPS published a pre-boundary study before COVID I think, looking at different scenarios for redrawing cluster boundaries. All of these scenarios (one of which was economic diversity) included a walk zone around every school that could not be "drawn away". If you want your kids in a particular school, buy a house close to it. You will not be moved out of it if you are in the walk zone.

I think you better take a very close look at Gaithersburg ES #8 boundaries and Clarksburg boundaries at the ES level before making a final judgement. Everyone has their eyes on the HS boundaries, but that's not really where the issues are occurring at this moment. You may not have noticed, but some of the recent ES boundaries (and lesser extent MS boundaries) this board approved are very wonky. I don't trust them at all.

You also seem to forget the two high-schools coming on-line that will completely shake up Mid and DCC boundaries. Do you seriously think that this board and sup will pass up the chance to "bring equity" and fix "discrimination" to those locations? It's their entire and only agenda imho. MCPS is already in shambles, so I hope you're at least voting apple ballot.

Yes, Woodward impacts the adjacent schools mostly which are WJ, Einstein, and BCC. By peeling off some students from these schools they can shift other adjacent boundaries as well which will eventually propagate throughout all of MCPS.

For good or ill, BCC is not part of the Woodward study. Only WJ and the DCC are being included.

(Of course, that can change. But that's the current plan.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

+1. The amount of disinformation that is spread specifically about redrawing boundaries is appalling. Nobody in MCPS has ever said that "diversity" is the number one criteria when redrawing boundaries. Only fear mongers (and I am an mcps-hater who moved my kids to private pre-covid) continue to spread this nonsense. MCPS published a pre-boundary study before COVID I think, looking at different scenarios for redrawing cluster boundaries. All of these scenarios (one of which was economic diversity) included a walk zone around every school that could not be "drawn away". If you want your kids in a particular school, buy a house close to it. You will not be moved out of it if you are in the walk zone.

I think you better take a very close look at Gaithersburg ES #8 boundaries and Clarksburg boundaries at the ES level before making a final judgement. Everyone has their eyes on the HS boundaries, but that's not really where the issues are occurring at this moment. You may not have noticed, but some of the recent ES boundaries (and lesser extent MS boundaries) this board approved are very wonky. I don't trust them at all.

You also seem to forget the two high-schools coming on-line that will completely shake up Mid and DCC boundaries. Do you seriously think that this board and sup will pass up the chance to "bring equity" and fix "discrimination" to those locations? It's their entire and only agenda imho. MCPS is already in shambles, so I hope you're at least voting apple ballot.

Yes, Woodward impacts the adjacent schools mostly which are WJ, Einstein, and BCC. By peeling off some students from these schools they can shift other adjacent boundaries as well which will eventually propagate throughout all of MCPS.

For good or ill, BCC is not part of the Woodward study. Only WJ and the DCC are being included.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

+1. The amount of disinformation that is spread specifically about redrawing boundaries is appalling. Nobody in MCPS has ever said that "diversity" is the number one criteria when redrawing boundaries. Only fear mongers (and I am an mcps-hater who moved my kids to private pre-covid) continue to spread this nonsense. MCPS published a pre-boundary study before COVID I think, looking at different scenarios for redrawing cluster boundaries. All of these scenarios (one of which was economic diversity) included a walk zone around every school that could not be "drawn away". If you want your kids in a particular school, buy a house close to it. You will not be moved out of it if you are in the walk zone.

I think you better take a very close look at Gaithersburg ES #8 boundaries and Clarksburg boundaries at the ES level before making a final judgement. Everyone has their eyes on the HS boundaries, but that's not really where the issues are occurring at this moment. You may not have noticed, but some of the recent ES boundaries (and lesser extent MS boundaries) this board approved are very wonky. I don't trust them at all.

You also seem to forget the two high-schools coming on-line that will completely shake up Mid and DCC boundaries. Do you seriously think that this board and sup will pass up the chance to "bring equity" and fix "discrimination" to those locations? It's their entire and only agenda imho. MCPS is already in shambles, so I hope you're at least voting apple ballot.

Yes, Woodward impacts the adjacent schools mostly which are WJ, Einstein, and BCC. By peeling off some students from these schools they can shift other adjacent boundaries as well which will eventually propagate throughout all of MCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

+1. The amount of disinformation that is spread specifically about redrawing boundaries is appalling. Nobody in MCPS has ever said that "diversity" is the number one criteria when redrawing boundaries. Only fear mongers (and I am an mcps-hater who moved my kids to private pre-covid) continue to spread this nonsense. MCPS published a pre-boundary study before COVID I think, looking at different scenarios for redrawing cluster boundaries. All of these scenarios (one of which was economic diversity) included a walk zone around every school that could not be "drawn away". If you want your kids in a particular school, buy a house close to it. You will not be moved out of it if you are in the walk zone.

I think you better take a very close look at Gaithersburg ES #8 boundaries and Clarksburg boundaries at the ES level before making a final judgement. Everyone has their eyes on the HS boundaries, but that's not really where the issues are occurring at this moment. You may not have noticed, but some of the recent ES boundaries (and lesser extent MS boundaries) this board approved are very wonky. I don't trust them at all.

You also seem to forget the two high-schools coming on-line that will completely shake up Mid and DCC boundaries. Do you seriously think that this board and sup will pass up the chance to "bring equity" and fix "discrimination" to those locations? It's their entire and only agenda imho. MCPS is already in shambles, so I hope you're at least voting apple ballot.

It's really strange to point to the Gaithersburg ES #8 (now Harriet Tubman) boundaries as proof that MCPS is overly-fixated on demographics/diversity. In fact, that study had the opportunity to make significant demographic shifts but did not: included within the original scope of the study were Goshen and Laytonsville ESs. But no options were drawn up that affected either of these schools' boundaries. Why not, when including these two schools would have diversified the options for the new school much more than any others? Because to include them would have gone against the geography factor (they were considered too far away, even though they're within the same cluster), the utilization factor (neither school had overcrowding to address), and the stability factor (which is to keep boundaries the same when possible). So, if anything, these new boundaries are proof that MCPS is clearly not prioritizing diversity above all the other factors.

Anonymous wrote:Tutoring is the biggest difference

Can you explain? Expand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

+1. The amount of disinformation that is spread specifically about redrawing boundaries is appalling. Nobody in MCPS has ever said that "diversity" is the number one criteria when redrawing boundaries. Only fear mongers (and I am an mcps-hater who moved my kids to private pre-covid) continue to spread this nonsense. MCPS published a pre-boundary study before COVID I think, looking at different scenarios for redrawing cluster boundaries. All of these scenarios (one of which was economic diversity) included a walk zone around every school that could not be "drawn away". If you want your kids in a particular school, buy a house close to it. You will not be moved out of it if you are in the walk zone.

I think you better take a very close look at Gaithersburg ES #8 boundaries and Clarksburg boundaries at the ES level before making a final judgement. Everyone has their eyes on the HS boundaries, but that's not really where the issues are occurring at this moment. You may not have noticed, but some of the recent ES boundaries (and lesser extent MS boundaries) this board approved are very wonky. I don't trust them at all.

You also seem to forget the two high-schools coming on-line that will completely shake up Mid and DCC boundaries. Do you seriously think that this board and sup will pass up the chance to "bring equity" and fix "discrimination" to those locations? It's their entire and only agenda imho. MCPS is already in shambles, so I hope you're at least voting apple ballot.

Cultural warriors stirring up trouble again. Or the Russian Troll Farm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

It's true even though some DCUM diehards want to mislead people in the hopes they can slip this by!

You are the one being misleading here. The boundary studies are all publicly available:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you read the reports, you can easily see that diversity has not been "the number one criteria." All of them have used a combination of factors when redrawing boundaries.

They have different ways to describe the same thing. FARM, ESOL EQUITY, all of these have become code words for racial diversity

"Code words"? You sound like a conspiracy theorist. MCPS's official term is "demographic characteristics of student population," and it explicitly includes:
• racial/ethnic composition of the student population;
• socio-economic composition of the student population;
• level of English language learners and other reliable demographic indicators; and
• participation in specific educational programs.

But this is all beside the original point, which is that demographics is only one of the four factors, the other three being:
o Geography
o Facility Utilization
o Stability of School Assignment over Time

And any clear reading of the boundary decisions that have been made since the policy was revised in 2018 will show that all four factors have been given consideration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

It's true even though some DCUM diehards want to mislead people in the hopes they can slip this by!

You are the one being misleading here. The boundary studies are all publicly available:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you read the reports, you can easily see that diversity has not been "the number one criteria." All of them have used a combination of factors when redrawing boundaries.

They have different ways to describe the same thing. FARM, ESOL EQUITY, all of these have become code words for racial diversity

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

It's true even though some DCUM diehards want to mislead people in the hopes they can slip this by!

You are the one being misleading here. The boundary studies are all publicly available:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you read the reports, you can easily see that diversity has not been "the number one criteria." All of them have used a combination of factors when redrawing boundaries.

Yes but the BOE voted to prioritize diversity over the other 3-4 criteria in selecting the new boundaries.

Stop trying to hang these imagined problems on the BOE. They did no such thing. Some people just want to sew fear to push their crazy right-wing agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

It's true even though some DCUM diehards want to mislead people in the hopes they can slip this by!

You are the one being misleading here. The boundary studies are all publicly available:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you read the reports, you can easily see that diversity has not been "the number one criteria." All of them have used a combination of factors when redrawing boundaries.

Yes but the BOE voted to prioritize diversity over the other 3-4 criteria in selecting the new boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

It's true even though some DCUM diehards want to mislead people in the hopes they can slip this by!

You are the one being misleading here. The boundary studies are all publicly available:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you read the reports, you can easily see that diversity has not been "the number one criteria." All of them have used a combination of factors when redrawing boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

I had read that diversity which I assume refers to economic diversity was the number one criteria when redrawing the boundaries.

You may have read that here on DCUM, but no, that is not accurate.

It's true even though some DCUM diehards want to mislead people in the hopes they can slip this by!