Anonymous wrote:If people dislike option 3, they should fill out the survey and provide, calmly, their reasons why.

The survey should be public-response (with curation only for vulgarity or the like, not for "synthesis") so that everyone can see everyone else's ideas (and the preponderance of such).

The map tool should allow individuals to play what-if scenarios for neighborhoods (assign an area to a different map volor/school and see the demographic results). MCPS has that data available (walkability/transport analysis may be too complex, but not demographics).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

Map 2 is the utilization map

Is option 4 supposed to be the proximity map? What’s weird about that one is the split articulation. That’s antithetical to neighborhood schools

I think it maximizes walk zone potential (least busing).

But it doesn't maximize walkers at Blair, Wheaton, or Einstein.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

#1 is stability, #2 is utilization, #3 is diversity, and so by process of elimination #4 must be proximity (#1-#3 are clear looking at the stats and articulation charts, there aren't really stats on proximity but it's a good bet that's what #4 is)

Which is why every single one of these maps is irrelevant. You can't solve for one problem, you need a combination that hopefully solves much of the problems.

Anonymous wrote:Then go to private. It’s a public school it is not about you and no one needs you here anyway. There are plenty of smart UMC and MC successful families who just can’t pay $45,000 a year and won’t.

I mean families at our school might disagree with you since we volunteer all the time, donate money to every cause etc and our kids are great test takers and well behaved.

But thanks for being so kind!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

#1 is stability, #2 is utilization, #3 is diversity, and so by process of elimination #4 must be proximity (#1-#3 are clear looking at the stats and articulation charts, there aren't really stats on proximity but it's a good bet that's what #4 is)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

Map 2 is the utilization map

Is option 4 supposed to be the proximity map? What’s weird about that one is the split articulation. That’s antithetical to neighborhood schools

I think it maximizes walk zone potential (least busing).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is the only one that addressed diversity/demographics. Not perfect but with some tweaks they can make it work.

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

DCUrbanmom has some crazy diversity people. I guess parents can sue and with current administration let’s see how DEI policy at MCPS plays well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is the only one that addressed diversity/demographics. Not perfect but with some tweaks they can make it work.

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

I have no dog in that fight, but I’m not sure that should be the county’s top priority if it otherwise makes things a mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is the only one that addressed diversity/demographics. Not perfect but with some tweaks they can make it work.

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

I’m not sure why that is or should be the goal here… people live where they live

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

Map 2 is the utilization map

Is option 4 supposed to be the proximity map? What’s weird about that one is the split articulation. That’s antithetical to neighborhood schools

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is the only one that addressed diversity/demographics. Not perfect but with some tweaks they can make it work.

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

Map 2 is the utilization map

Anonymous wrote:Then go to private. It’s a public school it is not about you and no one needs you here anyway. There are plenty of smart UMC and MC successful families who just can’t pay $45,000 a year and won’t.

Right. Those are the families who will bus their kids across county (or just move when the boundaries are set). The great reshuffling. Who are the winners and losers?

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is simply not enough to be middle class in this county. This makes me so sad.

Enough for what, though? To access a highly segregated education the way you had in Shaker Heights or Bloomfield Hills? No, it's not.

This county is not that. And you know it. Enough to not get bussed across county.