Anonymous wrote:

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: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.

Yes, let’s rearrange the entire county just to add diversity to Whitman. That makes sense, isn’t at all biased, and will certainly not cause a massive revolt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.

On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view

They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.

They want money to expand Edison. But there are enough seats in the existing buildings if they use them efficiently. And it will take time to build that out, otherwise they would have already done it. Not just time to actually build it but also to approve it, if it is ever approved. In the meantime, Latinos at Wheaton endure more overcrowding unless we launch an opposition campaign (which the White communities do not have to do, since their schools will be protected from overcrowding).

WJ's "white communities" have been enduring overcrowding for many years.

SO HAS THE DCC

Yes. Which is why they just put an addition onto Kennedy and are building a greatly expanded new Northwood building.

They should have been building a new school to relieve Blair. At the old Adventist site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

People live where they live based on old redline zones and discriminatory policies that ended up with no affordable or even mid level housing in Whitman so they have 7% FARMS rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

People live where they live based on old redline zones and discriminatory policies that ended up with no affordable or even mid level housing in Whitman so they have 7% FARMS rate.

I guess you don't understand what makes housing "affordable." It is proximity to jobs and amenities. Rich people will bid up prices in those areas. There are plenty of old apartment buildings and townhouses in Bethesda that now sell for lots of $$ because of their location. So no, you can't build "mid level housing" and expect the price to stay the same as a population grows. The vast majority of poor people have moved to Montgomery County during the last twenty years and were not subject in any way to discriminatory housing policy. In fact, they have lived here during a period of massive public spending and policy changes to engineer mixed neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the irony. The wealthier kids will not move from WJ to Kennedy. MCPS surely knows that. These neighborhoods will become exclusively for families that go to private school (many already do). And that’s ok (a shame but it’s ok).

It will be our poorer and international students who go to Kennedy. Those will be the families on long bus rides to Kennedy. These are families who are struggling already due to federal cuts. I’m so sorry for them. We had a good thing here at WJ for so many years and thought we could keep that really special, diverse community going at Woodward, but it looks like the county has other ideas.

I mean if you’re going to drive to Kennedy you might as well drive to Good Counsel. No brainer.

Sorry - what cuts are you talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the irony. The wealthier kids will not move from WJ to Kennedy. MCPS surely knows that. These neighborhoods will become exclusively for families that go to private school (many already do). And that’s ok (a shame but it’s ok).

It will be our poorer and international students who go to Kennedy. Those will be the families on long bus rides to Kennedy. These are families who are struggling already due to federal cuts. I’m so sorry for them. We had a good thing here at WJ for so many years and thought we could keep that really special, diverse community going at Woodward, but it looks like the county has other ideas.

I mean if you’re going to drive to Kennedy you might as well drive to Good Counsel. No brainer.

Sorry - what cuts are you talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

People live where they live based on old redline zones and discriminatory policies that ended up with no affordable or even mid level housing in Whitman so they have 7% FARMS rate.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the irony. The wealthier kids will not move from WJ to Kennedy. MCPS surely knows that. These neighborhoods will become exclusively for families that go to private school (many already do). And that’s ok (a shame but it’s ok).

It will be our poorer and international students who go to Kennedy. Those will be the families on long bus rides to Kennedy. These are families who are struggling already due to federal cuts. I’m so sorry for them. We had a good thing here at WJ for so many years and thought we could keep that really special, diverse community going at Woodward, but it looks like the county has other ideas.

I mean if you’re going to drive to Kennedy you might as well drive to Good Counsel. No brainer.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.

On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view

They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.

They want money to expand Edison. But there are enough seats in the existing buildings if they use them efficiently. And it will take time to build that out, otherwise they would have already done it. Not just time to actually build it but also to approve it, if it is ever approved. In the meantime, Latinos at Wheaton endure more overcrowding unless we launch an opposition campaign (which the White communities do not have to do, since their schools will be protected from overcrowding).

WJ's "white communities" have been enduring overcrowding for many years.

SO HAS THE DCC

Yes. Which is why they just put an addition onto Kennedy and are building a greatly expanded new Northwood building.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like every single option except for #3 actually makes demographic disparities worse and benefits richer schools over poorer schools. And since the rich parents always seem to win in this county, I can't imagine we're actually going to get #3. This sucks.

I’m not sure what sucks. Sure diversity is great but shouldn’t come at the expense of forced bussing adding wasted time to kids and parents days which are better spent in school and extracurricular activities. Short of changes at the margins, as in shifting the edge of say Wheaton HS boundary to WJ, it’s hard to do this in a solid fashion.

Better solution would be to create more affordable housing in areas to let people live in areas they might otherwise not be able to afford. Of course that’s hard to do without massive new communities, but the current MPDU percentages are quite low. Having 30% of the new townhome communities would be a huge increase 2x and could be a start.

Anonymous wrote:

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:Thanks so much--what I mean is, 2024-25 6th grader--will they get to stay in their current MS for the last year (8th)? Insights? tysm

A current 6th grader will be in 9th grade in the 2027/28 school year, and will start at whatever high school their address is newly assigned to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do all county-based school systems around the country do this? Try to make everything equal among all schools in a county? I mean, technically, the schools are teaching the same curriculum, and in theory, the teachers are no better or worse in certain schools, regardless of demographics. While I understand the concern over having some schools with higher FARMs rates, I don't understand artificially modifying boundaries and forcing kids to travel half way across the county in the name trying to achieve equal demographic and socioeconomic distribution. Kids should go to school in or close to their community. Tilden MS is less than 1/2 mile from Farmland ES, and Woodward is probably a mile away, but you're proposing busing those students 30+ minutes to Parkland and Kennedy to attend school with kids who live no where near them?

They could address some of this by providing enough differential funding to schools with populations of more highly heterogeneous academic need. Enough to ensure that no student's options for classes, extracurriculars, etc., are different at one school than they would be at another. If they start with the assumptions that students of all backgrounds have similar distribution of capability but that there are background-associated needs for differential supports to bring that capability to fruition, the need to ensure certain demographic homogeneity becomes less exigent with that approach (not that diversity should be avoided), and the system can reap cost savings (which can support a portion of the needed funding) & other community benefits associated with geographic proximity.

That would require "rich" schools to accept considerably greater funding differentials than currently exist, however, and, likely, higher tax rates overall both to bring the same breadth & level of non-magnet classes to all schools and to ensure that the burden of teaching to heterogeneous classroom populations is met by a commensurately low student-to-teacher ratio. It better would address the achievement deficit, however, and not just achievement gaps.

"If they start with the assumptions that students of all backgrounds have similar distribution of capability but that there are background-associated needs for differential supports to bring that capability to fruition, the need to ensure certain demographic homogeneity becomes less exigent with that approach (not that diversity should be avoided), and the system can reap cost savings (which can support a portion of the needed funding) & other community benefits associated with geographic proximity."

Ok but we all know that's bullchit. And also they basically ALREADY do this in moco...not a viable option.

They don't already do it, and that was the point. Classes aren't equally available wherever you live. Staffing allocations do not reflect the management challenges of more highly heterogeneous student ability levels within a class. Entirely viable, except for the sway of populations at schools that currently have it good but don't want either to shift resource levels or to up the tax rate to maintain them while providig the greater resources where needed.