Anonymous wrote:Probably true. But that likely includes special ed and magnet students so my guesssis that is inflated.

Anonymous wrote:And apparently it's an ugly, ugly meeting.

For shame.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And apparently it's an ugly, ugly meeting.


You know it is 100% predictable that parents in any and all clusters would be angry about bussing studies and any future proposals they will produce. Neither high nor low income families want to be forcibly bussed. MCPS has learned this from past failed attempts to bus low income kids further away to higher performing schools. Anyone who has studied anything about educational policies knows that bussing was one of the worst controversial failures in public education history. Its simply not a popular mechanism to alter school demographics. If MCPS is going to attempt to put in demographic based bussing then it needs to withstand all the public condemnation that is coming its way OR it needs to put out a different compelling case as why why the COMMUNITIES not MCPS will benefit from it.

So far the only arguments that have been put forward in favor of bussing is saying that someone must be racist if you don't agree (hint this doesn't work if the person you are speaking to isa not white), pretending that it is not looking at diversity bussing while also claiming that it is (this is not going to work) or making false statements that data (even its own data gathered within MCPS!) disproves like busing high income kids into poor schools or vice versa raises scores. It doesn't and MCPS' own staff recently published report saying that high or low income school was not a predictor for an individual student's success or failure. The only consistent predictor was the number of years in a poverty a child spent and small bump in scores depending on the experience (# of years) of the teacher. MCPS needs to do far better if they intend to disrupt so many lives or they need to reverse course.


Nope. This is a data analysis. It is not a proposal for busing (whatever you mean by that), let alone "forcible busing."

And even if it were a proposal for "forcible busing" - WHICH IT IS NOT - adults are responsible for their own behavior. If you're ugly at a public meeting, it's not because MCPS made you do it. It's because you chose to be ugly.

Disagreeing with yet another poorly conceived MCPS grand idea is not being ugly. Yes this is about forcible busing.

Anonymous wrote:Probably true. But that likely includes special ed and magnet students so my guesssis that is inflated.

Anonymous wrote:
And apparently it's an ugly, ugly meeting.


You know it is 100% predictable that parents in any and all clusters would be angry about bussing studies and any future proposals they will produce. Neither high nor low income families want to be forcibly bussed. MCPS has learned this from past failed attempts to bus low income kids further away to higher performing schools. Anyone who has studied anything about educational policies knows that bussing was one of the worst controversial failures in public education history. Its simply not a popular mechanism to alter school demographics. If MCPS is going to attempt to put in demographic based bussing then it needs to withstand all the public condemnation that is coming its way OR it needs to put out a different compelling case as why why the COMMUNITIES not MCPS will benefit from it.

So far the only arguments that have been put forward in favor of bussing is saying that someone must be racist if you don't agree (hint this doesn't work if the person you are speaking to isa not white), pretending that it is not looking at diversity bussing while also claiming that it is (this is not going to work) or making false statements that data (even its own data gathered within MCPS!) disproves like busing high income kids into poor schools or vice versa raises scores. It doesn't and MCPS' own staff recently published report saying that high or low income school was not a predictor for an individual student's success or failure. The only consistent predictor was the number of years in a poverty a child spent and small bump in scores depending on the experience (# of years) of the teacher. MCPS needs to do far better if they intend to disrupt so many lives or they need to reverse course.


Nope. This is a data analysis. It is not a proposal for busing (whatever you mean by that), let alone "forcible busing."

And even if it were a proposal for "forcible busing" - WHICH IT IS NOT - adults are responsible for their own behavior. If you're ugly at a public meeting, it's not because MCPS made you do it. It's because you chose to be ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

And apparently it's an ugly, ugly meeting.

You know it is 100% predictable that parents in any and all clusters would be angry about bussing studies and any future proposals they will produce. Neither high nor low income families want to be forcibly bussed. MCPS has learned this from past failed attempts to bus low income kids further away to higher performing schools. Anyone who has studied anything about educational policies knows that bussing was one of the worst controversial failures in public education history. Its simply not a popular mechanism to alter school demographics. If MCPS is going to attempt to put in demographic based bussing then it needs to withstand all the public condemnation that is coming its way OR it needs to put out a different compelling case as why why the COMMUNITIES not MCPS will benefit from it.

So far the only arguments that have been put forward in favor of bussing is saying that someone must be racist if you don't agree (hint this doesn't work if the person you are speaking to isa not white), pretending that it is not looking at diversity bussing while also claiming that it is (this is not going to work) or making false statements that data (even its own data gathered within MCPS!) disproves like busing high income kids into poor schools or vice versa raises scores. It doesn't and MCPS' own staff recently published report saying that high or low income school was not a predictor for an individual student's success or failure. The only consistent predictor was the number of years in a poverty a child spent and small bump in scores depending on the experience (# of years) of the teacher. MCPS needs to do far better if they intend to disrupt so many lives or they need to reverse course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the meeting tonight, there's a poster on Students Not Assigned To Closest School -

ES: 37% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
MS: 45% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
HS: 38% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school

That's CURRENTLY in MCPS.

Those are the boundaries that people want to maintain because they want "neighborhood schools."

Is this actual data? Anyone know?

And apparently it's an ugly, ugly meeting.

Anonymous wrote:At the meeting tonight, there's a poster on Students Not Assigned To Closest School -

ES: 37% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
MS: 45% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
HS: 38% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school

That's CURRENTLY in MCPS.

Those are the boundaries that people want to maintain because they want "neighborhood schools."

Anonymous wrote:"You're ignoring us!": Arlington families speak out against proposed school reassignments


A Tuesday night community meeting got heated at times, as parents in Arlington voiced concerns about a proposed school assignment shakeup. The plan now being considered by Arlington Public Schools could move several thousand elementary students to different schools.
The school district says the changes are needed to address Arlington's growing population that's causing overcrowding in the classroom. Arlington Public Schools expects to welcome more than 30,000 students in 2021.

more and video:
https://wjla.com/news/local/youre-ignoring-us-arlington-families-speak-out-against-proposed-school-reassignments

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the meeting tonight, there's a poster on Students Not Assigned To Closest School -

ES: 37% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
MS: 45% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
HS: 38% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school

That's CURRENTLY in MCPS.

Those are the boundaries that people want to maintain because they want "neighborhood schools."

Those are students already assigned to schools based on diversity. Parents want to maintain the diversity that they already have. Good to hear parents support
diverse schools.

Huh. Because one of the things I have never, ever, not once, heard even ONE person say is, "I oppose the boundary analysis because I support school diversity."

Then you haven't been listening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the meeting tonight, there's a poster on Students Not Assigned To Closest School -

ES: 37% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
MS: 45% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school
HS: 38% of students in MCPS do not attend their closest school

That's CURRENTLY in MCPS.

Those are the boundaries that people want to maintain because they want "neighborhood schools."

Those are students already assigned to schools based on diversity. Parents want to maintain the diversity that they already have. Good to hear parents support
diverse schools.

Huh. Because one of the things I have never, ever, not once, heard even ONE person say is, "I oppose the boundary analysis because I support school diversity."