YOU WILL NEVER TAKE MY GALLBLADDER OR SPLEEN!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of spending time and money on these types of analysis, why don’t they target specific schools that are falling below expectations? Obviously the kids there need more help. It seems to make more sense to give support to those schools with high farms that are falling below average, maybe an after school tutor or something. I understand that a lot of farms kids may not have parents who can help them at home because of work, and this is exactly the type of support they need. Push for accountability on al schools and in maps admin to make sure the money is spent wisely and not in some dumb contracts that do not help kids.

So what about capacity issues both current and future.

That's a whole different discussion and not what the Board is focused on now.

No, actually, capacity is one of the main focuses of the boundary analysis.

They say it’s one of the main focus but then once this gets started, they will focus on equitable distribution of farms. That is how they roll. They blame everything on the current boundary but ignore the fact that the kids in that area need extra help. You know why they have issues with capacity? It’s because they suck at forecasting the estimated amount of kids to be enrolled. They use outdated metrics and don’t include future projects that are in the pipeline pending for approval. This is the reason why the new schools and newly renovated schools are over capacity in just a few years. When this was pointed out in one of the boundary studies, they insist on the metrics they are using and never provided a solution on that issue. If there are specific schools that are under capacity, then perhaps review that area, the whole district does not need to be disrupted for a few schools that are under capacity. We certainly don’t need extra expenses that could have been used to help kids!

Anonymous wrote:Translation: Instead of fixing broken schools, we're going to use "diversity" as an excuse to bus the problem around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of spending time and money on these types of analysis, why don’t they target specific schools that are falling below expectations? Obviously the kids there need more help. It seems to make more sense to give support to those schools with high farms that are falling below average, maybe an after school tutor or something. I understand that a lot of farms kids may not have parents who can help them at home because of work, and this is exactly the type of support they need. Push for accountability on al schools and in maps admin to make sure the money is spent wisely and not in some dumb contracts that do not help kids.

So what about capacity issues both current and future.

That's a whole different discussion and not what the Board is focused on now.

No, actually, capacity is one of the main focuses of the boundary analysis.

They say it’s one of the main focus but then once this gets started, they will focus on equitable distribution of farms. That is how they roll. They blame everything on the current boundary but ignore the fact that the kids in that area need extra help. You know why they have issues with capacity? It’s because they suck at forecasting the estimated amount of kids to be enrolled. They use outdated metrics and don’t include future projects that are in the pipeline pending for approval. This is the reason why the new schools and newly renovated schools are over capacity in just a few years. When this was pointed out in one of the boundary studies, they insist on the metrics they are using and never provided a solution on that issue. If there are specific schools that are under capacity, then perhaps review that area, the whole district does not need to be disrupted for a few schools that are under capacity. We certainly don’t need extra expenses that could have been used to help kids!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of spending time and money on these types of analysis, why don’t they target specific schools that are falling below expectations? Obviously the kids there need more help. It seems to make more sense to give support to those schools with high farms that are falling below average, maybe an after school tutor or something. I understand that a lot of farms kids may not have parents who can help them at home because of work, and this is exactly the type of support they need. Push for accountability on al schools and in maps admin to make sure the money is spent wisely and not in some dumb contracts that do not help kids.

So what about capacity issues both current and future.

That's a whole different discussion and not what the Board is focused on now.

No, actually, capacity is one of the main focuses of the boundary analysis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prez of the BOE can't write a factual letter without permission??

Catch up. The Board of Education is an elected body. The President only speaks for the body when authorized by a vote of the body. The Board has not voted that any of this is to be communicated to the public. It is not the Board's facts. It may be your facts, but it isn't the Board's facts. A President's signature is only authorized when a majority of the body has voted to authorize the signature. As when the President signs a contract on behalf of the Board. The Board's facts are the contract they authorized and any related resolutions. This letter is neither.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of spending time and money on these types of analysis, why don’t they target specific schools that are falling below expectations? Obviously the kids there need more help. It seems to make more sense to give support to those schools with high farms that are falling below average, maybe an after school tutor or something. I understand that a lot of farms kids may not have parents who can help them at home because of work, and this is exactly the type of support they need. Push for accountability on al schools and in maps admin to make sure the money is spent wisely and not in some dumb contracts that do not help kids.

So what about capacity issues both current and future.

That's a whole different discussion and not what the Board is focused on now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Benefits of Diverse Schools: Diversity is one of the four factors considered by the school system when reviewing boundaries because research shows that diverse schools benefit students. The benefits, as described in the research, suggest:

Students in integrated schools have higher average test scores.
Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving and creativity.

What is the evidence that "Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving and creativity."?

Do you prefer segregated classrooms?

No. I prefer to not hear statements that are total BS. I'd have the same reaction if they wrote

"Integrated classrooms help reduce gun violence and drug abuse, and are an important step in the fight against global warming."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Benefits of Diverse Schools: Diversity is one of the four factors considered by the school system when reviewing boundaries because research shows that diverse schools benefit students. The benefits, as described in the research, suggest:

Students in integrated schools have higher average test scores.
Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving and creativity.

What is the evidence that "Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving and creativity."?

Do you prefer segregated classrooms?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of spending time and money on these types of analysis, why don’t they target specific schools that are falling below expectations? Obviously the kids there need more help. It seems to make more sense to give support to those schools with high farms that are falling below average, maybe an after school tutor or something. I understand that a lot of farms kids may not have parents who can help them at home because of work, and this is exactly the type of support they need. Push for accountability on al schools and in maps admin to make sure the money is spent wisely and not in some dumb contracts that do not help kids.

So what about capacity issues both current and future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of spending time and money on these types of analysis, why don’t they target specific schools that are falling below expectations? Obviously the kids there need more help. It seems to make more sense to give support to those schools with high farms that are falling below average, maybe an after school tutor or something. I understand that a lot of farms kids may not have parents who can help them at home because of work, and this is exactly the type of support they need. Push for accountability on al schools and in maps admin to make sure the money is spent wisely and not in some dumb contracts that do not help kids.

So what about capacity issues both current and future.

Anonymous wrote:Students in integrated schools have higher average test scores.

Compared to what

Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving and creativity.

According to who

Attending a diverse school can help reduce racial bias and counter stereotypes.

Actually it increases these since generally Whites and Asians are in Honors/AP and Blacks/Hispanics are in regular classes overwhelmingly

In addition, reducing socioeconomic isolation can help the school system meet the needs of all students. As the Montgomery County Council has stated, “Our diversity is our strength and is key to our continued success as a community.” When practical, we should leverage this strength in our schools and classrooms to ensure we reap the benefits of our diverse county.

Why is diversity a strength

This is some straight up liberal/progressive bs right here

Anonymous wrote:Instead of spending time and money on these types of analysis, why don’t they target specific schools that are falling below expectations? Obviously the kids there need more help. It seems to make more sense to give support to those schools with high farms that are falling below average, maybe an after school tutor or something. I understand that a lot of farms kids may not have parents who can help them at home because of work, and this is exactly the type of support they need. Push for accountability on al schools and in maps admin to make sure the money is spent wisely and not in some dumb contracts that do not help kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The above is just gossip. It is NOT Board action and carries no weight.

Reading is still fundamental.

Here's what WXY is actually doing according to their contract with MCPS:

The team will produce three (3) boundary plan options. The boundary plan
options will include a synthesis of data analysis including analysis of existing
cluster boundaries and enrollment projections to school capacity and the
set of factors which inform the scenarios.

You're describing an official letter from the president of the board of education and the superintendent of schools as "gossip".

Read it again and repeat it. The letter has no basis for any Board action. It is not a contract. It has no weight.