Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

And split elementary articulations for at least 11 schools, mostly from the DCC. No thanks.

This is why there should be at least 2 more options currently on the table, offering blends. Going with 4, each of which is heavily weighted towards a single priority, doesn't allow us to see what more balanced configurations might bring. That will tip public opinion toward a best-of-the-bad one such as 2, typically expressed in the survey without nuance (most won't take the time to provide such), which inappropriately will result in a conclusion that things like continuity or diversity don't matter and, then, to a rather suboptimal decision.

This is an excellent point.

Yes. This is why our reactions and demands of the Board need to be "these are poorly done options, we need new ones that balance multiple factors" and not "option 3 (or whatever option you personally hate) sucks.". We can and should unify immediately to demand reasonable, balanced options moving forward, regardless of our differences of opinion on which of these options we like best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

You are right. We shouldn't intentionally keep the richest Kensington families in SFHs separate from the lower income ones in the apartments on University. Social engineering is what is currently happening.

Exactly. That Town of Kensington carve out for those rich mostly white students to ride a bus all the way to Walter Johnson when they could WALK to Einstein is somehow not social engineering?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can literally see Blair from my house as I type this, but now it's very possible my elementary school-aged son wouldn't actually be zoned for Blair. Make it make sense!

That's already true though. The current boundaries are just as bad. Maybe not for you personally but in general.

Anonymous wrote:How many students are on FARMS in MCPS? In looking at these charts, I had no idea it was so high. They can’t seem to keep it below what is ideal (is it 20 or 30%) even in option 3 in any school (other than Whitman).

This is a huge wake up call for me about how the county is changing. I’m kind of thinking we are arguing/worrying over the wrong things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

You are right. We shouldn't intentionally keep the richest Kensington families in SFHs separate from the lower income ones in the apartments on University. Social engineering is what is currently happening.

Anonymous wrote:I can literally see Blair from my house as I type this, but now it's very possible my elementary school-aged son wouldn't actually be zoned for Blair. Make it make sense!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://sites.google.com/mcpsmd.net/boundarystudyoptions/home/woodward-initial-options?authuser=0

What do folks think?

I think I’m stupid because while I can figure out the neighborhood high school options for each of the four plans I can’t find out if there are ES or MS changes as well. Can someone help?

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.

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.

No need to do that. Simply take a chunk of Whitman and swap it with a chuck of high farm area with 15-20 minute bus ride. Keep bus ride to 20 minutes and make sure we are not taking in walk zone.

Whitman desperately needs diversity otherwise we will keep seeing racist stuff in Whitman in future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

And split elementary articulations for at least 11 schools, mostly from the DCC. No thanks.

This is why there should be at least 2 more options currently on the table, offering blends. Going with 4, each of which is heavily weighted towards a single priority, doesn't allow us to see what more balanced configurations might bring. That will tip public opinion toward a best-of-the-bad one such as 2, typically expressed in the survey without nuance (most won't take the time to provide such), which inappropriately will result in a conclusion that things like continuity or diversity don't matter and, then, to a rather suboptimal decision.

This is an excellent point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

Option 3 has most wacky boundaries and you’re looking for even more wacky boundaries

I think there are ways to fix #3 (especially if you focus on "kids not having too long of a commute" and not "avoiding boundaries that look weird") so let's figure that out and advocate for those changes.

No. #3 is a terrible option. I don’t understand why we can’t have community schools. I’m tired of driving all over and my kids spending 90 minutes a day on the bus!

Anonymous wrote:https://sites.google.com/mcpsmd.net/boundarystudyoptions/home/woodward-initial-options?authuser=0

What do folks think?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was expecting a range of options on the demographics/equalizing FARMS dimension. But options 1, 2 and 4 do basically nothing to improve on that front, or in some cases make things worse. And option 3 is only a moderate improvement, the kind of thing I would have expected as a middle-ground option between "no improvement on demographics/diversity" and "significant improvement on demographics/diversity."

I feel like all the options other than #3 are non-starters. #3 has plenty of flaws but it feels like we need to focus on iterating off of it to make it better. It's ridiculous to have some schools with 6% FARMS rates and some schools with over 60% FARMS rates (or up to 75% at some middle schools!) and have 3 of the 4 options not do a thing to try to address that.

Option 3 has most wacky boundaries and you’re looking for even more wacky boundaries

I think there are ways to fix #3 (especially if you focus on "kids not having too long of a commute" and not "avoiding boundaries that look weird") so let's figure that out and advocate for those changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

And split elementary articulations for at least 11 schools, mostly from the DCC. No thanks.

This is why there should be at least 2 more options currently on the table, offering blends. Going with 4, each of which is heavily weighted towards a single priority, doesn't allow us to see what more balanced configurations might bring. That will tip public opinion toward a best-of-the-bad one such as 2, typically expressed in the survey without nuance (most won't take the time to provide such), which inappropriately will result in a conclusion that things like continuity or diversity don't matter and, then, to a rather suboptimal decision.

There are 137 ESs in MCPS. Some are going to have to be split articulation.

The high number actually decreases the likelihood this will be necessary