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 will destroy neighborhoods plain and simple. Only a complete idiot should suggest that option 3 should even exist.
Just think of neighborhoods more broadly. I support option 3. It is the best option for all children.
Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is move to Virginia!
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 will destroy neighborhoods plain and simple. Only a complete idiot should suggest that option 3 should even exist.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Let's talk about the socio economic diversity between WJ and Woodward. How wrong did they get it
WJ is White. Woodward is not.
WJ is English. Woodward is Spanish.
WJ is rich. Woodward is poor.
WJ is old. Woodward is new.
We don’t fully know what Woodward will be.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is stupid and won’t actually do what it professes to do.
Is Option 3 sentient? What does it "profess" to do?
Equalize demographics, or some such shit. Go ahead and be pedantic, troll. Your posts will just be deleted like they always are.
You are claiming Option 3 has a particular goal, but you are making that goal up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is stupid and won’t actually do what it professes to do.
Is Option 3 sentient? What does it "profess" to do?
Equalize demographics, or some such shit. Go ahead and be pedantic, troll. Your posts will just be deleted like they always are.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is stupid and won’t actually do what it professes to do.
Is Option 3 sentient? What does it "profess" to do?
Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is stupid and won’t actually do what it professes to do.