Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What chunk of Whitman is a 15-20 minute ride (in rush hour) from a high FARMS area?

You could move certain apartment buildings in downtown Bethesda to help some, but it would have to be super targeted because everything else in downtown Bethesda is definitely not FARMS.

Exactly. You try to bus Whitman kids up north and the parents will either pull their kids for private or move into a house in the new Whitman boundaries. Meanwhile, the property values of Whitman houses no longer zoned there will decline drastically, and even though no one seems to care about that, Whitman’s property taxes fund more of the mcps budget than any other school cluster so yes the board is going to listen to those parents .

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Balanced how? Equal FARMS rate in each school? Same % or walkers in each school? Shortest and fewest bus rides? Same % utilization and class size in each school? Those are competing priorities.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also are schools losing federal funds due to reconfiguration? It’s not nice to think or talk about, but I know it matters for the budget and does take resources away from those schools.

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 think MCPS is at the end of an era and the sooner we all adjust to that, the better. I think once you accept that, it’s easier to adjust to what MCPS is going to do with the redistricting. Things are going to be very different in all the high schools. Except Whitman, maybe WJ and BCC.

Can you be clear here? What do you mean?

Anonymous wrote:I think MCPS is at the end of an era and the sooner we all adjust to that, the better. I think once you accept that, it’s easier to adjust to what MCPS is going to do with the redistricting. Things are going to be very different in all the high schools. Except Whitman, maybe WJ and BCC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

This is failure by leadership in county. County should never have such a high level of FARMS rate by encouraging more FARMS family to move in this area.

Sorry not all of us are as rich as you. Must be nice to have your privilege. You are right, the rest of us should leave. Will you do those jobs if low income workers if they all leave?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also are schools losing federal funds due to reconfiguration? It’s not nice to think or talk about, but I know it matters for the budget and does take resources away from those schools.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

This is failure by leadership in county. County should never have such a high level of FARMS rate by encouraging more FARMS family to move in this area.

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.