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:Farmland ES is proposed to go to Kennedy HS in option 3? It's SO far

And would remove Farmland from Tilden which is walking distance for most.

I thought they would keep students within walking zones. Makes no sense to move Farmland away from Tilden and Woodward for that matter. To Kennedy.

Anonymous wrote:Farmland ES is proposed to go to Kennedy HS in option 3? It's SO far

And would remove Farmland from Tilden which is walking distance for most.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary question here: if Woodward opens in Fall of 2027, which classes attend that fall? Is it freshman and sophomores? Or would juniors move as well?

And how are changes handled at the middle school level?

9th and 10th for high school, and 6th and 7th for middle school move, the rest stay at current school, subject to BoE approval.

And if I remember correctly from when Silver Creek opened, siblings will be split up? So my 2029 would stay at the current school, but the 2031 would move to the new one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like every single option except for #3 actually makes demographic disparities worse and benefits richer schools over poorer schools. And since the rich parents always seem to win in this county, I can't imagine we're actually going to get #3. This sucks.

Option 3 takes kids who currently live NEXT to Whitman and busses them to bcc. So no, you’re not going to get option 3. (And my kids don’t go there but it’s never going to happen).

Option 3 takes us from BCC (where kids can walk) to Blair. Not to mention puts kids into the middle school at Takoma Park.

Walking to B-CC is a good reason to oppose, but you can't complain about the commute to TPMS when two of the other options are commuting to Westland.

The traffic is a lot different going to TMPS from here than Westland! We are also currently zoned for Silver Creek, which is a very easy drive/bus ride. I'm not thrilled about the Westland switch -- especially because we were just pulled out of Westland a few years ago to open Silver Creek -- but I'm less horrified by that option than by going all the way up to Blair for HS. That is just not in our community. No easy public transportation option to get home. Can't imagine getting the kids from sports in the afternoon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot make heads or tails of these options. Clearly need to get to one of the boundary meetings cause it's hard to see the before and after of each option.

The interactive map is actually really helpful once you get the hang of it. You can put up the layer for current HS or MS boundaries and then toggle each of the new options on and off one by one. You can also click on any address and it will tell you the MS and HS for all 4 options: https://maulfoster.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=03a8d9fa2f3e4d30938bd4868af3d0cc

Ok. Thank you! This helped.

Option 3 has some wild consequences, particularly for Kennedy. How on earth would MCPS explain the logic of that boundary?

I think option 3 will be a dealbreaker because they can't afford the increased bus expenses.

We can only hope.

Can't ignore the expenses associated with failing to maximize facility utilization. Building out Edison won't be free. And Option 2 which does maximize utilization increases segregation.

Option 2 seems to be slightly better than Options 1 and 4 (and the current state) in terms of making FARMS rates more uniform. But honestly Option 3 doesn't do a great job at FARMS rates either, while also significantly increasing busing and making it impossible to walk to school for many kids that would otherwise be able to.

Under Option 2 FARMS rates basically stay the same except for Northwood and Einstein which kind of swap rates.

Right, so I wouldn't say that it increases segregation as some have said elsewhere, as it is not worse than the current state and Options 1 and 4. Option 3 is better, but not great, in that respect.

The person I was responding to said Option 2 is "slightly better" on making FARMS rates more uniform compared with Options 1 and 4 and with the current state. That is false. It is slightly worse than the current state. Option 3 is moderately better on demographics, but I am not sure if that is significant to result in actual academic or other gains for low income and Black and Brown students.

Anonymous wrote:Elementary question here: if Woodward opens in Fall of 2027, which classes attend that fall? Is it freshman and sophomores? Or would juniors move as well?

And how are changes handled at the middle school level?

9th and 10th for high school, and 6th and 7th for middle school move, the rest stay at current school, subject to BoE approval.

Elementary question here: if Woodward opens in Fall of 2027, which classes attend that fall? Is it freshman and sophomores? Or would juniors move as well?

And how are changes handled at the middle school level?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot make heads or tails of these options. Clearly need to get to one of the boundary meetings cause it's hard to see the before and after of each option.

The interactive map is actually really helpful once you get the hang of it. You can put up the layer for current HS or MS boundaries and then toggle each of the new options on and off one by one. You can also click on any address and it will tell you the MS and HS for all 4 options: https://maulfoster.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=03a8d9fa2f3e4d30938bd4868af3d0cc

Ok. Thank you! This helped.

Option 3 has some wild consequences, particularly for Kennedy. How on earth would MCPS explain the logic of that boundary?

I think option 3 will be a dealbreaker because they can't afford the increased bus expenses.

We can only hope.

Can't ignore the expenses associated with failing to maximize facility utilization. Building out Edison won't be free. And Option 2 which does maximize utilization increases segregation.

Option 2 seems to be slightly better than Options 1 and 4 (and the current state) in terms of making FARMS rates more uniform. But honestly Option 3 doesn't do a great job at FARMS rates either, while also significantly increasing busing and making it impossible to walk to school for many kids that would otherwise be able to.

Under Option 2 FARMS rates basically stay the same except for Northwood and Einstein which kind of swap rates.

Right, so I wouldn't say that it increases segregation as some have said elsewhere, as it is not worse than the current state and Options 1 and 4. Option 3 is better, but not great, in that respect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like every single option except for #3 actually makes demographic disparities worse and benefits richer schools over poorer schools. And since the rich parents always seem to win in this county, I can't imagine we're actually going to get #3. This sucks.

Option 3 takes kids who currently live NEXT to Whitman and busses them to bcc. So no, you’re not going to get option 3. (And my kids don’t go there but it’s never going to happen).

Option 3 takes us from BCC (where kids can walk) to Blair. Not to mention puts kids into the middle school at Takoma Park.

Walking to B-CC is a good reason to oppose, but you can't complain about the commute to TPMS when two of the other options are commuting to Westland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like every single option except for #3 actually makes demographic disparities worse and benefits richer schools over poorer schools. And since the rich parents always seem to win in this county, I can't imagine we're actually going to get #3. This sucks.

Option 3 takes kids who currently live NEXT to Whitman and busses them to bcc. So no, you’re not going to get option 3. (And my kids don’t go there but it’s never going to happen).

Option 3 takes us from BCC (where kids can walk) to Blair. Not to mention puts kids into the middle school at Takoma Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot make heads or tails of these options. Clearly need to get to one of the boundary meetings cause it's hard to see the before and after of each option.

The interactive map is actually really helpful once you get the hang of it. You can put up the layer for current HS or MS boundaries and then toggle each of the new options on and off one by one. You can also click on any address and it will tell you the MS and HS for all 4 options: https://maulfoster.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=03a8d9fa2f3e4d30938bd4868af3d0cc

Ok. Thank you! This helped.

Option 3 has some wild consequences, particularly for Kennedy. How on earth would MCPS explain the logic of that boundary?

I think option 3 will be a dealbreaker because they can't afford the increased bus expenses.

We can only hope.

Can't ignore the expenses associated with failing to maximize facility utilization. Building out Edison won't be free. And Option 2 which does maximize utilization increases segregation.

Option 2 seems to be slightly better than Options 1 and 4 (and the current state) in terms of making FARMS rates more uniform. But honestly Option 3 doesn't do a great job at FARMS rates either, while also significantly increasing busing and making it impossible to walk to school for many kids that would otherwise be able to.

Under Option 2 FARMS rates basically stay the same except for Northwood and Einstein which kind of swap rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot make heads or tails of these options. Clearly need to get to one of the boundary meetings cause it's hard to see the before and after of each option.

The interactive map is actually really helpful once you get the hang of it. You can put up the layer for current HS or MS boundaries and then toggle each of the new options on and off one by one. You can also click on any address and it will tell you the MS and HS for all 4 options: https://maulfoster.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=03a8d9fa2f3e4d30938bd4868af3d0cc

Ok. Thank you! This helped.

Option 3 has some wild consequences, particularly for Kennedy. How on earth would MCPS explain the logic of that boundary?

I think option 3 will be a dealbreaker because they can't afford the increased bus expenses.

We can only hope.

Can't ignore the expenses associated with failing to maximize facility utilization. Building out Edison won't be free. And Option 2 which does maximize utilization increases segregation.

Option 2 seems to be slightly better than Options 1 and 4 (and the current state) in terms of making FARMS rates more uniform. But honestly Option 3 doesn't do a great job at FARMS rates either, while also significantly increasing busing and making it impossible to walk to school for many kids that would otherwise be able to.

Neither option 1 nor option 4 use space efficiently. You can't "just" add another building. That takes a lot of time and money. And it's appalling to ask taxpayers to fund this given enrollment trends and the fact there is enough space in the current buildings for all the students. It's also incredibly disrespectful to the Latino community which comprises the majority of students at Wheaton.

Option 2 increases segregation. If they choose this, the BOE will be rightly called out for expending enormous amounts of time and energy talking about equity with regards to boundary studies, only for it all to be completely performative.

Option 3 will cause many people to lose their minds.

My guess is the BOE would rather underutilize schools and then screech for tax increases to pay for unnecessary new buildings than the other options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like every single option except for #3 actually makes demographic disparities worse and benefits richer schools over poorer schools. And since the rich parents always seem to win in this county, I can't imagine we're actually going to get #3. This sucks.

Option 3 takes kids who currently live NEXT to Whitman and busses them to bcc. So no, you’re not going to get option 3. (And my kids don’t go there but it’s never going to happen).

Lots of people that live NEXT to Blair get bussed to Northwood. People are not entitled to go to any specific public school. They get to go to public school. You take what you get and you don't get upset.

dp.. but that doesn't make sense, especially if they are in a walkzone.

It does make sense. Blair is very overcrowded. School space is limited. They have to distribute it somehow. The schools are not all perfectly distributed geographically.

Some of you really need to grow up.

+1 (DP) Yes, clearly this can and does happen already so I wouldn't count Option 3 out.

We're in a zone that remains Blair for all 4 options but I also like Option 3.