Anonymous wrote:
Well it was in response to my post. My point is that it is not helpful to inject animosity towards an entire group of people based solely on where they live by assuming they are heartless 1%ers who dislike poor people. There are a lot of people who live in the green zone who would be on your side on these issues but for being berated on the basis of unfair assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agreed. We don't know at what point the % of FARMS becomes counter-productive for low-income kids, but the report is completely correcting that housing policy is school policy.

The problem is that this is a feature, not a bug. Housing policy reflects the desire of people with money to live over here, as far as possible from the poor people over there. And part of the reason for that desire is schools.

I don't think it's fair to say that all people who live in the green zone chose to live there to get "as far as possible from the poor people." I'm sure there are some, but there are also a bunch like us who lived in DC in very mixed neighborhoods, and who hoped to get a better academic experience in MD. Would have been great to retain more diversity, while getting what we wanted in terms of things like walkability, commute time, and yes, the high performing schools, but we couldn't have it all. The fact of the matter is that MoCo is pretty segregated -- I get that I don't help matters by choosing a green zone school instead of living in the red zone (seriously never heard these terms before two weeks ago), but it is not a situation I created because I allegedly dislike poor people. FWIW, I'm not white, and our household income is quite modest. We were able to buy here only because we were lucky to own a house in DC that appreciated a ton. Yes, we are lucky, and perhaps even "privileged" in the scheme of things -- but I don't deserve the suggestion that I must despise the poor because of where I chose to live.

PP, in that case, it's not about you. And if it's not about you, it's not about you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens to the social imbalances? The county can allow/force people to move between school districts. But that doesn't change where you come from.

So for example, if you live in a DCC cluster and are not wealthy and end up in a W district, how do you address some of social/financial inequities? Does your child just learn to feel left out? Does the local PTA take responsibility for paying for things like prom tickets that your family might not be able to afford?

Conversely, what about the W child who now goes to a DCC school. For years the child dreamed of HS in a certain manner--a car to drive, a limo to prom, the most fashionable clothes. Her neighbors go to the local W school and have this lifestyle. It's what she was brought up with and what she expects. But now her reality is very different and she is teased and mocked for her fashionable clothes. Her prom is not a high end production as her friends have but rather a lower cost dance.

You win the prize for most ridiculous post *ever*!

I've seen some racist, mysogynistic, classist posts here, but this one takes the cake.

Anonymous wrote:What happens to the social imbalances? The county can allow/force people to move between school districts. But that doesn't change where you come from.

So for example, if you live in a DCC cluster and are not wealthy and end up in a W district, how do you address some of social/financial inequities? Does your child just learn to feel left out? Does the local PTA take responsibility for paying for things like prom tickets that your family might not be able to afford?

Conversely, what about the W child who now goes to a DCC school. For years the child dreamed of HS in a certain manner--a car to drive, a limo to prom, the most fashionable clothes. Her neighbors go to the local W school and have this lifestyle. It's what she was brought up with and what she expects. But now her reality is very different and she is teased and mocked for her fashionable clothes. Her prom is not a high end production as her friends have but rather a lower cost dance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. We can debate the point at which the %FARMS starts to become counterproductive, but what to do to make the theory into reality? On some other thread someone explained how school choice worked in another state -- the county published lists of schools with open slots and parents could apply for those spaces, but would need to reapply at the next stage (MS or HS) and were responsible for their own transportation. That's more or less the way that DC works, and those of us who had kids in DC and who lived through this process can attest to how chaotic it can be. We got into our first choice out of the block, and with sibling preferences, we were set for ES. But many people applied every year (and sometimes mid-year) to try to get into a school, drove their kids all over town in the meantime, and we all missed out on the concept of a neighborhood school, school friends you could visit on foot or by bike, and the simple pleasure of not spending 2 hours a day in transit. I can see where open enrollment can, on the margins, even out some places like the Cold Spring/Ritchie Park imbalance pointed out elsewhere, but it's no silver bullet for county-wide imbalances, especially in a county as big as Montgomery.

Agreed. We don't know at what point the % of FARMS becomes counter-productive for low-income kids, but the report is completely correcting that housing policy is school policy.

The problem is that this is a feature, not a bug. Housing policy reflects the desire of people with money to live over here, as far as possible from the poor people over there. And part of the reason for that desire is schools.

I don't think it's fair to say that all people who live in the green zone chose to live there to get "as far as possible from the poor people." I'm sure there are some, but there are also a bunch like us who lived in DC in very mixed neighborhoods, and who hoped to get a better academic experience in MD. Would have been great to retain more diversity, while getting what we wanted in terms of things like walkability, commute time, and yes, the high performing schools, but we couldn't have it all. The fact of the matter is that MoCo is pretty segregated -- I get that I don't help matters by choosing a green zone school instead of living in the red zone (seriously never heard these terms before two weeks ago), but it is not a situation I created because I allegedly dislike poor people. FWIW, I'm not white, and our household income is quite modest. We were able to buy here only because we were lucky to own a house in DC that appreciated a ton. Yes, we are lucky, and perhaps even "privileged" in the scheme of things -- but I don't deserve the suggestion that I must despise the poor because of where I chose to live.

Some of us here in Silver Spring have all of this. The schools may not be sufficiently high-performing for you, but they are for us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of a million reasons why busing isn't a great idea. Preserving a wealthier child's dream of taking a limo to prom, however, is not one of those reasons! It almost makes me want to say hell, maybe we should bus! I think the premise of the original post is that balanced demographics is something to aspire to. Personally, I just don't think busing is an effective or practical way to achieve that. Saying it will ruin a rich child's prom plans suggests a preference for segregation, right?

I agree. I would like to say that we should not stop at busing those kids. Their parents should be bused as well. In this way, those parents can feel the other side of the world. Moreover, we also should send our kids abroad at least to Mexico.

We did this with our church youth group, and let me tell you, it was an eye-opener for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can think of a million reasons why busing isn't a great idea. Preserving a wealthier child's dream of taking a limo to prom, however, is not one of those reasons! It almost makes me want to say hell, maybe we should bus! I think the premise of the original post is that balanced demographics is something to aspire to. Personally, I just don't think busing is an effective or practical way to achieve that. Saying it will ruin a rich child's prom plans suggests a preference for segregation, right?

I agree. I would like to say that we should not stop at busing those kids. Their parents should be bused as well. In this way, those parents can feel the other side of the world. Moreover, we also should send our kids abroad at least to Mexico.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. We can debate the point at which the %FARMS starts to become counterproductive, but what to do to make the theory into reality? On some other thread someone explained how school choice worked in another state -- the county published lists of schools with open slots and parents could apply for those spaces, but would need to reapply at the next stage (MS or HS) and were responsible for their own transportation. That's more or less the way that DC works, and those of us who had kids in DC and who lived through this process can attest to how chaotic it can be. We got into our first choice out of the block, and with sibling preferences, we were set for ES. But many people applied every year (and sometimes mid-year) to try to get into a school, drove their kids all over town in the meantime, and we all missed out on the concept of a neighborhood school, school friends you could visit on foot or by bike, and the simple pleasure of not spending 2 hours a day in transit. I can see where open enrollment can, on the margins, even out some places like the Cold Spring/Ritchie Park imbalance pointed out elsewhere, but it's no silver bullet for county-wide imbalances, especially in a county as big as Montgomery.

Agreed. We don't know at what point the % of FARMS becomes counter-productive for low-income kids, but the report is completely correcting that housing policy is school policy.

The problem is that this is a feature, not a bug. Housing policy reflects the desire of people with money to live over here, as far as possible from the poor people over there. And part of the reason for that desire is schools.

I don't think it's fair to say that all people who live in the green zone chose to live there to get "as far as possible from the poor people." I'm sure there are some, but there are also a bunch like us who lived in DC in very mixed neighborhoods, and who hoped to get a better academic experience in MD. Would have been great to retain more diversity, while getting what we wanted in terms of things like walkability, commute time, and yes, the high performing schools, but we couldn't have it all. The fact of the matter is that MoCo is pretty segregated -- I get that I don't help matters by choosing a green zone school instead of living in the red zone (seriously never heard these terms before two weeks ago), but it is not a situation I created because I allegedly dislike poor people. FWIW, I'm not white, and our household income is quite modest. We were able to buy here only because we were lucky to own a house in DC that appreciated a ton. Yes, we are lucky, and perhaps even "privileged" in the scheme of things -- but I don't deserve the suggestion that I must despise the poor because of where I chose to live.

Anonymous wrote:I can think of a million reasons why busing isn't a great idea. Preserving a wealthier child's dream of taking a limo to prom, however, is not one of those reasons! It almost makes me want to say hell, maybe we should bus! I think the premise of the original post is that balanced demographics is something to aspire to. Personally, I just don't think busing is an effective or practical way to achieve that. Saying it will ruin a rich child's prom plans suggests a preference for segregation, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agreed. We don't know at what point the % of FARMS becomes counter-productive for low-income kids, but the report is completely correcting that housing policy is school policy.

The problem is that this is a feature, not a bug. Housing policy reflects the desire of people with money to live over here, as far as possible from the poor people over there. And part of the reason for that desire is schools.

I don't think it's fair to say that all people who live in the green zone chose to live there to get "as far as possible from the poor people." I'm sure there are some, but there are also a bunch like us who lived in DC in very mixed neighborhoods, and who hoped to get a better academic experience in MD. Would have been great to retain more diversity, while getting what we wanted in terms of things like walkability, commute time, and yes, the high performing schools, but we couldn't have it all. The fact of the matter is that MoCo is pretty segregated -- I get that I don't help matters by choosing a green zone school instead of living in the red zone (seriously never heard these terms before two weeks ago), but it is not a situation I created because I allegedly dislike poor people. FWIW, I'm not white, and our household income is quite modest. We were able to buy here only because we were lucky to own a house in DC that appreciated a ton. Yes, we are lucky, and perhaps even "privileged" in the scheme of things -- but I don't deserve the suggestion that I must despise the poor because of where I chose to live.

Anonymous wrote:

Ok--how to propose to address a teenagers self-esteem? A huge part of HS is fitting in. How do you propose you help the kids fit in?