Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No but what I'm not okay with is if kids who are walking distance to Clarksburg HS are bussed to SVHS to fit the demographic profile that MCPS is trying to achieve. Again, not saying that that's what's going to happen but I wouldn't be surprised.

A whole lot of kids who live within walking distance to Clarksburg HS currently are driven to school. If they took a school bus to Seneca Valley HS instead, what's the down side?

I would be surprised to see walking-distance kids moved. There are plenty of Clarksburg-zoned kids now that are closer to SV than Clarksburg. Same for NW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Are you speaking as a low-income person yourself?

In school boundary debates, when affluent people say, "It's a hardship for low-income families to not live within walking distance to schools," that very often means, "I want the poor kids to go to the school over there that my kid doesn't go to." Just something to be aware of.

In last year's RMES#5 boundary study, low income families who lived near Twinbrook literally said it would be a hardship for them to get to College Gardens or Ritchie Park. They wanted to walk and keep their community support.

So you can stop playing the racist card now.

This was also true a couple years ago when they were talking about moving some kids from Gaithersburg Elementary to under-enrolled Wootton cluster elementary schools. The Gaithersburg parents fought for an addition to Gaithersburg instead of being bussed to Wootton cluster elementary schools arguing that it would be a hardship for them to get themselves and their children to the further away schools and that they wanted to continue to have access to the Gaithersburg Wellness Center and other resources at Gaithersburg ES. It has been a remarkably consistent position across multiple communities in the last few years of boundary studies/issues.

Anonymous wrote:

No but what I'm not okay with is if kids who are walking distance to Clarksburg HS are bussed to SVHS to fit the demographic profile that MCPS is trying to achieve. Again, not saying that that's what's going to happen but I wouldn't be surprised.

A whole lot of kids who live within walking distance to Clarksburg HS currently are driven to school. If they took a school bus to Seneca Valley HS instead, what's the down side?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi! (Waves)

Another Northwest parent concerned about redistricting used as a social experiment on our children in order for some MCPS BOE official to become a congress(wo)man based on marginal and meaningless improvement in achievement gap in Seneca Valley.

Yes, we will do our best to protest any gerrymandering ideas by the BOE. It may not help, but we will try. If it does not help, we'll move at a loss of property value. We did not raise our children to become stepping stones for someone's political agenda. We may not end up winning this fight, but neither will the BOE.

+1 except we're Clarksburg parents. We moved to Clarksburg for the community and the schools. Not going to be subjected to some social experiment but we'll see what happens.

So you're okay with expanding Clarksburg HS and eventually having something like 3000 kids attend? That seems reasonable to you?

No but what I'm not okay with is if kids who are walking distance to Clarksburg HS are bussed to SVHS to fit the demographic profile that MCPS is trying to achieve. Again, not saying that that's what's going to happen but I wouldn't be surprised.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Are you speaking as a low-income person yourself?

In school boundary debates, when affluent people say, "It's a hardship for low-income families to not live within walking distance to schools," that very often means, "I want the poor kids to go to the school over there that my kid doesn't go to." Just something to be aware of.

In last year's RMES#5 boundary study, low income families who lived near Twinbrook literally said it would be a hardship for them to get to College Gardens or Ritchie Park. They wanted to walk and keep their community support.

So you can stop playing the racist card now.

OK, so that's actually low-income people saying it, which is different from affluent people saying it, which was the point. And nobody said anything about race.

I am the ^^^PP who made that statement about the hardships for low income families living further away from school .. I grew up low income. I could walk to school starting from ES all the way to HS (I was also a latchkey kid). That allowed me to go to after school activities more easily, and my mother, who didn't drive, could pick me up if I got sick at school. When there were after school events, I could participate. If I didn't live within walking distance, none of this would've been possible.

PP here.. and I happen to be Asian American.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Are you speaking as a low-income person yourself?

In school boundary debates, when affluent people say, "It's a hardship for low-income families to not live within walking distance to schools," that very often means, "I want the poor kids to go to the school over there that my kid doesn't go to." Just something to be aware of.

In last year's RMES#5 boundary study, low income families who lived near Twinbrook literally said it would be a hardship for them to get to College Gardens or Ritchie Park. They wanted to walk and keep their community support.

So you can stop playing the racist card now.

OK, so that's actually low-income people saying it, which is different from affluent people saying it, which was the point. And nobody said anything about race.

I am the ^^^PP who made that statement about the hardships for low income families living further away from school .. I grew up low income. I could walk to school starting from ES all the way to HS (I was also a latchkey kid). That allowed me to go to after school activities more easily, and my mother, who didn't drive, could pick me up if I got sick at school. When there were after school events, I could participate. If I didn't live within walking distance, none of this would've been possible.

Anonymous wrote:For years we have been hearing rumors that Laytonsville, Brinklow, Sunshine, and up to the Howard County line were to be redisctured out of the Gaithersburg cluster and into Magruder or Sherwood.

Anyone have any firm info on this?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/unityarea.aspx

For years we have been hearing rumors that Laytonsville, Brinklow, Sunshine, and up to the Howard County line were to be redisctured out of the Gaithersburg cluster and into Magruder or Sherwood.

Anyone have any firm info on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Are you speaking as a low-income person yourself?

In school boundary debates, when affluent people say, "It's a hardship for low-income families to not live within walking distance to schools," that very often means, "I want the poor kids to go to the school over there that my kid doesn't go to." Just something to be aware of.

In last year's RMES#5 boundary study, low income families who lived near Twinbrook literally said it would be a hardship for them to get to College Gardens or Ritchie Park. They wanted to walk and keep their community support.

So you can stop playing the racist card now.

Twinbrook families also did not want their kids to lose the Title 1 services. Dear Mrs Smith.. Billy will no longer attend Twinbrook which he can walk to and has 15 kids in his class. We are offering him a fabulous opportunity to take a 20 minute bus ride to a class with 29 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Are you speaking as a low-income person yourself?

In school boundary debates, when affluent people say, "It's a hardship for low-income families to not live within walking distance to schools," that very often means, "I want the poor kids to go to the school over there that my kid doesn't go to." Just something to be aware of.

In last year's RMES#5 boundary study, low income families who lived near Twinbrook literally said it would be a hardship for them to get to College Gardens or Ritchie Park. They wanted to walk and keep their community support.

So you can stop playing the racist card now.

OK, so that's actually low-income people saying it, which is different from affluent people saying it, which was the point. And nobody said anything about race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Are you speaking as a low-income person yourself?

In school boundary debates, when affluent people say, "It's a hardship for low-income families to not live within walking distance to schools," that very often means, "I want the poor kids to go to the school over there that my kid doesn't go to." Just something to be aware of.

In last year's RMES#5 boundary study, low income families who lived near Twinbrook literally said it would be a hardship for them to get to College Gardens or Ritchie Park. They wanted to walk and keep their community support.

So you can stop playing the racist card now.

Anonymous wrote:
Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Are you speaking as a low-income person yourself?

In school boundary debates, when affluent people say, "It's a hardship for low-income families to not live within walking distance to schools," that very often means, "I want the poor kids to go to the school over there that my kid doesn't go to." Just something to be aware of.

Anonymous wrote:In Northern Montgomery County, there are a lot of affordable convenient options for K-8- Barnesville, Seneca Academy, Mary of Nazareth, Butler School. Unfortunately, there aren't any private HS'. My DC went to one of the schools listed above for K-8 but is now is a public school.

We are in upcounty MoCo and likely will send our daughter to one of the above schools. I actually think HS's are MCPS's strength, so unless they change drastically when DD gets to HS age, we feel comfortable sending her to public HS.

You're right that we're lucky to have more affordable private school options than downcounty (cue DCUM posters saying that's because we're poor).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi! (Waves)

Another Northwest parent concerned about redistricting used as a social experiment on our children in order for some MCPS BOE official to become a congress(wo)man based on marginal and meaningless improvement in achievement gap in Seneca Valley.

Yes, we will do our best to protest any gerrymandering ideas by the BOE. It may not help, but we will try. If it does not help, we'll move at a loss of property value. We did not raise our children to become stepping stones for someone's political agenda. We may not end up winning this fight, but neither will the BOE.

How is balancing numbers a social agenda? Both Clarksburg and Northwest are huge and overcapacity while Seneca Valley is smaller.

If the BOE chooses nearby neighborhoods, that is normal an expected. If they make islands and "fingers" to balance out diversity, community and commute times be damned, that is gerrymandering and social experimentation. The BOE just expanded the boundary study to include all middle schools, not just the adjacent ones as was originally proposed.

The BOE voted to prioritize diversity when remaking boundaries. If you want to call it gerrymandering by all means, but that's a matter of policy at this point.

And really, they barely did that. They simply used the word 'especially': "Options should especially strive to create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools...."
The other three factors are still there, just as they were before. They will still be taking geographic proximity into account, while especially striving to create that diverse student body.

prioritize... especially... semantecs really.

Why not "strive to keep proximity" rather than "striving for diversity"... because they put more importance on diversity over proximity.

Maybe diversity is more important than proximity. Which is not to say they should do county wide busing. The boundaries for NW, SV and Clarksburg can be re-drawn keeping proximity in mind.

Not arguing that it is or isn't just that clearly, MCPS is putting more importance on diversity than anything else. And it's not "barely".

People should also keep in mind that for low income families, not living within walking distance to schools would be a hardship for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi! (Waves)

Another Northwest parent concerned about redistricting used as a social experiment on our children in order for some MCPS BOE official to become a congress(wo)man based on marginal and meaningless improvement in achievement gap in Seneca Valley.

Yes, we will do our best to protest any gerrymandering ideas by the BOE. It may not help, but we will try. If it does not help, we'll move at a loss of property value. We did not raise our children to become stepping stones for someone's political agenda. We may not end up winning this fight, but neither will the BOE.

How is balancing numbers a social agenda? Both Clarksburg and Northwest are huge and overcapacity while Seneca Valley is smaller.

If the BOE chooses nearby neighborhoods, that is normal an expected. If they make islands and "fingers" to balance out diversity, community and commute times be damned, that is gerrymandering and social experimentation. The BOE just expanded the boundary study to include all middle schools, not just the adjacent ones as was originally proposed.

The BOE voted to prioritize diversity when remaking boundaries. If you want to call it gerrymandering by all means, but that's a matter of policy at this point.

And really, they barely did that. They simply used the word 'especially': "Options should especially strive to create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools...."
The other three factors are still there, just as they were before. They will still be taking geographic proximity into account, while especially striving to create that diverse student body.

prioritize... especially... semantecs really.

Why not "strive to keep proximity" rather than "striving for diversity"... because they put more importance on diversity over proximity.

Maybe diversity is more important than proximity. Which is not to say they should do county wide busing. The boundaries for NW, SV and Clarksburg can be re-drawn keeping proximity in mind.