Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

PP, they have been. You just couldn't hear it over all of the hollering about "FORCED BUSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watch the videos! The "experts" are not looking too confident. lol

https://www.mymcmedia.org/boundary-study-meeting-gets-heated/?fbclid=IwAR1g4D1-_tE1ZhDX5smSD0QqRaga5vZxoGXshIouMsOaQK4vqUa7M2JpQoA

? You wouldn't either if you had an angry mob heckling you.

Hey - as project leads, you need to prepare for that reaction. They didn't do their research. Know your audience! No one EVER guarantees you'll face a respectful audience.

Prepare for the worst.

So, I guess they should've had armed guards to prepare for the worst? Oh, wait... now that we know how crazy some people are getting about this, BoE have brought in MoCo police and security to attend these meetings. Who would've thought.... staid, liberal MoCo needed mob control.

I live in the RM cluster, and it's really shameful how some of these parents are behaving. I see it on Nextdoor, too.

I'm also a project lead, and people may not like what I have to say and where the project is leading, but no one has ever cursed or yelled at me, ever, in the 20 years I've been working in this capacity.

Well, no clue what area you're in . . . But with hot topics like education, be prepared for the worst. I've been in education for almost half of my life. I've trained, facilitated, and presented. I can honestly say that while most audiences were civil, there were a few instances where people pushed back. However, we anticipated obstacles and worked with them. The key is transparency from the start.

Those dodos weren't honest with their goals from the start.

Look - MCPS has an agenda. I'm sure the consultants were aware of this agenda - or the system's "possible" plans. But they never shared ALL avenues with stakeholders. Controversial topics 1) cannot remain hidden and 2) must be worked into any presentation or training.

We are taxpayers who are owed answers. We may not all like the truth, but at least it's out there.

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has had recent significant growth, while use of facilities is uneven. Some schools are overcrowded and some underutilized. The district hired a consultant to review all current boundaries with an eye to how they affect overcrowding, diversity, and students’ proximity to their schools. The consultants will not recommend any boundary changes and the county will not make any boundary changes during this initial process.

Parents on DCUM and Facebook groups have spread the rumor that children will be bussed far from home in order to balance out school demographics, and that their home values will suffer as a result. MCPS has specifically responded that they are only looking at schools and clusters adjacent to one another and have no intention of bussing students across the county.[/quote]

PP, can you point to the actual statement where they said this? If so, I think that should quell some (but certainly not all) of the concerns.

From the email we all received the other day:

“A Focus on Adjacency: We have received messages from some community members who have heard rumors that the districtwide boundary analysis will result in a “busing plan” that will reassign students from one end of the county to the other to address issues of overcrowding and diverse learning environments. First, as stated above, the analysis will not result in any specific recommendations for student reassignments. Second, as the Board’s resolution references and the consultant will show, at the regional meetings, schools and school clusters adjacent to one another across the county can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity. Finally, MCPS has and will continue to maximize walkers, in no small part, because it is economically efficient. However, there always will be a need for some students to ride buses to school. Currently, the majority of our student body (more than 100,000 students) is eligible to ride a school bus every day.”

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has had recent significant growth, while use of facilities is uneven. Some schools are overcrowded and some underutilized. The district hired a consultant to review all current boundaries with an eye to how they affect overcrowding, diversity, and students’ proximity to their schools. The consultants will not recommend any boundary changes and the county will not make any boundary changes during this initial process.

Parents on DCUM and Facebook groups have spread the rumor that children will be bussed far from home in order to balance out school demographics, and that their home values will suffer as a result. MCPS has specifically responded that they are only looking at schools and clusters adjacent to one another and have no intention of bussing students across the county.[/quote]

PP, can you point to the actual statement where they said this? If so, I think that should quell some (but certainly not all) of the concerns.

From the email we all received the other day:

“A Focus on Adjacency: We have received messages from some community members who have heard rumors that the districtwide boundary analysis will result in a “busing plan” that will reassign students from one end of the county to the other to address issues of overcrowding and diverse learning environments. First, as stated above, the analysis will not result in any specific recommendations for student reassignments. Second, as the Board’s resolution references and the consultant will show, at the regional meetings, schools and school clusters adjacent to one another across the county can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity. Finally, MCPS has and will continue to maximize walkers, in no small part, because it is economically efficient. However, there always will be a need for some students to ride buses to school. Currently, the majority of our student body (more than 100,000 students) is eligible to ride a school bus every day.”

Thanks, PP. I agree there is some language in here that seems to suggest no widespread busing -- "a focus on adjacency"; "clusters adjacent to one another....can have significantly different levels of utilization and student diversity"; and "will continue to maximize walkers". But we live in the Washington area. I think we can all recognize an answer that seems to answer a question, but actually doesn't. There's enough wiggle room in that long paragraph to allow for some pretty significant busing if the BOE wants to do that, for diversity reasons or facilities use, etc. If school district officials really are not interested in busing kids very long distances (i.e., more than just to and from schools in what currently are adjacent clusters), they should come out and say so directly and definitively. That would be welcome, and helpful.