This piece was originally published on November 19, 2019 on Medium and is being republished on the Let's Talk Maryland website.
The upcoming county-wide boundary analysis is one of the most controversial education-related events in recent memory within Montgomery County. Opponents on both sides of the issue have sparred at public hearings, community discussions, on social media, and within the comments sections of local news articles. For more information on the study itself, go ahead and check out this piece from Bethesda Magazine!
Just for anybody unaware, the perspective of this writer will be as a supporter of the boundary analysis. I have been an outspoken advocate in favor of changes to how MCPS views school boundaries, particularly as it relates to socioeconomic and racial diversity within our schools.
I moved to MCPS in 2013 after my family and I experienced homelessness in southern Maryland, the schools there also suffering from de-facto segregation but on a smaller scale. My experiences as a low-income student have influenced my beliefs and sparked my passion to fight for all students. During my six years in MCPS, I attended Lee and Argyle Middle Schools and graduated from Northwood High School.
After seeing that there were 84 pages of public comments on the boundary study, I decided to sit down and respond to major themes and ideas presented in most comments. Many comments were either duplicated or reflected similar ideas, so they will all be grouped under the same category.
We need to ensure that the debate around this policy is substantive, healthy, and includes counter-arguments that are grounded in the reality of what the boundary analysis is and isn’t. I’ve noticed far too many misconceptions are being made about what will happen after a boundary study is concluded, including that “our schools will suffer,” “we’ll need to buy more buses,” and that kids will suffer from longer commutes.
MCPS needs to address these concerns and be more clear about the facts of the study, but I’m glad to do so from my perspective as well.
Without further ado, let’s get into the concerns and my responses!
Major Concern One: Transportation, Commutes, & “Busing.”
By far, the most common response to any proposal to examine or change boundaries centers around transportation. This was by far the most prominent concern, with comments ranging from advocating against a long commute for students to the cost of purchasing additional buses to move students around the county.
Here is my response to concerns surrounding transportation:
Length of commute: As an advocate for the boundary study, I completely agree with the goal of limiting the commuting times of our students. The goals of the boundary study do not conflict with this, and will even allow this to happen. Allowing for more up to date boundaries has a high potential to even reduce commutes due to more accurate mapping. As Cara Jackson, a fantastic education researcher and a great follow on Twitter said, there are at least some boundaries that will both alleviate commutes AND diversify schools. MCPS staff should work to create the most efficient bus routes possible in the event of any boundary changes, which are not guaranteed as of now.
Purchasing of more school buses: There are no recommendations for boundaries as of yet, and it is not the goal of advocates for the boundary study or for the school board to purchase a lot of new buses due to changes to boundaries. In fact, that’s the absolute last thing that this writer wants, as I’ve frequently advocated for brand new electric buses to replace our diesel-fuel fleet. I don’t want more buses, I want more efficient buses. In short: there’s no basis for the claim that MCPS will have to spend millions of tax-payer dollars on new buses because the funding isn’t available, there are no boundary recommendations yet, and absolutely nobody is advocating for this.
“Busing students across the county:” Let me absolutely clear. Not a single advocate for ending de-facto segregation or even alleviating overcrowding is suggesting to transport students across the county in the form of 1970s-era busing. Not only would this be a massive waste of resources, but it’s not what the boundary analysis is doing. The analysis is looking at how each school can be used more effectively and be more diverse, all while using other MCPS factors such as geography. Students aren’t going to be moved from Poolesville to Silver Spring, nor are students from Bethesda going to be moved to Gaithersburg. Many schools that are overcrowded are very close in proximity, as shown by this helpful map. Changes can be made without arbitrary busing of students across the county, and that’s what the analysis will focus on. The potential changing of boundaries is not the same thing as court-mandated busing that did not succeed in integrating schools. The boundary analysis has involved several opportunities for public comments, many hearings, and debate among a democratically elected body.
Major Concern Two: The Study Itself
Another concern had to do with the study itself, including the cost of the analysis and whether or not it was necessary. I believe that this stems from a lack of communication from the school system about the procurement process as a whole and the choices that they made for this study. I’m very happy with the decisions MCPS made surrounding the scope and cost of the study, and will explain why below:
Cost: The study is literally capped at $475,000, which as far as I’m aware is the first time MCPS has put a price limit on a study of this magnitude. MCPS has a budget of $2.68 billion, meaning the study is 0.01772% of the budget, or… basically pennies in comparison. MCPS has taken unprecedented steps to prevent the study from costing too much. The study will potentially save the school system money if it is able to alleviate overcrowding from schools. These savings will result from not needing to build brand new schools, which cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
Necessity: As stated above, the analysis could potentially save MCPS millions of dollars in otherwise necessary construction costs. The boundaries that MCPS uses are insanely outdated, with many being untouched for my entire lifespan (18 years young!) or even longer. This results in problems ranging from overcrowding to de-facto segregation of students. High concentrations of poverty harm all students and should be avoided at all costs, which only a boundary analysis of this magnitude can accomplish. This analysis is more than necessary, it’s been overdue for many years now.
Major Concern Three: Home Values & Consistency
I have to be honest, my mom and I have never owned or lived in a home. Thus, I don’t know what it’s like to be concerned about the value of a home to the extent of many commenting on the boundary analysis. However, I know what research tells me, and I know what the right thing to do for our students is. We have to complete a comprehensive boundary analysis that ensures our students won’t attend de-facto segregated and/or overcrowded schools, regardless of any positive or negative impact it will have on property values. Systemically created inequities within our schools will have a far greater impact on our future generations than many realize.
Home Values: People still want to live in Montgomery County, at least as far as I know. My family and I moved here to seek greater opportunities when I was in 7th grade, those opportunities being the schools and jobs. Those are both still present in this county 6 years later, and will not disappear if any boundaries are changed. High-value neighborhoods will still be sought after and housing will remain a lucrative commodity throughout the entire county. All MCPS schools will remain great places to learn, drawing families from across the state and the nation to come and enjoy what we have to offer. They’ll just be more diverse and less overcrowded! Let’s worry about the future of our students.
Consistency: Many have claimed that shifting boundaries will be detrimental to the social and emotional well-being of students, including losing friendships, lower grades, and having to become acclimated with a brand new school. This sounds awfully familiar to me, as my family and I have moved a grand total of nine times and I’ve attended two elementary schools and three middle schools. This is a rare and obviously a worse-case scenario for any student, yet I graduated high school and I’m now a freshman at American University currently standing with a ~3.8 GPA. My social and emotional well-being are in-tact (as far as I’m aware), and I was able to keep in touch with old friends and make new ones. We should promote community schools where possible, but in the event a child is asked to change schools, THEY WILL BE FINE. MCPS should make every effort to support students wherever they end up, especially if boundary changes are made and students move to different schools.
Conclusion
I believe, and I hope that I’ve demonstrated, that the boundary analysis will be incredibly resourceful for Montgomery County. It’s unfortunate that many falsehoods were spread at an early stage, including about busing and about the structure of the boundary study itself. Regardless, the boundary study will allow MCPS to make better decisions with the resources we already have.
These decisions will include reducing high concentrations of poverty, and reducing the overcrowding of many of our schools. These goals do not conflict with reducing commutes, creating community schools, and ensuring that all of our students succeed.
There may be changes to boundaries and there may not be. Either way, all of us need to fight for the boundaries and vision for MCPS that we believe in. I believe in a vision where all students everywhere, regardless of where they live, what they look like and how much money they make are able to succeed in our schools. That means we need to eliminate any resemblance of de-facto segregation within our schools and prevent our students from studying in crowded classrooms.