Sayers, Margery From: E Kato Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 8:52 PM To: CouncilMail Cc: E Kato Subject: Support for CR112-2019 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear County Council, I am writing in support of CR112-2019 and to thank Representatives Rigby, Jones, and Jung for their courage in putting it forward. I have lived in Columbia for 19 years, one of my children goes to OMHS and the other graduated from OMHS and just started college in Boston this fall. My kids have had a terrific education and I would not want them to have gone anywhere else, but the growing segregation among Howard County schools has been deeply disturbing to watch and I fear is hurting our community. Kids watch and listen to what adults say, and when adults openly label some schools as desirable and others undesirable based on race and income, kids talk about ghetto schools and use racial and ethnic slurs. We decided long ago as a country that it was not possible for institutions to be both separate and equal, so how can we countenance it in Howard County? I fully understand and agree that minimizing distance traveled and keeping natural communities together are important criteria and that any attempt to reduce segregation needs to be balanced against those two considerations. But surely we can do better than the current districting arrangement. Dr. Kohn's analysis suggests that we are currently "busing" kids to enforce segregation so there should be room to increase integration and reduce travel time. At the very least, improving socioeconomic equity should be one of the goals of any redistricting plan. I am frankly shocked that CR1122019 should be controversial. Perhaps it would help if the BOE initiated a community process to build agreement on the parameters of an acceptable plan (travel time should not increase by more than X minutes on average or more than y minutes for any child; FARM concentration should decrease by at least z%, etc.) before publishing actual plans. Then people might be more accepting of the final plan when it is unveiled. Sincerely, Elisabeth Kato 7335 Carved Stone Columbia, MD 21045 (410)290-9995 Sayers, Margery From: Tim & Deb Lattimer Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 8:47 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Equity in redistricting [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Please record our support for CR112-2019. Thank you, Tim & Debi Lattimer Sayers, Margery From: J McCoy Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 7:11 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Support CR 112 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] I absolutely support the effort to the resolution to desegregate of the Howard County Public School System but there needs to be desegregation of the county in general. The zoning and planning board has created the segregation that currently exist in Howard County. By limiting the kinds of housing in the west to large single-family dwellings or high-end multiple family dwellings (with very few rental or affordable home ownership options)and relegating the east side to concentrated affordable multiple family and single family dwellings are major reasons for the segregation of Howard County. It is a reality that the history of Howard County lies in its beginning which was a slaveholding County with many of the current communities named after enslavers. To require the schools to desegregate and not require changes in zoning and planning will be ineffective over time. Builders highly influencing the kinds of development, real estate agencies steering people to certain communities, and bankers discriminating against certain potential home buyers all have to be addressed. There is a need for change in how the county zones properties and directs development. Just as CR112 called for desegregation of the education system, there needs to be a resolution regarding county zoning and planning that has caused much of the housing segregation in the county. There is an urgent need for racial equity community conferencing to prepare the citizens for the necessary changes needed to create a just and equitable county. Thank you, Jacky McCoy District 2 (Kendall Ridge) Sayers, Margery From: Jeri Lipov Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 6:32 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Supporter 112 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] I have long watched our howard County become just another suburb instead of following the lead established when Columbia was built. Ideals went by the wayside, especially integration and especially economic integration. We have done wrong by poor children and single parent homes for too long. Please continue to implement the redistributing plan that was proposed. Sayers, Margery From: Cynthia Williams Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 5:28 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: I support CR112-2019 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Sayers, Margery From: tammy spengler Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 5:21 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: CR112-2019 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Council Resolution 112 - 2019: Please pass council resolution 112! I moved to Howard County in 1996 because of the values stated in Rouse's vision. I wanted to live in a welcoming community to people of all races, religions, sexual orientation, citizenship status, etc. I wanted my sons, who are white, to learn that they could be friends with children from different backgrounds and see their humanity instead of a stereotype. Since I moved here I have witnessed our county becoming increasing segregated by race and income and with that segregation I have also heard an increase in stereotypes and hate speech. I have been deeply saddened by the racist rhetoric coming from much of the opposition to school redistricting and feel sorry for those who feel that fear and hatred. Over the past 15 years we have segregated our county by income and race via our development plans and our past redistricting plans. Rouse's vision has now become a distant dream that people like to claim, but not actualize. I am so proud to be an Oakland Mills resident and so grateful that my sons have benefited from growing up in an integrated neighborhood and school. More than any other educational takeaway, they have learned that people from other races, religions, and economic backgrounds are all human beings with worries and concerns just like they have. It is time for Howard County to live by the values we like to say we believe in. We should ensure that all schools have the resources and support that would make us proud to send our children to that school. How have we have made it acceptable in our minds that this inequality should exist? Thank you for your leadership on this issue. Tammy J. Spengler Columbia, MD Sayers, Margery From: Jones, Opel Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 4:39 PM To: LINDA Wengel; CouncilMail Cc: Ball, Calvin B Subject: Re: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HOWARD COUNTY SUPPORT FOR CR-112 Linda, This is amazing news; thank you and The League for your support! -OpelJones From: LINDA Wengel Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 4:28:10 PM To: CouncilMail Cc: Ball, Calvin B Subject: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HOWARD COUNTY SUPPORT FOR CR-112 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] The Board of Directors of the Howard County League of Voters, voted to support CR-112 at its monthly meeting on September 5, 2019. Our support concurs with a LWVUS position supporting federal efforts to help communities bring about racial integration of their school systems. The League recognizes that demographic changes, zoning laws and housing patterns in Howard County have created great socioeconomic disparities in school populations resulting in significant achievement gaps among lower income students. There is considerable evidence that student achievement improves in integrated classrooms. The League believes that CR -112's call for the Howard County Public School System to develop a plan to integrate its schools comes at an appropriate time and urges its passage by the Council and the County Executive. Linda Wengel LWVHC Action Chair Sayers, Margery From: LINDA Wengel Sent: Sunday, September 8, 201 9 4:28 PM To: CouncilMail Cc: Ball, Calvin B Subject: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF HOWARD COUNTY SUPPORT FOR CR-112 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] The Board of Directors of the Howard County League of Voters, voted to support CR-112 at its monthly meeting on September 5, 2019. Our support concurs with a LWVUS position supporting federal efforts to help communities bring about racial integration of their school systems. The League recognizes that demographic changes, zoning laws and housing patterns in Howard County have created great socioeconomic disparities in school populations resulting in significant achievement gaps among lower income students. There is considerable evidence that student achievement improves in integrated classrooms. The League believes that CR -112's call for the Howard County Public School System to develop a plan to integrate its schools comes at an appropriate time and urges its passage by the Council and the County Executive. Linda Wengel LWVHC Action Chair Sayers, Margery From: Bip Pal Sent: Sunday, September 8, 201 9 4:09 PM To: redistricting@hpcss.org Cc: CouncilMail; paramita duttaray Subject: Opposing Redistricting ( Resolution 112) [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] DearSir/Madam We are parent of two kids, one of them is going to Howard County School System and another one will go from next year. We are deeply distressed at the proposed social engineering in the name of displacing many students and the idea of moving them to different schools for the fanciful political ideology. Howard County Schools are doing better because of the dedication of teachers and parent volunteers. If some schools in relatively lower income area are doing not so well , they can always be given remedial resources. But please stop this kind of politics over people because some politicians want to add to his/her CV that she/he has done so much for progressive cause. If administration goes ahead with this, we will be forced to campaign against the present leadership along with thousands of other distressed parents who share equal anger and frustration against a senseless insane political leadership who are placing their progressive political career ahead of wellbeing and hardship of the children. Yours sincerely Biplab Pal Paramita Duttaray Sayers, Margery From: Audrey Fernandes Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 1:50 PM To: Rigby, Christiana Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jung, Deb; Walsh, Elizabeth; Jones, Opel; CouncilMail; redistricting@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmontsmall@hcpss.org; jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org Subject: Re: audrey has sent you - Here' s what you should know about ' student churn,' and how it affects your kids - from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Attachments: EC Mobility Research Memo - Meeting 5 (June 2016).pdf; Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout; The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear Councilwoman Rigby, Thank you for your prompt response regarding the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on student mobility. You are absolutely correct that this article does not specifically address the effect of "school redistricting" on "student mobility". In the second email I sent to you, members of the county council, county executive Ball and the Board of Execution Members references the article " Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout, Russell W. Rumberger and Katherine A. Larson, American Journal of Education, Vol. 107, No. 1 (Nov., 1998), pp. 1-35 (35 pages), Published by: The University of Chicago Press" which clearly underscores that schools can indirectly adversely affect "student mobility" when dealing with overcrowding and redistricting. Everyone understands the need for addressing overcrowding and balancing capacity in a school system. The superintendent's proposal however is no longer prioritizing overcrowding and balancing capacity in our school system. The plan has been morphed from his original Option #1 and Option #2 proposals into a massive "student mobility" based on "spreading out" FARM numbers. For those of you who have may not be familiar with the phenomenon of "student mobility" or have not had a chance to reference the above article: it is "one of the most definitive studies of this phenomenon published in 1998 in the American Journal of Education. Researchers analyzed data from 13,000 eighth graders, and concluded that "measures of social and academic engagement, such as low grades, misbehavior, and high absenteeism, predicted both whether students changed schools or dropped out," and that students who switched schools even once between eighth and twelfth grade were "twice as likely to not complete high school." Please see additional attached articles further referencing student mobility and its effects on children. If you take a look at the specific student populations at the highest risk for "student mobility" (young children, students from low-income families experiencing poverty and/or homelessness, students in the foster care system, students whose parents are serving in the military, and students whose parents are migrant workers ie. illegal residents) in these research articles, these are population of kids being targeted by Superintendents proposal. These are FARM children. These are the same kids who are now being targeted in the superintendents massive "student mobility" proposal. Sadly, not only will FARM children be affected by the massive "student mobility" proposal by Superintendent Martirano but also non-FARM children. "A 2014 report by the State of Georgia concluded that "high churn in schools not only can hurt the students who leave, but also those who remain enrolled." This surprisinci report analyzed the percentage of students who switched schools more than once between eighth and twelfth grade, and found that districts with more student mobility also had lower high school graduation rates—suggesting that an entire district may be dragged down by high student mobility." "Yet schools and districts can help reduce the incidence of needless mobility and help to mitigate its potentially damaging effects. School reform efforts can help reduce mobility by making schools more attractive to students and parents. With increasing pressure on schools to adopt reforms and raise test scores, addressing the issue of mobility may not seem a high priority for schools. But failing to do so could easily undermine those efforts as well as hurt the students and families the schools are charged to serve." "Schools that create a better academic and social climate should be able to improve student affiliation and engagement and therefore reduce student attrition and dropout. A recent study shows, for example, wide- spread differences in attrition rates among high schools even controlling for differences in student demographics and family background, further supporting the idea that schools influence whether students remain in school or leave prior to completion (Rumberger and Thomas 1995)." If equity is the true goal, we must move away from cosmetic fixes that massage percentage numbers. Moving thousands of children around the county to adjust FARM percentages does little to help individual students and families and will likely be to their detriment. Moving thousands of children will only exacerbate instead of mitigate the phenomenon of "student mobility". If we are serious about treating equity as the important moral issue that it is, our efforts have to be focused on our budgeting process. Equity does not imply equality of resource distribution. Rather than promoting "student mobility" by wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on transportation costs, those monies should be spent on supporting those schools in need of crucial programs. Take for example PTA president of Wilde Lake High School Linda Leslie who has expressed the need for "more cash to fund everything from sports activities to after-school programs" in a recent Baltimore Sun article ("In Howard County, a 'courageous ' plan to redraw boundaries tests community's commitment to diversity", Septembers, 2019, 10:48 AM). Clearly the Superintendent does not have the welfare of our children as his priority by proposing such a massive unnecessary disruption to so many families in Howard County. Furthermore, the County Council clearly has no regard for the well-being of our children and should no longer overstep its political boundaries on our Howard County Public School System with its CR112-2019 policy (a resolution requesting the Howard County Public School System to draft, approve, and implement a lawful multi-year Integration Plan to ensure that Howard County Public Schools are integrated by socioeconomic factors). Clearly given our voices are not being heard by the Superintendent and County Council, I am prayerful and hopeful our Board of Education members have the commonsense, integrity and concern for our children to make the right decision on November 21, 2019 and vote against the detrimental effects of the Superintendents proposal. Sincerely, Audrey Fernandes On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:33 PM Rigby, Christiana wrote: Hi Audrey, Student mobility-as defined in the information you sent-is not related to planned cohort redistricting. If you look at the section "what causes student turnover" you'll see that it does not include redistricting as part of its definition. As a mom, and a former hcpss who personally experienced redistricting while in 7th grade, I can assure I take this very seriously. While there are concerns for any change I don't want people to conflate the very real issues surrounding student mobility (eviction, poverty, etc) with balancing capacity in a school system. Christiana Get Outlook for iOS From: Audrey Fernandes Sent: Saturday, September?, 2019 11:01:21 AM To: Ball, Calvin ; Rigby, Christiana ; Jung, Deb ; Walsh, Elizabeth ; Jones, Opel ; CouncilMail ; redistricting@hcpss.org ; sabina taj@hcpss.org ; mavis ellis@hcpss.org ; kirsten coombs@hcpss.org ; vicky cutroneo@hcpss.org ; Christina delmont-small@hcpss.orB ; Jennifer mallo@hcpss.org ; chao wu@hcpss.org Subject: Fwd: audrey has sent you - Here' s what you should know about ' student churn,' and how it affects your kids - from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] What is your data to support that redistricting will be beneficial to the kids and parents of Howard County? Please see outcomes in Milwaukee. Are you looking to increase high school drop outs and lower scores? Please DO NO HARM to our kids. Check out this story on isonline.com: https://www.isonline.com/story/news/education/2018/12/28/what-studentmobilitv-how-do-school-transfers-affect-kids/2422730002/ Here's what you should know about 'student churn,' and how it affects your kids Erin_Richai:ds, Milwaukee Journal SentinelPublished 11:03 a.m. CT Dec. 28, 2018 CLOSE 1st -gBuy Photo (Photo: Angela Peterson/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMWIENTEMAILMORE The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel spent a year reporting on how and why students in Milwaukee transfer in and out of schools so frequently — and how the under-explored phenomenon contributes to a cycle of low performance. Here are the most important things to know about student churn, which is also known as turnover, transience or mobility. RELATED: 'I don't want the kids to stay here and get stuck like me.' What is student turnover? It's what happens when students change schools for reasons other than getting promoted to the next grade in a new building. Researchers call it "student mobility." How does student turnover happen? Turnover happens in the middle of the year when students enroll in a school late or withdraw early. It can also happen in the summertime, when a child enters a new school. A "mobile student" might attend two schools in one year, or attend a new elementary school for three years in a row. What's the impact of student turnover? Switching schools frequently is associated with lower reading and math achievement, more behavioral problems, lower school engagement and higher dropout rates. In Milwaukee, one in four publicly funded students switch schools every year for reasons other than getting promoted to the next grade, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of state data found. On average, students who switched between public schools and voucher schools or voucher and public schools had lower math scores a year later, according to an analysis by the University ofWisconsin-Oshkosh. What causes student turnover? A range of conditions inside schools, communities and families cause children to enter and leave schools. Sometimes children enroll late or withdraw before the end of the year because their families move. Poverty, joblessness, evictions, a lack of transportation and homelessness can all cause children to be transient. Often parents move their children to new schools because they're seeking something different or escaping something they don't like. My kid has stayed in the same school. Do I need to worry? Probably not as long as most other students are returning every year and advancing. Stable students can suffer, however, if they attend schools where a lot of their peers are moving around. Classrooms 4 with a lot of churn operate up to a full year behind classrooms where most students stay, research shows. And if churn isn't happening in your school, it's important to understand that low performing schools may be doing quite well with children who stick around — but that progress might be overshadowed by the low scores of children who move. What's considered high turnover? In most states that track the data, about 10 percent of students switch schools in unplanned ways. Related: Only these states track and report fiflures on student turnover 3— Tracking student turnover interactive map. (Photo: Interactive by Erin Caughey) How often do most kids move? If you count normal transitions, 70 percent of students switch schools once or twice before high school, according to the same government study. About 13 percent of kids nationwide switched schools four or more times before high school, which makes them a small but concerning minority. Does it matter when you switch schools? Data shows switching schools frequently in elementary schools and later in high school can increase the risk of dropping out. In Milwaukee, students who attended just one high school vs. two or three high schools had graduation rates of 74 percent, 50 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Overall, about 62 percent of MPS students graduate on time. RELATED: 5 ways to reduce student turnover right now What about military kids? They switch schools and seem to thrive. Actually, more attention is being paid to the specific academic needs of transient, military-connected youth. But those youth usually have built-in social supports such as two-parent households, a steady family income and college-educated parents. Those factors can insulate them from the most harmful effects of churn: low test scores and low graduation rates. So is student turnover responsible for low achievement? Or is poverty the real culprit? Low-income students are more than three times as likely to switch schools as their more advantaged peers, so researchers have a hard time separating the academic impact of school-switching from the academic impact of poverty. But models run by the University ofWisconsin-Oshkosh on data obtained by the university and the Journal Sentinel control for those factors and find that on average, students who switched schools in Milwaukee had lower math scores in the year after they switched. The same finding applied to students who switched between virtual and brick-and-mortar schools. Is there any benefit to student mobility? Yes. Most people applaud when a child moves from a low-performing school to a higher-performing school, or when a child's parent finds a school that's a better fit, or when a parent or guardian gets a better-paying job and has to move to a better neighborhood. The transition can still be bumpy. But the biggest problem in Milwaukee and other low-income areas is that rampant school-switching is often happening among the children who are already disadvantaged, and they're often cycling between the lowest-performing schools. The result: None of those schools or students get ahead. How do you calculate turnover? In a lot of different ways — that's why it's hard to compare different cities and states. One popular method is to calculate the percentage of children in a school or class who enroll late or withdraw early. Or you can look at how many students return to the school from one fall to the next, minus the children who should have graduated. Capturing all mid-year moves and summer moves requires following individual students year after year — that's what the Journal Sentinel and UW-Oshkosh tried to do in their analyses. What can we do to reduce turnover? Reducing rampant school switching requires a coordinated effort on behalf of school districts, teachers, the community and other government agencies to address the myriad needs of disadvantaged families. But in the meantime, people could Invest in nonprofits that help families get into stable homes and that work one-on-one with families to make good decisions about schools. Other potential solutions include creating a centralized management system or enrollment system for disparate schools that would make sure student records transfer quickly. People may also consider urging the school district to reduce the number of times it transfers students involuntarily because of discipline-related incidents. EducationCounsel Policy Strategy i Law ! Advocacy To: Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education From: EducationCounsel Subject: Research Scan on the Impact of Student Mobility on Student and School Outcomes Date: June 21, 2016 To help inform the discussions and deliberations of the Cross-Sector Collaboration Task Force,this memorandum provides our review of existing research on the impact of student mobility on student outcomes (pp. 2-7) and on broader district/school performance (pp. 7-8). The Appendix includes a sampling of mobility rates from urban districts across the country (including notes about each state's calculation methods). Please note that this review was not comprehensive and does not include all research that could be relevant to the Task Force's discussions. We aimed instead to provide a sampling of leading studies on mobility to provide a baseline of information. We may do additional research based on specific needs of the Task Force, if requested. Based on this review, we see several potential takeaways for the Task Force: • Student mobility is a complex issue with a variety of causes and contributing factors, including student mobility due to voluntary (e.g., moving homes ) or involuntary factors (e.g., eviction). • Mobility is common. A national study found that a majority of students in the U.S. make at least one nonpromotional school change during elementary school with a sizeable minority making at least two changes. And a study of elementary schools in Chicago Public Schools found that only 50 percent of students remain enrolled over a three-year period in the typical Chicago elementary school. (Both studies are detailed later in this memorandum.) • Mobility can have an independent impact on student achievement and on overall school/district performance, even in the presence of other factors. • There is a particularly large body of evidence that examines the impact of mobility on studentlevel experiences and outcomes. As a result, we know that mobility appears to affect some student populations differently than others, especially those that may have fewer supports. o Young children, students experiencing homelessness, students in the foster care system, and students whose parents are migrant workers have been shown to have experienced especially negative effects as mobility tended to exacerbate other challenges. o Studies also showed that certain grade spans - Pre-K and early elementary, grades 4 through 8, and grades 11 and 12 - may be especially challenging times for students to move, particularly if the move occurs during the school year. o At least one study found that negative educational outcomes are more likely for intradistrict moves rather than moves between districts. o At the same time, another population of students with high mobility rates - students from military families - has regularly outperformed national averages on NAEP. • A smaller body of evidence also suggests that mobility can impact schools and districts as well. Studies have concluded mobility can impact class pacing, school disciplinary issues, and parent engagement. As a result, this can lead to diminished overall student performance, reduced teacher and staff morale, and increased teacher dissatisfaction. • Research has shown that schools and districts can reduce the impact of mobility through welldesigned engagement and intervention strategies. EducationCounsel Policy Strategy ; Law ! Advocacy Impact of Student Mobility on Student Outcomes This section reviews studies that found a connection between student mobility and student outcomes generally, followed by studies that examined the experiences of specific student populations (young children, students experiencing homelessness, students in the foster care system, students whose parents are serving in the military, and students whose parents are migrant workers). Studies are listed in alphabetical order by the lead author's last name. The following studies have found some connections between student mobility and student outcomes generally: • Eric Hanushek, John Kain, and Steven Rivkin, Disruption versus Tiebout Improvement: The Costs and Benefits of Switching Schools (2004) o This study found that the negative relations between school mobility and academic achievement are particularly pronounced among students from large urban school districts making intradistrict moves. • Janette Herbers, Arthur Reynolds, and Chin-Chih Chen, School Mobility and Developmental Outcomes in Young Adulthood (2014) o This study found that, while mobile students are more likely than their peers to experience other developmental risk factors such as economic hardship, student mobility is a unique indicator of certain developmental outcomes such as depression symptoms, failure to graduate high school on-time, and adult arrests. While a high frequency of school moves throughout a student's K-12 academic career is predictive of some detrimental young adult outcomes, school mobility between the fourth and eighth grades is especially predictive of negative outcomes. o The study recommends several interventions to lessen the occurrence of school mobility or at least mitigate its negative impact, including: district policies that promote flexible attendance areas, collaboration with other public service agencies to improve residential stability, and coherent organization structures like co-located or full-service schools. • Joseph Gasper, Stefanie DeLuca, and Angela Estacion. Switching Schools: Revisiting the Relationship Between School Mobility and High School Dropout (2012) o Though it is difficult to separate student mobility and low academic achievement/engagement as causes of student dropout, this report utilizes a "propensity score" to compare mobile and non-mobile children with similar academic profiles to show that student moves do account for some risk of dropping out of school. • Russell W. Rumberger, Student Mobility: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions (2015) o This policy brief reviewed two decades of research literature which found school mobility to have harmful effects on elementary school achievement, student test scores, and high school graduation, and also to affect most severely those students experiencing multiple moves for involuntary reasons such as financial necessity or family disruption. Research showed that mobile students are also likely to experience disruptions to their social development as they cycle through relationships with peers, teachers, and set routines. The brief also reviewed research that found that student mobility can be exacerbated by other factors such as low-income status and homelessness. Moreover, studies have shown that student mobility may also have an EducationCounsel Policy Strategy . Law ' Advocacy impact on the non-mobile students attending a school by introducing a "chaos factor" and disruption to previously established classroom flow. o Schools and districts can lessen the incidence of student mobility or mitigate its harmful effects with careful school closure policies, orientation activities and personnel support for transfer students, the inclusion of mobility rates in measurements of school effectiveness, and collaboration with other public service agencies to promote residential stability. • G.A. Simpson and Mary Glenn Fowler, Geographic mobility and children's emotional/behavioral adjustment and school functioning (1994) o This study found that students who transfer schools three or more times during their academic careers may be more likely than their non-mobile peers to repeat a grade, be suspended or expelled from school, and experience emotional or behavioral problems. • Jack C. Tucker, Jonathan Marx, and Larry Long, "Moving On": Residential Mobility and Children's School Lives (1998) o The study found that children who have moved an average or above-average number of times are not significantly harmed if they reside in families in which both biological parents are present; however, for children in other family structures, any move is associated with an adverse school life. • David Wood, Neal Halfon, Debra Scarlata, Paul Newacheck, and Sharon Nessim, Impact of Family Relocation on Children's Growth, Development, School Function, and Behavior (1993) o This study found that - though the measures of "child dysfunction" (i.e., delayed growth and development, learning disorders, school failure, frequent behavioral problems) are correlated with characteristics like poverty, race, and family structure that are linked to high rates oftransience - mobility had a measurable effect on each of the variables in question as well. • Zeya Xu, Jane Hanaway, and Stephanie D'Souza, Student Transience in North Carolina: The Effect of Student Mobility on Student Outcomes Using Longitudinal Data (2009) o This study found that student mobility can lead to lower math and reading scores on end-of-grade assessments and that school transfers are more frequent among low- income and minority students. It also found that intradistrict school transfers have adverse effects on student outcomes while cross-district moves may have positive or no effects. The following studies have examined how student mobility may uniquely impact younger children. These studies may be especially important given that data that show that majority of students in the U.S. make at least one nonpromotional school change during elementary school with a sizeable minority making at least two changes.1 • Alexandra Beatty, Student Mobility: Exploring the Impacts of Frequent Moves on Achievement, Summary of a Workshop (2010) o This summary of a workshop to explore the effects of student mobility highlights principle themes in research and found that school transfers during kindergarten may cause students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, to lag behind their peers in overall academic achievement and grade promotion throughout primary school. It also reviewed research that showed that school mobility between kindergarten and third grade may have greater consequences for English language Russell W. Rumberger, Student Mobility: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions 3 (2015) EducationCounsel Policy Strategy i Law • Advocacy learners, students receiving special education services, or children from low-income families. • Diana H. Gruman, Tracy W. Harachi, Robert D. Abbott, Richard F. Catalano, and Charles B. Fleming, Longitudinal Effects of Student Mobility on Three Dimensions of Elementary School Engagement(2008) o This study found that student mobility has its own significant effect on student outcomes, even though it is also associated with other pre-existing risk factors (e.g., coming from a low-income family). It also found that school mobility between second and fifth grades can predict declines in students' classroom participation and academic performance. The cumulative effects of multiple school transfers during elementary grades may have a greater effect on student outcomes than a single move. • Lisa Melman Heinlein and Marybeth Shinn, School mobility and student achievement in an urban setting (2000) o This study of a cohort of New York City kindergartners until sixth grade found that early mobility (prior to third grade) was a more potent predictor of sixth-grade achievement than later mobility. After controlling for socioeconomic status and other demographic characteristics, it concluded that "associations of early mobility with achievement were not enormous, but were large enough to cause concern." o The research also reviewed results from two longitudinal studies of European student populations which found that, after controlling for prior achievement, school mobility had no effect on student achievement. • Panayota Mantzicopoulos and Dana J. Knutsen, Head Start Children: School Mobility and Achievement in the Early Grades (2000) o This small-scale study found that frequent school changes in the primary grades were related to lower achievement levels in math and reading, even controlling for sex and the effects of achievement prior to the school moves. The following studies have examined how student mobility may uniquely impact students experiencing homelessness. • Martha Galvez and Jessica Luna, Homelessness and Housing Instability: The Impact on Education Outcomes(2014) o This brief reviewed a large body of evidence around school mobility and found that school mobility, particularly moves within the academic year, is linked to negative education outcomes. The brief also found that frequent moves are "particularly damaging" and that homeless children are more likely to be high-frequency movers. Included in the brief are specific examples in several urban school districts in Washington state. • John W. Fantuzzo et al., The Unique and Combined Effects of Homelessness and School Mobility on the Educational Outcomes of Young Children (2012) o This study about mobility and homeless students found that "homelessness had a unique association with problems in classroom engagement, school mobility was uniquely related to both academic achievement and problems in classroom engagement, and experiencing both homelessness and school mobility was the most detrimental for both forms of educational well-being." The following studies have examined how student mobility may uniquely impact students in the foster care system. Please note, however, that these findings are limited due to limitations in existing data and research. The role of school moves in poor school outcomes for foster children is not at EducationCounsel Policy Strategy ; Law Advocacy present firmly established empirically; most studies of school transitions in children in foster care have been based either on small samples with retrospective, self-report data or have relied on district- level records, which may only follow children's transitions as they travel within a district, leading to underestimation of moves. • Barton Alien and James S. Vacca, Frequent Moving has a Negative Affect on the School Achievement of Foster Children Makes the Case for Reform (2010) o This literature review include studies that found that children in foster care are faced with several challenges, including instruction that is often interrupted by frequent moves to different communities and schools, living in different foster homes with new families where academic are not a priority, a lack of parent support with the school, and a few opportunities to have consistent peer groups for interaction and socialization. Foster children, moreover, generally lack positive relationships with school administrators, support staff, teachers and classmates o When it comes to reading and other areas of academic achievement, the study found, that success of students in foster care is "generally affected by their frequent school and home mobility and a breakdown in communication and coordination among key people and agencies responsible for their education." Moreover, these students frequently do not have a consistent and knowledgeable advocate who can act on their behalf for special education and remedial reading services. The foster parents who are typically the most familiar with the needs of the children are unprepared to negotiate services (e.g., Special Education and Section 504 systems). Finally, frequent placement changes disrupt the authority of foster parents to represent children's educational interests. • Dylan Conger and Marni J. Finkelstein, Foster Care and Student Mobility (2003) o This study found that foster children may be more likely to transfer schools and experience longer delays during these transfers than their non-foster peers, but notes that "there is limited research in this area, in part because many child welfare systems do not systematically monitor the school outcomes of children in care. Delays associated with school movements for foster children, in part due to the heavy paperwork involved and lack of coordination between school and child welfare personnel." o For ideas on how to address these challenges, the study observes, "Research on interagency collaboration suggests that many child-serving agencies fail to ensure consistent and coordinated services to shared populations. The communication failures in the case of foster children often begin with notification of their status. Some caseworkers and foster care providers do not inform school staff of a child's custodial status, due to concerns about children being stigmatized by the foster care label or treated differently bytheirteachers and other school personnel." • Katherine C. Pears, Hyoun K. Kim, and Philip A. Fisher, Adverse Consequences of School Mobility for Children in Foster Care: A Prospective Longitudinal Study (2015) o This study examined the early school moves of a group of kindergarten children in foster care and compared their school moves to those of children from the same age and socioeconomic status groups. The authors found that children in foster care made more school transitions, were 6 times more likely to make multiple moves, and were 4 times more likely to move during the school year. o The authors also found significant total indirect effects for a mediated path from foster care placement to socioemotional competence. Children in the foster care group were positively associated with behavioral problems in kindergarten, and were negatively EducationCounset Policy Strategy ! Law i Advocacy associated with early learning skills and academic and socioemotional competence in grades 3-5. The following studies have examined how student mobility may uniquely impact the children whose parents are serving in the military. Notably, some research has found that these students can outperform their national peer groups on national assessments (e.g, NAEP), while other studies have noted some of the unique challenges that these students face. • Catherine Bradshaw and Richard Sechrest, Military Youth: A School Perspective (2010) o This study showed that students in military families can feel others view them (particularly non-military students) as different and are hesitant to extend friendships. Military students who attended schools on base tended to experience fewer stressors than students that attended schools in areas with a lower military student population. o Students have issues learning new school policies, procedures, and logistics, and miss opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities. They face difficulty transferring schools because of inconsistent policies regarding school credit requirements and paperwork. Finally, they can miss critical lessons or skills due to move, and special student populations (e.g., special education, gifted) can face even longer procedural and academic process constraints. • S. Beth Ruff and Michael A. Keim, Revolving Doors: The Impact of Multiple School Transitions on Military Children (2014) o In this literature review, the authors compiled a number of finding on the impact of multiple school transitions on military children. It reviewed studies that found that children whose parents are serving in the military are more mobile than their civilian peers, relocating every 1-4 years. These children also experience interstate relocation challenges, such as varying academic standards and graduation requirements. o Military adolescents experience common mobility challenges, such as slow transfer of school records and differences in curricula between schools, adapting to new school environments and making friends, limited access to extracurricular activities, but also unique challenges, such as a lack of understanding of military culture by public school teachers and staff and tension at home and parental deployment. As the authors observed, "School-age military children are especially vulnerable to the stress related to frequent transitions, as they must simultaneously cope with normal developmental stressors such as establishing peer relationships, conflict in parent/child relationships and increased academic demands." • Theresa J. Russo and Moira A. Fallen, Coping with Stress: Supporting the Needs of Military Families and Their Children (2014) o This study found that children whose parents are serving in the military can show adaptability and flexibility to new situations and have learned coping mechanisms with each move or transition. • Claire Smrekar and Debra Owens, "It's a Way of Life for Us": High Mobility and High Achievement in Department of Defense Schools (2003) o This study found that students in the United States Department of Defense schools scored higher, when compared to the United States average, on the 8th grade writing and reading portions of the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The trend of students continued on the 2007 Writing portion of the NAEP and the 2009 reading portion of the NAEP. EducationCounsel Policy Strategy • Law • Advocacy Finally, the following study examined how student mobility may uniquely impact the children of migrant workers. • Michael H. Romanowski, Meeting the Unique Needs of the Children of Migrant Farm Workers (2003) o Given the transient nature of migrant farm work, the author identifies several educational risk factors for children of migrant workers in labeling this population the "most disadvantaged student population in America" and the "most undereducated major subgroup in the United States." These include: (1) frequent and numerous move; (2) high risk of dropout; (3) low social status in receiving communities contributes to marginalization; (4) misidentification of special education services due to language barriers; and (5) racism and xenophobia. Impact of Student Mobility on School and/or District Performance As noted in the introduction to this memo, the majority of the existing body of literature on student mobility pertains to the impacts of frequent moves on a student's academic performance. However, what nascent research examining school and district impact exists indicates that the effects of student mobility are not limited to those students who are experiencing upheaval. From what was gathered, it seems that the effects of student mobility on schools and districts are realized via diminished overall student performance, reduced staff morale, and teacher dissatisfaction. • Scott R. Buchanan, The Relationship Between Mobility and Student Achievement (2015) o This broader report notes that, because mobile students may transfer into a school with knowledge gaps, they can affect the pacing of the classroom curriculum. • Nehati Engec, Relationship Between Mobility and Student Performance and Behavior (2006) o Researchers found that mobile students were at higher risk of poor academic performance and discipline problems that result in suspensions. • Eric Hanushek, John Kain, and Steven Rivkin, Disruption versus Tiebout improvement: the costs and benefits of switching schools (2004) o This study of student mobility across Texas found that student turnover, especially during the school year, adversely affected student achievement not just of mobile students, but everyone in the school "as increased time is spent bringing all students to the same point in the curriculum, developing normal procedures, integrating parents into school programs, and so forth." The study also found that the effects were larger for poor and minority students. • Kris Kase, The Impact of Mobility on Academic Achievement: A Review of the Literature (2005) o Research cited in this review indicated that students who experience greater levels of mobility tend to have lower academic outcomes, as well as negative behavioral and developmental traits. This negative impact is especially pronounced for children who experience moves in early grades, whose long-term reading and math skills are depressed as a result. o With regard to the school as a whole, high rates of mobility in individual students also bring down average school performance, as well as that of the students who are not mobile. In fact, researchers found a correlation between rates of student turnover and accountability rating. Looking at the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), this paper finds that schools with higher rates of student mobility were also rated more poorly than those with low turnover. EducationCounsel Policy Sn'aiegy Law : Advocacy • David Kerbow, Patterns of Student Mobility and Local School Reform (1996) o This report notes that classrooms are affected by the introduction of mobile students. Examples of their impact include: disruption of classroom instructional routines, use of discrete teaching modules (rather than "integrative instructional approaches"), and disparate levels of knowledge between children who enter at different points in time. The report also notes that there are certain administrative costs associated with incorporating mobile students into their new classrooms. On a broader level, the author notes that waves of student mobility have the potential to undo some of the gains made by schools that have made progress through reforms. • David Kerbow, Carlos Azcoitia, and Barbara Buell, Student Mobility and Local School Improvement in Chicafio (2003) o This study found that only 50 percent of students remain enrolled over a three-year period in the typical Chicago elementary school. It also found that, though student residential changes account for the majority of cases, more than two fifths are schoolrelated. Moreover, many students were found to move within a small network of schools that share similar geography, racial/ethnic composition, and poverty. o To address this issue, Chicago aimed to increase awareness of the impact of mobility through parent brochures (focusing on their rights and responsibilities) and complementary materials for teachers and administrators. Also, though it had broader aims, a Comprehensive Community Schools initiative aimed to reduce the impact of mobility by opening school buildings beyond the school day and extending resources to families (e.g., medical care and other social services). • Virginia L. Rhodes, Kids on the Move: The Effects of Student Mobility on NCLB School Accountability Ratings (2005) o This literature review mines existing sources of information on student mobility to identify the following deleterious effects oftransience on schools: (1) Non-mobile students experience negative impacts from mobile peers due to reallocation of time, attention, resources to newcomers. (2) Teacher morale suffers due to the extra work of bringing new students into the classroom community and up to speed, both socially and academically. (3) School staff morale also declines as teachers feel dissatisfied and view their jobs as undesirable; this, in turn leads to schools with a great deal of student mobility to be staffed by inexperienced educators. (4) There can be a lack of continuity in student recordkeeping and sharing. (5) Required testing windows can be affected by limited test administration time. • Russell W. Rumberger, Student Mobility: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions (2015) o This literature review includes information on the "demoralization, stress, and tension" felt by teachers in schools with high mobility when faced with a great deal of churn. Like others, this study also notes that the peers of mobile students also experience negative academic effects. • Donna R. Sanderson, Engaging Highly Transient Students (2003) o This study - a rare look at the impact of student mobility on teachers - uses interviews of educators near Philadelphia to identify three main areas of concern from teachers regarding their students, pertaining broadly to: (1) behavior and attitude; (2) academic foundations; and (3) issues of time related to teaching mobile populations. • Lisa L. Schulz and Deborah J. Rubel, A PhenomenoloRV of Alienation in High School: The Experiences of Five Male Non-Completers (2011) EducationCounsel Policy Strategy •• Law ' Advocacy o Focused on five young adult males, researchers conducted interviews to examine the causes of alienation that led to their lack of high school diploma. From these meetings, three central themes arose that may also relate to engaging students (especially those with mobility-related challenges) in general more effectively: (1) the necessity of relationship building; (2) loss of trust between students and school-based adults; and (3) fear offailure/disappointing self and family. Appendix: Student Mobility Rates in Urban Districts The following information uses public information from state education agencies about mobility rates in a variety of urban districts across the country. How the State Calculates Mobility Urban School System Its Mobility Rate Student Mobility Rate = [Unduplicated count of K-12 students who moved into, out of school or district in SY X] - [total # students that were part of same membership base at any time during SY X] Note: In the 2012-2013 school year the mobility calculation was modified. In the past, students who Denver Public Schools 17.5% transfer to a school within the same district over the summer were not counted as mobile students. This rule was expanded in the 2012-2013 year so that students who transfer over the summer (notice this is summer transfers only) to different districts also are not counted as mobile students. Mobility index: the frequency of students entering and leaving a school throughout the year. Miami-Dade County Public Schools Note: The index is not calculated as a percentage. 24 EducationCounsel Policy Strategy ' Law i Advocacy How the State Calculates Mobility Urban School System ; Its Mobility Rate "To count as "mobile" for the purposes of this analysis, students must have entered or withdrawn from a school between October 2 and May 1. October 2 is the Georgia Department of Education's (GaDOE) fall enrollment count date. May 1 is used as a consistent date that is prior to the end of the school year in all Georgia districts. Students who withdrew and reentered the same school within seven days are not counted as mobile. To assess mobility at the school and district level, the Atlanta Public Schools Governor's Office of Student Achievement (GOSA) 29.8% calculated a churn rate for each school and district, which represents the number of student entries and exits during the school year divided by the number of students in the school on October 2. In 2012-13, the average school churn rate was 23.0%, but the median rate was 16.9%. The rates ranged from 1.1% (Newton County Theme School at Ficquett) to 756.3% (DeKalb Alternative School). At the district level, the average churn rate was 17.5%, and the median rate was 14.8%." Mobility rate is based on the number of times students enroll in or leave a school during the school year. Student mobility (turnover): any enrollment change between the first school day in October and the last day of the school year. It is calculated as sum of the students who transferred out and the students who transferred in, divided by the average daily Chicago Public Schools enrollment, multiplied by 100. Students are counted (Source #1, Source each time they transfer out or in during the reporting #2) year. (Individual students may be counted more than 17.5% 17% once.) • Transfers out: all incidents of students being removed from the enrollment roster for any reason. • Transfers in: all incidents of students being added to the enrollment roster. n/a Intradist. = 8.2% Indianapolis Public Schools 10 Interdist. = 18.4% EducationCounsel Policy ' Strategy i Law i Advocacy How the State Calculates Mobility Urban School System Its Mobility Rate The student mobility percentage is calculated by Elem.: 31.3% dividing the sum of entrants and withdrawals by the average daily membership. • Entrants: # and % of students entering (transferring in or re-entering) school during Baltimore City Public Schools Middle: 27.9% High: 32.3% the September to June school year after the first day of school. A student moving from one school to another within the same school Elem.: 13.6% district as a result of promotion is not considered to be an entrant for mobility purposes unless the student entered school after the first day. Montgomery County Public Schools Middle: 10.2% High: 11.2% • Withdrawals: # and % of students withdrawing (transfers and terminations) for any reason during the September to June school year after the first day of school. Data are reported at elementary (K - 5), middle (6 8), high (9 -12) school levels. ES: 23.5% Prince George's Coyntv Public Schools MS: 19.2% HS: 22,8% Reported since November 1990: System and State levels. Reported since November 1991: School level. Mobility: students transferring into or out of public schools, districts or the state. There are three different measures to capture mobility: Intake (Transfer-in) Rate; Churn Rate; and Stability Rate. • Intake Rate: # of students that enroll in the state, a district, or school after the beginning Boston Public Schools 20.6% of the school year • Churn Rate: # students transferring into or out of a public school or district throughout the course of a school year • Stability Rate: # students remaining in a district or school throughout the school year. Transiencvrate: % students who do not finish the school year at the same school they started. Clark County Public Schools (Las Vegas 28.8% area) For additional information on Maryland, see the School Improvement in Maryland Web site at http://mdkl2.msde.maryland.Rovand the Maryland State Department of Education Web site at http://www.msde,marvland.goy. For further details on Massachusetts: http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reDorts/mobility/ 11 EducationCounsel Policy Strategy ! Law ' Advocacy How the State Calculates Mobility Urban School System Its Mobility Rate Student mobility rate is a measure of how many students are transferring in and out of a school during a given school year. CharlotteMecklenburg Schools 19% Mobility rate formula: [[All children who enrolled after September 30] + [All children who withdrew before June 1] ] T- [Total enrollment for school Providence Public School District 23% district.] Mobility (Campus Profile only) formula: [# mobile students in SY*] - [# students who were in membership at any time during SY] * A student is considered to be mobile if he or she has been in membership at the school for less than Dallasjndependent School District 21.1% 83% of the school year (i.e., has missed six or more weeks at a particular school). This rate is calculated at the campus level. The mobility rate shown in the Profile section of campus reports under the "district" column is based on the count of mobile students identified at the campus level. That is, the district mobility rate reflects schoolto-school mobility, within the same district or from Houston Independent School District 19.6% outside the district. For 2011-12, district-level mobility has been added to the AEIS data download of district data. See also Campus Group. (Source: PEIMS, June 2011) Student mobility is a measure of change in student membership from the first official membership count (September 8, 2014) through the last day of the school year. Fairfax County Public The mobility rate is expressed as the percent of a Schools 12.3 school's enrollment entering or reentering after September 8, 2014, or leaving school prior to the last day of the school year. Student mobility: This is a measure of how many students move in and out of the school. It is calculated by dividing the number of student entrances and exits at a school (excluding graduates) after the October 1 headcount by the October 1 student headcount. For K-8 schools, a single figure is reported for elementary and middle schools 12 Seattle Public Schools 6.7% Sayers, Margery From: Tammy Spengler Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 12:08 PM To: Kirsten Coombs Cc: Richard Kohn; Cynthia Vaillancourt; akittleman@howardcountymd.gov; CouncilMail; BoE Email; Michael Martirano; Kevin Gilbert Subject: Re: [BoE Email] - HCPSS Budget [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Kristen, Absolutely not! I'm saying those teaching methods should be accessible to all students. And we should not be cutting programs to help the students who are behind in order to provide extra support to the ones who are ahead. Also, I do not fault the current administration for not putting enough administrators on the equity issue, but actual teachers and aides are needed. Please note this email chain is responding to something from years ago when Mr. Kittleman was County Exec. I don't even see the original email Richard Kohn On Mar 7, 2018, at 9:16 PM, Kirsten Coombs wrote: Mr.Kohn, Are you saying cut our GT Resource Teachers? At RB & WLMS, these educators do amazing things with our students, which I know occurs at all of our schools. They work hard to identify students for these opportunities. These pullouts offer creative ways of teaching core subjects. Kirsten Coombs Sent from my Board iPhone On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Richard Kohn wrote: MsVaillancourt, Thank you for the explanation. I support the emphasis on equity, but I have mixed feelings about cutting teachers, especially in the Title 1 schools, to pay for the equity administrator. How would it go over to cut GT pullouts? The GT students are doing fine, but we know it is the lower income students who get cut because it is less unacceptable. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:01 PM, Cynthia Vaillancourt wrote: 1 I apologize for being dense- I am just not following the Spanish question. We are cutting something like 30 Spanish teachers reassigning them to other positions, that become open as a result of normal turn over, or growth - the art and music teachers are already in the buildings on staff, but will have their schedules changed BACK to how the were before (and how the rest of the elementary schools operate). The total cost savings noted includes calculations for, I believe, an increase of 1.5 tech ed teachers to restore the tech instruction that was sacrificed for WL. The 2.6 cost savings for the suspension of wl in preK-6 is a net number that takes into consideration the other tweaks involved. The positions included in the administration category have been changed via reassignments and returns to the classroom, but some of those savings have been offset by the new office for the Diversity and Inclusion office. All that detail is in there— I am not sure whether the spread sheets you have posted here are the most current versions, or the pages from the budget book. If you have specific questions about particular positions, please let me know - or I can refer you to the public information office. I think you are trying to imply that we have increased fat in the Central Office while cutting positions in the schools. I don't think that is the case - but if you have specific positions you think should be cut - please identify them. sincerely, CindyV From: Richard Kohn Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 6:28 PM To: Cynthia Vaillancourt Cc: akittleman@howardcountvmd.gov; councilmail@howardcountymd.Rov; BoE Email; Michael Martirano; Kevin Gilbert; Tammy Spengler Subject: Re: [BoE Email] - HCPSS Budget MsVaillancourt, I noted I the budgeted expenses that the lines with Administration in the title increased from last year's budget. 2018 is second last column, proposed is last column. IfAdmin was cut, where is that shown? 2nd question, why is Spanish more expensive than art, music, tech ed. These are usually expensive courses. 2 Thanks. Rick Kohn Sent from my IPhone On Mar ~1, 2018, at 5:42 PM/ Cynthia Vaillancourt wrote: I am sorry, Mr. Kohn, I really don't know what you are asking. From: Richard Kohn Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 1:00 PM To: Cynthia Vaillancourt Cc: akittleman@howardcountymd.gov; councilmail@howardcountvmd.gov; BoE Email; Michael Martirano; Kevin Gilbert; Tammy Spengler Subject: Re: [BoE Email] - HCPSS Budget Ms. Vaillancourt, Thank you for your response. Why does the top line of the Expenditures in Superintendent's proposed budget show about a $1 million increase under the title "Administration"? Has this been taken out? Also, Operating and Administration increased by $3.5 million. Why is it so much more expensive to teach Spanish than music and art, or is it mainly recess that will be substituted? Rick Kohn On Mar 7', 2018, at 10:18 AM, Cynthia Vaillancourt wrote: Dear Mr. Kohn, Thank you for your ongoing engagement with the HCPSS and advocacy for disadvantaged and immigrant students. As it happens/ the Board HAS moved numerous administrators back into classrooms/ and cut the school administration ranks deeply in order to maintain as many programs and services as possible. All of that information was discussed in great detail during the budget work sessions and can be found on line on the HCPSS website. The Board has directed the Superintendent to restore class sizes for the entire county as the first priority in the event additional funding becomes available. That would represent roughly $5.9 mil. In the event additional funding beyond that were to become available, perhaps the World Language program previously offered at only 8 of our 41 elementary schools (not even ALL of our title 1 schools) could be reimagined in a way that it could serve more students in a more equitable way. As it is, the current program of 30 minutes per day for 5 days per week, for preK -5 graders cannot be sustained. It continues to be a priority goal of the HCPSS to provide world language to elementary school students in Howard County. The suspension of the current program will help make it possible to get the HCPSS on firm financial footing so that a better, more equitable, program can be developed. In the mean time, all of the impacted students will be able to experience the full Art and Music curriculum that was reduced in order to fit the 30 minute per day language schedule. They will also have more access to tech ed.. and possibly even more recess. I encourage you to be in touch with your county government representatives during the next portion of the county's budget process and let them know where your priorities lie. Many thanks, CindyVaillancourt speaking as an individual board member. From: Richard Kohn Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 9:59 AM To: akittleman@howardcountymd.gov; councilmail@howardcountymd.gov; BoE Email; Michael Martirano; Kevin Gilbert Cc: Tammy Spengler Subject: [BoE Email] - HCPSS Budget Sayers, Margery From: Richard Kohn Sent: Sunday, September 8, 201 9 10:00 AM To: CouncilMail Subject: Support Council Resolution 112-2019 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear Council Members: Thank you for considering the welt-crafted resolution (CR112-2019) calling for de-segregation of our school system. I have looked through a few of the comments against this resolution and I would categorize them into one of two groups: those comments that express support for de-segregation; and those comments that demonstrate the need for desegregation. It is difficult to read overtly racist comments one after the other and I'm sorry that this is where we now live. However, I hope you will see these comments as demonstration of the need to integrate our communities. I recently re-read Dr. Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail as a reminder that bringing people of different back grounds together will create discomfort and potentially conflict in the short term, but just as was the case then, we need to march forward into this smaller conflict to address the greater conflict that exists underneath. The inequities and fears we have of each other can only be addressed through de-segregation. The hateful comments that you are seeing have been a part of the cause of segregation, but segregation also is responsible for perpetuating these attitudes. Thank you Council Members Jones, Rigby and Jung for introducing this resolution. I ask all Council Member to vote to approve this resolution. Richard Kohn Columbia MD Sayers, Margery From: Audrey Fernandes Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2019 11:01 AM Ball, Calvin; Rigby, Christiana; Jung, Deb; Walsh, Elizabeth; Jones, Opel; CouncilMail; To: redistricting@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmontsmall@hcpss.org; jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org Subject: Fwd: audrey has sent you - Here' s what you should know about ' student churn,' and how it affects your kids - from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] What is your data to support that redistricting will be beneficial to the kids and parents of Howard County? Please see outcomes in Milwaukee. Are you looking to increase high school drop outs and lower scores? Please DO NO HARM to our kids. Check out this story on isonline.com: https://www.isonline.com/story/news/education/2018/12/28/what-studentmobilitv-how-do-school-transfers-affect-kids/2422730002/ Here's what you should know about 'student churn,' and how it affects your kids Erin Richards, Milwaukee Journal SentinelPublished 11:03 a.m. CT Dec. 28, 2018 CLOSE (uy Photo (Photo: Angela Peterson/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEWIAILMORE The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel spent a year reporting on how and why students in Milwaukee transfer in and out of schools so frequently — and how the under-explored phenomenon contributes to a cycle of low performance. Here are the most important things to know about student churn, which is also known as turnover, transience or mobility. RELATED: 'I don't want the kids to stay here and qet stuck like me.' What is student turnover? It's what happens when students change schools for reasons other than getting promoted to the next grade in a new building. Researchers call it "student mobility." How does student turnover happen? Turnover happens in the middle of the year when students enroll in a school late or withdraw early. It can also happen in the summertime, when a child enters a new school. A "mobile student" might attend two schools in one year, or attend a new elementary school for three years in a row. What's the impact of student turnover? Switching schools frequently is associated with lower reading and math achievement, more behavioral problems, lower school engagement and higher dropout rates. In Milwaukee, one in four publicly funded students switch schools every year for reasons other than getting promoted to the next grade, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of state data found. On average, students who switched between public schools and voucher schools or voucher and public schools had lower math scores a year later, according to an analysis by the University ofWisconsin-Oshkosh. What causes student turnover? A range of conditions inside schools, communities and families cause children to enter and leave schools. Sometimes children enroll late or withdraw before the end of the year because their families move. Poverty, joblessness, evictions, a lack of transportation and homelessness can all cause children to be transient. Often parents move their children to new schools because they're seeking something different or escaping something they don't like. My kid has stayed in the same school. Do I need to worry? Probably not as long as most other students are returning every year and advancing. Stable students can suffer, however, if they attend schools where a lot of their peers are moving around. Classrooms with a lot of chum operate up to a full year behind classrooms where most students stay, research shows. And if churn isn't happening in your school, it's important to understand that low performing schools may be doing quite well with children who stick around — but that progress might be overshadowed by the low scores of children who move. What's considered high turnover? In most states that track the data, about 10 percent of students switch schools in unplanned ways. Related: Only these states track and report figures on student turnover Tracking student turnover interactive map, (Photo: Interactive by Erin Caughey) How often do most kids move? If you count normal transitions, 70 percent of students switch schools once or twice before high school, according to the same government study. About 13 percent of kids nationwide switched schools four or more times before high school, which makes them a small but concerning minority. Does it matter when you switch schools? Data shows switching schools frequently in elementary schools and later in high school can increase the risk of dropping out. In Milwaukee, students who attended just one high school vs. two or three high schools had graduation rates of 74 percent, 50 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Overall, about 62 percent of M PS students graduate on time. RELATED: 5 ways to reduce student turnover right now What about military kids? They switch schools and seem to thrive. Actually, more attention is being paid to the specific academic needs of transient, military-connected youth. But those youth usually have built-in social supports such as two-parent households, a steady family income and college-educated parents. Those factors can insulate them from the most harmful effects of churn: low test scores and low graduation rates. So is student turnover responsible for low achievement? Or is poverty the real culprit? Low-income students are more than three times as likely to switch schools as their more advantaged peers, so researchers have a hard time separating the academic impact of school-switching from the academic impact of poverty. But models run by the University ofWisconsin-Oshkosh on data obtained by the university and the Journal Sentinel control for those factors and find that on average, students who switched schools in Milwaukee had lower math scores in the year after they switched. The same finding applied to students who switched between virtual and brick-and-mortar schools. Is there any benefit to student mobility? Yes. Most people applaud when a child moves from a low-performing school to a higher-performing school, or when a child's parent finds a school that's a better fit, or when a parent or guardian gets a better-paying job and has to move to a better neighborhood. The transition can still be bumpy. But the biggest problem in Milwaukee and other low-income areas is that rampant school-switching is often happening among the children who are already disadvantaged, and they're often cycling between the lowest-performing schools. The result: None of those schools or students get ahead. How do you calculate turnover? In a lot of different ways — that's why it's hard to compare different cities and states. One popular method is to calculate the percentage of children in a school or class who enroll late or withdraw early. Or you can look at how many students return to the school from one fall to the next, minus the children who should have graduated. Capturing all mid-year moves and summer moves requires following individual students year after year — that's what the Journal Sentinel and UW-Oshkosh tried to do in their analyses. What can we do to reduce turnover? Reducing rampant school switching requires a coordinated effort on behalf of school districts, teachers, the community and other government agencies to address the myriad needs of disadvantaged families. But in the meantime, people could Invest in nonprofits that help families get into stable homes and that work one-on-one with families to make good decisions about schools. Other potential solutions include creating a centralized management system or enrollment system for disparate schools that would make sure student records transfer quickly. People may also consider urging the school district to reduce the number of times it transfers students involuntarily because of discipline-related incidents. 10 Sayers, Margery From: Audrey Fernandes Sent: Saturday, September 7, 201 9 9:07 AM To: redistricting@hcpss.org; Ball, Calvin; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; Yungmann, David; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org; jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; CouncilMail Subject: Fwd: PLEASE PUT OUR KIDS FIRST [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout Russell W. Rumberger and Katharine A. Larson education American Journal of Education Vol. 107, No. 1 (Nov., 1998), pp. 1-35 (35 pages) Published by: The University of Chicago Press Student Mobility Hurts Academic Performance Scientists have long suspected that students who switch schools tend to have poor academic outcomes. One of the most definitive studies of this phenomenon was published in 1998 in the American Journal of Education. Researchers analyzed data from 13,000 eighth graders, and concluded that "measures of social and academic engagement, such as low grades, misbehavior, and high absenteeism, predicted both whether students changed schools or dropped out," and that students who switched schools even once between eighth and twelfth grade were "twice as likely to not complete high school." A 2014 report by the State of Georgia concluded that "high churn in schools not only can hurt the students who leave, but also those who remain enrolled." This surprising reportanalyzed the percentage of students who 11 switched schools more than once between eighth and twelfth grade, and found that districts with more student mobility also had lower high school graduation rates—suggesting that an entire district may be dragged down by high student mobility. We've illustrated these findings with a scatterplot Notice how most districts have a 10 to 20 percent "churn rate", and a roughly 75 percent high school graduation rate. Districts with lower churn rates creep closer to 100 percent; those with higher chum rates experience the opposite effect. Even Normal Transitions Do Damage The 1998 study specifically looked at "non-promotional changes"student mobility due to factors besides moving from elementary school to middle school and from middle school to high school. But a more recent study highlighted thej.ssueswith even routine school changes. Researchers followed nearly 6,000 kindergarteners through high school, and concluded that preteens who attend K-8 schools (and thereby transfer only once, rather than twice, on the way to high school) have superior self-perception and higher grades, in general. Those few areas in which junior high school students excelled were not statistically significant. "We find a negative impact of middle and junior high school as compared to K-8 schools," coauthor on the study Elise Cappella of New York University told Fatherly. Nobody Benefits From High Churn In Schools A 2014 report by the State of Georgia concluded that "high churn in schools not only can hurt the students who leave, but also those who remain enrolled." This surprising reportanalyzed the percentage of students who switched schools more than once between eighth and twelfth grade, and found that districts with more student mobility also had lower high school graduation rates—suggesting that an entire district may be dragged down by high student mobility. We've illustrated these findings with a scatterplot Notice how most districts have a 10 to 20 percent "churn rate", and a roughly 75 percent high 12 school graduation rate. Districts with lower chum rates creep closer to 100 percent; those with higher churn rates experience the opposite effect. 13 Sayers, Margery From: Audrey Fernandes Sent: Saturday, September 7, 201 9 9:05 AM To: redistricting@hcpss.org; Ball, Calvin; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; Yungmann, David; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org; jenniferjnallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; CouncilMail Subject: PLEASE PUT OUR KIDS FIRST [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout Russell W. Rumberger and Katherine A. Larson education American Journal of Education Vol. 107, No. 1 (Nov., 1998), pp. 1-35 (35 pages) Published by: The University of Chicago Press Student Mobility Hurts Academic Performance Scientists have long suspected that students who switch schools tend to have poor academic outcomes. One of the most definitive studies of this phenomenon was published in 1998 in the American Journal of Education. Researchers analyzed data from 13,000 eighth graders, and concluded that "measures of social and academic engagement, such as low grades, misbehavior, and high absenteeism, predicted both whether students changed schools or dropped out," and that students who switched schools even once between eighth and twelfth grade were "twice as likely to not complete high school." A 2014 report by the State of Georgia concluded that "high churn in schools not only can hurt the students who leave, but also those who remain enrolled." This surprising reportanalyzed the percentage of students who 14 switched schools more than once between eighth and twelfth grade, and found that districts with more student mobility also had lower high school graduation rates—suggesting that an entire district may be dragged down by high student mobility. We've illustrated these findings with a scatterplot. Notice how most districts have a 10 to 20 percent "chum rate", and a roughly 75 percent high school graduation rate. Districts with lower chum rates creep closer to 100 percent; those with higher churn rates experience the opposite effect. Even Normal Transitions Do Damage The 1998 study specifically looked at "non-promotional changes"— student mobility due to factors besides moving from elementary school to middle school and from middle school to high school. But a more recent^ study highlighted the issueswith even routine school changes. Researchers followed nearly 6,000 kindergarteners through high school, and concluded that preteens who attend K-8 schools (and thereby transfer only once, rather than twice, on the way to high school) have superior self-perception and higher grades, in general. Those few areas in which junior high school students excelled were not statistically significant. "We find a negative impact of middle and junior high school as compared to K-8 schools," coauthor on the study Elise Cappella of New York University told Fatherly. 15 Sayers, Margery From: Carol Tan Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 9:11 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: I oppose CR112 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] I do not think it is good idea of CR112. It will bring the momentum down for the whole howard county. I do not support CR112 Sent from my iPhone 16 Sayers, Margery From: I xin Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 7:52 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Against CR112 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear council members, We are the residents of Howard County and also the tax payers for the county development for years. We strongly oppose the CR 112 that was proposed recently. We want our natural communities to keep together instead of so called "integration by social economic" status. Getting the best education is most important for our kids growth and realizing this long-term goal in a stability should be not controlled by any politic thoughts. Moreover, the school redistribution proposal should NOT be directed using the FARM factor. The county resources which yielded from tax payer money should be efficiently dedicated to schools and thus their students. We would suggest facilitating and letting the communities to work effectively with BOE to address real needs. The political slogans and moves may only make things worse. As a person who grew up in the orthodox communist environment in China but now I am a proud American, I have seen all these political movements. The entire American society is becoming politically charged, but we do not need more politics. Our country needs people who focus on real work and good work. So please stop bill CR 112! Thanks, Linda 17 Sayers, Margery From: kiju Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 12:13 PM To: CouncilMail; superintendent@hcpss.org; Ball, Calvin; Boe@hcpss.org Cc: contact@nnaryland.gov; howardcountydems@gmail.com; HoCoRepublicanClub@gmail.com; Shawna Frazier; Maria J. Gutierrez; yinqi zhang; guorongd @yahoo.com Subject: Re: Resolution CR11 2-2019 has fatal flaws Attachments: CouncilJetterJK.doc; 08 20 201 9 Attendance Area Adjustment BR.pdf; CR112-2019.pdf [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear all, I believe the proposed resolution is biased against Asian Americans and multi-ethnic Clarksville. Better resolutions and redistricting plans to achieve socio-economic integration and upward mobility in Howard County are needed and suggestions are made. Please see attached. Kind regards, Julie Kim, M.D. Julie Kim, M.D. 5910 Perfect Calm Court Clarksville, MD 21029 Septembers, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, I commend Councilmembers Rigby, Jones and Jung for starting the public conversation, as follows: This socioeconomic and racial segregation in the school system is contributing to increasing achievement gaps and decreasing graduation rates for low-income students and students of color. Historic systems have created these achievements gaps [SIC] and it is incumbent on the County to introduce new systems that foster necessary change. It is important to acknowledge that de facto segregation is a stubborn stain that persists in our country due to the legacy of slavery since 1619. Thanks to the efforts of courageous Americans before us, we no longer have dejure segregation since 1954. What we should also acknowledge is increased immigration from Asia, Africa and the Middle East since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.2 As a result, in 2019, the superintendent's report indicates (pages 26-27/34) Clarksville Elementary, Clarksville Middle and River Hill High include over 50% students of color (e.g., Asian American, African American, Latino, etc.), while boasting some of the highest test scores in the county, and maybe even state. I would like to point out that Resolution CR112-2019 inadvertently leaves out Asian Americans. At last count, Howard County was comprised of 19% Asian Americans.3 With all due respect, it appears that segregation is being defined too narrowly. There seems to be a flawed working assumption that Asian Americans do not count as students of color or experience setbacks due to exclusion and underestimation. Might I remind all, that the term "Asian" refers to the planet's largest and most populous continent. Most of the world lives there and it includes an amazing diversity of ethnicities, religions, and cultures. Indeed, you are hard-pressed to find any self-identifying "Asians" in Asia. My neighbors who check the Asian box are Russian, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean immigrants. It is only when these immigrants come to the United States, that they are arbitrarily lumped together in political calculations. I am also aware that Clarksville Elementary serves a disproportionate population for whom English is a second language and disabled students. Clarksville is lhttps://cc.howardcountvmd.Rov/Portals/0/Documents/CouncilMain/Press%20Releases/2019/CMR OJ DJ%20Des efireRation%20Press%20Release.pdf 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lmmiRration and Nationality Act of 1965 3 https://www_,baltimoresun.com/maryland/howard/howard-magazine/bs-mR-ho-diversity-data-20190109story.html not homogenously comprised of middle-class white students, as cited in the Century Foundation reference provided in the resolution (page 3/4). Our schools are already diverse in many ways. Yet, the superintendent's proposed redistricting plan unfairly targets our schools with overcrowding, disruption, and anguish; it divides Clarksville in half. Unfortunately, many students of color (i.e., Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos) and Whites in Clarksville would be penalized with relocation to less desirable schools to remedy a wrong they did not commit. Our children are not test taking zombies who serve as tools to raise school averages. My neighbors include a child of Shanghainese origin who spends hours shaping his favorite cartoons out of clay, an African-American classmate who dazzled with his violin at the spring concert, a child of Colombian (the country) immigrants who invited us to his birthday party at Columbia (the city) gym, a child of Iranian immigrants who invited us to his Tae Kwon Do dojo, and a Jewish classmate who likes to practice diving at the neighborhood pool. My Korean American son likes to dance the "floss" and "Gangnam style" when no one's looking. As a clinical trial reviewer, I understand that these flesh-and-blood details often get lost in aggregate data found in tables and charts. In the zeal to right historic wrongs and diversify socioeconomically, I would like to remind the Council not to treat our children like soulless numbers who can be reformatted just to make statistics look good in a Power Point. I would like to ask the county and the Council to consider alternative solutions for socio-economic integration that are less disruptive and may be more effective than radical redistricting: • How about more evenly distributing FARM students across the county? Some western county schools that are less ethnically diverse are receiving significantly less students than Clarksville. • Where is the intensive remediation urgently needed for students failing PARCC reading and math tests? Summer, and even Saturday, school would seem to more directly address low test scores and graduation rates. • Can there be an effort to prepare and send top-scoring FARM students to higher scoring schools for more efficient skills transfer, integration and upward mobility? Similar success has already been demonstrated with private schools and colleges. • On my wish list, as a prospective homebuyer, is to designate a county-wide centrally located magnet high school which feeds from the top 10% of each middle school and historically marginalized population (i.e., FARM) so that an excellent and diverse school option is uncoupled from neighborhood school districts with regard to housing price. As you may already be aware, Howard County leads the state of Maryland in public school quality. Currently, it is uniquely poised to lead our nation in achieving intelligent integration, equal opportunity 4 https://www.p_repforprep_.org/ 5 https://www.niche.com/kl2/d/howard-countv-public-schools-md/ and academic excellence, which I believe are values consistent with Columbia's founders and unite us. Whether you are for or against the resolution, let's not squander this historic opportunity and expand the pie for all, including Asian Americans. Our community can do better than fight over scraps, be divided, and repeat mistakes of the past. Thank you for your time and attention. All the best to you, Julie REPORT Loward \SA School System Public BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY 1MEETING AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Presentation of the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan DATE: August 20, 2019 PRESENTER(S): Michael J. Martirano, Ed. P., Superintendent Strategic Call To Action Alignment: This process supports the Strategic Call to Action (SCTA) by providing operations and practices that are responsive, transparent, fiscally responsible and accountable. OVERVIEW: This document contains comprehensive attendance area adjustments recommended for SY 2020/21. The Superintendent's recommendation follows the presentation of options from the June 2019 Feasibility Study, outreach to community members through online and paper surveys, and review by the Attendance Area Committee. This boundary review process conforms with Policy 6010 School Attendance Areas. RECOMMENDATION/FUTURE DIRECTION: Following a series of public hearings and work sessions beginning on September 17, 2019, the Board is scheduled to approve the SY 2020-2021 attendance area adjustments on November 21, 2019. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE: Renee M. Kamen Michael J. Martirano, Ed. D. Manager, School Planning Superintendent Karalee Turner-Little Deputy Superintendent Scott W. Washington Acting Chief Operating Officer Daniel Lubeley Acting Director Capital Planning and Construction -I COOPERATIVE HOWARD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN / / / AUGUST 20, 2019 PREPARED FOR: Howard County Public School System 10910 Clarksville Pike ElUcott City, MD 21042 T 410.313.6600 PREPARED BY: Cooperative Strategies 3325 Hilliard Rome Road HilUard, OH 43026 T 614.798.8828 COOPERATIVE Table of Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................................3 Executive Sumrnary.....................................................................................................................................4 Data................................................................................................................................................................5 Public Participation and Input ...................................................................................................................7 Superintendent Recoirunended Attendance Area Adjustments ...........................................................10 Maps........................................................................................................................................................ Appendix A: Community Input Sessions Survey Results Appendix B: Attendance Area Boundary Review Survey Results Appendix C: Alternative Boundary Scenarios Survey Results INTRODUCTION This document contains a description of the attendance area adjustment process and the Superintendent's recommendation for SY 2020-21 attendance area adjustments. As of this writing, no decisions have been made on any attendance area boundary changes. The Board of Education (Board) is the decision-making body for changes to school attendance areas. The Board's approval of attendance area adjusbcnents is scheduled for November 21, 2019. Opportunity to provide public testimony to the Board begins after the presentation of this report to the Board on August 20, 2019. The attendance area process includes the study of projected enrollment data/ attendance area adjustment scenario testing, public participation, and the assessment of scenarios against the policy standards listed in Policy 6010 School Attendance Areas. The capital budget and attendance area adjustment processes work together aiming to address the long-range planning issues identified in the annual feasibility study. The 2019 Feasibility Study was presented to the Board of Education on June 13, 2019. SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 3 8/20/2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document contains comprehensive recommendations for elementary, middle, and high school attendance areas. Information collected through the public processes were considered m the development of the recommendations and can be found in the appendices . The driving priorities for this process: 1. Balance capacity utilization among schools throughout HCPSS, cost effectively. 2. Advance equity by addressing the distribution of students participating in the Free and Reducedprice meals program (FARMs) across schools to the extent feasible. 3. Plan ahead for the High School #13 redistricting by minimizing double moves as much as possible. The plan uses as guiding principles all of the priorities expressed by the Attendance Area Committee (AAC) and community members, consideration of Policy 6010 standards, including transportation times and costs/ our fiscal obligations to our county through effective use of existing school resources, our desire to keep school boundaries contiguous/ and maintain neighborhood schools and waU110%) also decrease from 21 to 16. Additionally, the proposal advances equity by making progress in addressing FARM student distribution across many schools. Through this proposal/ the number of elementary schools with FARM rates above 50 percent is cut in half from 12 to six and no elementary school will be above 55 percent. This plan brings all middle schools to under 46 percent FARMs and 11 closer to the county average. This plan brings high schools' FARM percentages from a high of 47 percent to below 43 percent and reduces the top three high schools by at least four percent. Ten high schools will move closer to the county average. A final decision by the Board is scheduled on November 21, 2019, and would take effect at the star of the 2020-21 school year. SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 4 8/20/2019 DATA The following is a description of the types of data zised in this report. Please note the recommendation may indicate no change of demographic data for one or more of the schools. A school's geography may not be impacted by the scenario's boundary changes or the boundary change minimally affects the specific measure so the resulting percentage remains the same. Free and Reduced-Priced Meals Program (FARM): The data shows the percentage of population participating in the Free and Reduced-Priced Meals Program (FARM) living in each school's attendance area before and after the proposed redistricting plan. These percentages are calculated using official SY 2018-19 enrollment data and Official October 2018 FARM participation reporting data. Geographic assignment is used and records are aggregated by current and proposed attendance areas. These numbers are for planning purposes and may not exactly match other reported numbers due to differences in timing and methodology. In adherence with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which restricts access to student records, values <5% have been replaced with "<=5%" and values >95% have been replaced with ">=95%". Testing: Testing data for Elementary and Middle Schools is comprised of Spring 2018 test takers in grades 3-8 with the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Assessments English or PARCC Math score. Testing data for High Schools is comprised of Fall 2018 test takers in grades 9-11 with a PSAT score. The data shown here may not match other reported data due to differences in timing and calculation methodology. In adherence with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which restricts access to student records, values <5% have been replaced with "<=5%" and values >95% have been replaced with ">=95%". English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL): The data shows the percentage of students receiving English Second Language support living in each schools' attendance area before and after each boundary option. These percentages are calculated from Fall 2018 student data using geographic assignment aggregated by current and proposed attendance areas. These numbers may not exactly match other reported numbers due to differences in tuning and methodology. In adherence with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which restricts access to student records, values <5% have been replaced with "<=5%" and values >95% have been replaced with ">=95%". SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGES 8/20/2019 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INPUT Community input remains an important part of the attendance area adjustment process. In response to feedback from the 2017 boundary adjustment process, several changes were implemented. In an effort to streamline the process and allow more time for Board discussion and deliberation, the scope of the AAC has changed. For example/ the AAC did not develop their own proposal nor review alternative scenarios submitted by community members. This group reviewed the feasibility study and provide feedback directly to the superintendent. Other process improvements occurred as well/ and included using electronic correspondence/ adjusting the meeting format to allow mteractive discussion between community members, and utilizing a new survey solely for collecting community created alternative attendance area options. Staff is committed to studying further improvements. For a number of years, staff has considered the number of email messages received as a positive indication of outreach. Online surveys and paper surveys have been used to collect the majority of feedback for the Superintendent and HCPSS staff. It also provides a more efficient way to easily remove identifying information and share results with the committee and the community via our website. Community Input Sessions: Four community input sessions were held m July. The format included a short presentation and then offered residents the opportunity to speak in small groups with other community members. The community input sessions were intended to provide a satisfying and meaningful opportunity for the discussion of ideas and to provide input to the Superintendent. The groups were tasked with completing a survey together. In total, over 800 participants attended and 113 group responses were collected; all of these responses can be found in Appendix A. The following shows the locations, dates, and number of group responses from each of the community input sessions. Location Date Responses 'A'ttendance" Oakland Mills HS July 10'" 45 340 Long Reach HS July 13th 10 70 Atholton HS July 16th River Hill HS July 18th 30 28 200 190 SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 6 8/20/2019 Attendance Area Boundary Review Survey The online survey accepted feedback from June 14 through August 1, and 2,176 responses were received. The majority of respondents prioritized limitmg student travel times, mamtaming walkable distances, and boundary continuity. The charts below illustrates the responses to question five from the Attendance Area Boundary Review Survey. This question asked respondents to prioritize the criteria m Policy 6010. For more information on the Attendance Area Boundary Review Survey/ see Appendix B. Q5: The standards listed in Policy 6010 are shown below. Select up to three (3) of the standards you believe are MOST important for consideration during the Boundary Review Process. Answered: 1,480 Skipped: 698 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Efficient use of existing seats (e.g. capacity utilization between 90% and 100%.) (Policy 6010 IVB.i.a) Long-range 18.51% 274 Long-range capital projects (e.g. new school; addillonal seals; the buiiaing's hallways, cafeteria, septic capacity, ability to facilitate higher long-range enrollment) (Policy 6010 IV.B.1,b) capital... Minimizing capital and... 5.68% M Minimizing capital and operating costs (Policy 6010 IV.B.I.c) Transportation 42.64% 631 Transportation considerations (e.g. walkers, bus routes, etc.)(Pollcy6010 IV.B 1.d) consideratio,.. Location of regional programs, Including placement or removal of programs, which Location of 19.08% 282 8.00% 74 may Impact the school capaclty/utillzatlon (e.g. JROTC; Pre-K: Regional ALS) regional... (Policy 6010 IV.B^I.e) 65.95% 976 Keeping feeds of students together from one school to the next (e.g. Larger groups of students moving together from ES to MS and MS to HS) (Policy 6010 IV.B.Z.a) Frequency with which any on. Maintaining contiguous communities or neighborhoods (Poticy 6010 lV.B,2.b) 59.59% 882 Frequency with which any one student Is reassigned (Policy 6010 IV.B.2.C) 25.88% 383 19.12% 283 Consideration of demographic factors (e,g. Race/ethnlc and socioeconomic composition of the school, academic performance, level of English learners) (Policy 6010 IV.3.a-d) Considerfltion ofdemograph.., Number of students moved achieves multiple Policy 6010 considerations. (Policy 6010 IV.B.3,6) Number of 10.34% 153 Total Respondents: 1,480 students mov.., 0% 10% 40% 50% 60% 70% SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 7 8/20/2019 Alternative Boundary Scenarios The Alternative Boundary Scenarios Survey accepted feedback from June 14 through August 1, and in total, 276 responses were submitted. From those responses, 64 scenarios submitted by community members were able to be analyzed. The remaining scenarios did not contain any polygon information to analyze, or were blank. For more details and mformation on these scenarios, see Appendix C. SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGES 8/20/2019 SUPERINTENDENT RECOMMENDED ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The Superintendent's proposal includes boundary changes at all three levels The proposed plan addresses the followmg: 1. Balance capacity utilization among schools throughout HCPSS, cost effectively. 2. Advance equity by addressing the distribution of students participating in the Free and Reducedprice meals program (FARMs) across schools to the extent feasible. 3. Plan ahead for the High School #13 redistricting by minimizing double moves as much as possible. The table below shows the total number of students that are proposed to be reassigned in order to achieve these goals. Students Reassigned Elementary 3,194 Middle 1,351 High 2,851 Total Reassigned 7,396 The following pages show tables and maps describing this recommendation in greater detail. They include the following data: Specific Geographic Recommendations Test Scores Utilization & FARMS ESOL Participation Sending & Receiving by School Race / Ethnicity Walkers Reassigned Maps of Recommended Adjustments SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 9 8/20/2019 Specific Geographic Recommendations - Elementary Sending Receiving Atholton ES Guilford ES Bellows Spring ES Waterloo ES Bollman Bridge ES Guilford ES Bryant Woods ES Clemens Crossing ES Bryant Woods ES Longfellow ES Appx.#of Students Polygons Proposed forReassignment Cradle rock ES Atholton ES 46 117 38 20 85 Ill 70 Cradlerock ES JeffersHillES <10 45, 1045 47 15 2205 78 266, 1033 36,42, 43, 1043 Clemens Crossing ES Swansfield ES 16,1014, 1016 269,1076, 1269 25 5133 268, 1268 66,134, 1066, 1134, 2134 54, 2054 Dayton Oaks ES BushyParkES Deep Run ES JeffersHillES Ducketts Lane ES Deep Run ES Ducketts Lane ES Hanover Hills ES ElkridgeES Ducketts Lane ES 130 108 252 Elkridge ES Rockburn ES <10 5041 Fulton ES Laurel Woods ES 140 117 23 256, 1256 Hollifield Station ES Veterans ES JeffersHillES PhelpsLuckES Longfellow ES Bryant Woods ES Manor Woods ES Triadelphia Ridge ES PhelpsLuckES Waterloo ES Pointers Run ES Dayton Oaks ES Pointers Run ES Swansfield ES Running Brook ES Bryant Woods ES Running Brook ES ThunderHillES St Johns Lane ES Manor Woods ES Stevens Forest ES Thunder Hill ES Swansfield ES Clarksville ES Swansfield ES Longfellow ES Talbott Springs ES Stevens Forest ES Thunder Hill ES Talbott Springs ES Triadelphia Ridge ES Bushy Park ES Veterans ES Worth ington ES Waterloo ES PhelpsLuckES Waterloo ES tA/orthington ES WaverlyES k/Vest Friendship ES West Friendship ES 3ushy Park ES West Friendship ES H-iadelphia Ridge ES 32 74 213 17 153 20 58 118 102 161 36 126 120 129 51 258 18 40 78 63 UNTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN 1266 105, 1105, 1308 261, 1261 144, 1144 157, 1157 i 69, 70, 1069, 2069, 3069, 4069, 5069 1192 64, 129, 1064, 1129 ! 204, 1204 1146 ; 159, 1159 I 96 135,1135, 1174, 2135, 2174 3138 1059, 2059, 3059 65,151,1065,2065, 2151 209, 210, 1210, 1218, 1222, 2210 101 98, 100, 277,1074, 1098, 1100, 2074 74 166, 1166, 2166 231, 232,1231 171,178, 179, 1178, 1179 PAGE 10 8/20/2019 Specific Geographic Recommendations - Middle School Sending Receiving Appx.ttof Students Burleigh Manor MS Mount View MS 107 Clarksville MS Harpers Choice MS Dunloggin MS Oakland Mills MS Elkridge Landing MS Bonnie Branch MS 207 34 57 i 51 Polygons Proposed forReassignment 157,303,1157, 1171,1303 28,185,186,1028,1185, 1186, 2028 Ill,1111, 2111 92,1091, 2091, 5041 Ellicott Mills MS Bonnie Branch MS 16 36 2074 Ellicott Mills MS Oakland Mills MS 44 65, 1065, 2065 Hammond MS ;LakeElkhornMS 127 , Harpers Choice MS Clarksville MS Harpers Choice MS :WildeLakeMS 87 62 154 48, 49, 50,1048, 1050, 2050, 3048 Mayfield Woods MS IBonnie Branch MS <10 277 Mayfield Woods MS LakeElkhornMS <10 78, 3071 Burleigh Manor MS Elkridge Landing MS :ThomasViaductMS LakeElkhornMS Hammond MS Patapsco MS Burleigh Manor MS Patuxent Valley MS Thomas Viaduct MS 53 42 48 62 23 Thomas Viaduct MS Elkridge Landing MS 117 •• Mount View MS Mount View MS 'Glenwood MS Oakland Mills MS I Lake Elkhorn MS Wilde Lake MS Wilde Lake MS :0akland Mills MS Harpers Choice MS 13, 14, 15,57, 1057, 2057 135, 174, 1135,1174, 2135, 2174 53,143,144,1144, 2053 168,1168 231,232, 1231 56,1056, 2056, 3056 159,1159 25 37, 1037, 2043 27 1146 17 1268,2204 SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 11 8/20/2019 Specific Geographic Recommendations - High School Appx.#of Polygons Proposed Sending Receiving Atholton HS River Hill HS lAtholton HS iWilde Lake HS I 97 2133, 3133,4133 ICentennial HS iMarriottsRidge HS \ 231 97,154, 214, 1154, 2154 Students forReassignment 513 64,117,118,120,123, 126, 127,128,129, 190, 296,1064, 1117, 1120, 1123, 1128, 1129, 1190,1296 iHammond HS iAtholton HS 215 48,50,57, 270, 273, 1048,1050,1057, 2050, 2057, 3048 I Howard HS i Long Reach HS i 233 44, 86,87, 299,1086, 1087,1299, 2087, 3087, 4087 ! Long Reach HS HammondHS ] 119 33,266,1033 I Long Reach HS [Oakland Mills HS \ 192 [GlenelgHS [ 57 35,78,79,80,1035, 1080,1082, 2035, 3035, 3071, 4035 IMarriottsRidge HS MtHebronHS [Centennial HS I 85 308,1308, 2308 MtHebron HS iMarriottsRidge HS 82 159,1159 [Oakland Mills HS [Atholton HS I 256 49,52,54, 58, 1054, 1058, 2054 I Reservoir HS IRiverHillHS 231, 232, 1231 96 I River Hill HS IGIenelgHS 202 iRiverHillHS IWilde Lake HS IWilde Lake HS [Oakland Mills HS !Wilde Lake HS I River Hill HS 276 65 132 114, 122, 125, 1114, 1115, 1125,2114, 3115 180,182,199, 200, 201, 202, 203,1176,1180, 1182, 1199, 1201, 1202, 2182, 3182 176,181,183, 1181, 1183, 1185,1200, 2176, 2183, 3176 SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN Ill, 1111, 1146, 2111 135,174,_1135, 1174,2135,2174 j PAGE 12 8/20/2019 Utilization and FARM - Elementary School Projected Utilization Supt. Proposal - Elementary Students Receiving Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARM) Impacted Elementary School Capacity by Future BASE Capital (2020-21) 2020-21 2024-25 Base Proposed Change 15% 25% 18% 1(1 11 Pre-K, Preschool, Ml NC 17% 0^ Title 1, Pre-K, Preschool, MINC -Sx, Title I, Full-day Pre-K Regional Programs Project Bellows Spring ES 424 726 Bollman Bridge ES 666 Bryant Woods ES 361 Bushy Park ES 725 <5 <5 Centennial Lane ES 647 6% 6% Clarksville ES 543 <5 17% Clemens Crossing ES 521 13% 10% Atholton ES ^% Cradlerock ES 398 Dayton Oaks ES 700 Deep Run ES 750 Ducketts Lane ES 650 Elkridge ES 760 33% Forest Ridge ES 713 ALS Title I, Pre-K, Preschool 5% ritle 1, Pre-K, Preschool, M1NC -s% Title 1, Pre-K, Preschool, MINC 32% -i!% Pre-K 34% 34% 0^. 5% 18% i% 5% of< Regional ED 18% at Pre-K, Preschool, MINC -j% TOIe I, Pre-K 0( Fulton ES 826 735 Guilford ES HammondES 465 653 25% Hanover Hills ES 810 33% »3% 25% I 37% Hollifield Station ES 732 24% 24% llchesterES 584 <5 <5 Jeffers Hill ES 421 36% 34% Laurel Woods E5 609 61° Lisbon ES 527 12% _^% 12% Longfellow ES 512 _5U% Manor Woods ES Northfield ES 681 700 8% 11% Phelps Luck ES Pointers Run ES 597 744 <5 <5 Rockburn ES 584 6% Running Brook ES 515 6% si% StJohnsLaneES 612 9% 10% _52 Stevens Forest ES 380 615 Talbott Springs ES 694 377 Thunder Hill ES 509 21% t% 5% 137% Triadelphia Ridge ES 606 <5 <5 Veterans ES 799 21% Waterloo ES 603 24% 22% t% Waverly ES 788 <5 <5 West Friendship ES 414 Worthington ES 515 6% 5% 27% 6% 6% SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN 0^ 41 Pre-K, Preschool, MINC, Regional ED Pre-K, Preschool, MINC.ES PL 1'% If 8% I 11% 36% Swansfield ES Countywlde ES FARM Pre-K, Preschool, MINC, ITP, ES PL -i/1 -S3 Gorman Crossing ES * Yellow highlight Indicates current Title I school Pre-K, Preschool, ALS 0^ -51 <5 Pre-K, Preschool, MINC, ITP, ES PL f% Fitle I, Full-day Pre-K mie 1, Pre-K, Preschool, MINC Title I, Full-day Pre-K Pre-K, Preschool, MINC, ES PL, ALS Pre-K, Preschool, MINC.ALS Fitle I, Full-day Pre-K, Preschool, MINC Qt% f% Title I, Full-day Pre-K Fitle I, Pre-K ntle I, Full-day Pre-K li jE 2CE Regional ED TP TP,Pre-K, Preschool, MINC :lre-K, Regional ED, Preschool, MINC Pre-K, ALS, Preschool, MINC, ES PL 0( 11 're-K, Preschool, Ml NC PAGE 13 8/20/2019 Utilization and FARM - Middle & High School Projected Utilization Supt. Proposal - Middle School Students Receiving Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARM1 Impacted Middle School Capacity by Future BASE Capital (2020-21) 2020-21 2024-25 Base Proposed Change n2c Regional Programs Project Bonnie Branch MS 701 32% 30% Burleigh Manor MS 779 11% 11% Clarksville MS 643 <5 13% Dunloggin MS 565 19% 19% Elkridge Landing MS 779 27% Ellicott Mills MS 701 21% 11% Folly Quarter MS 662 <5 <5 Glenwood MS 545 8% 7% -I! Hammond MS 604 19% 30% 11; Harpers Choice MS 506 Lake Elkhorn MS 643 Lime Kiln MS Mayfield Woods MS 721 798 11% 0% 0% 6% I 0% MS Regional ED 34% n% 2% Wilde Lake MS 721 7% >% s Countywide MS FARM Projected Utilization Supt. Proposal - High School M-S 0% 0% Regional ED -31 1%1 26% Students Receiving Free and Reduced Price Meals (FARM Impacted Capacity by Future BASE Capital (2020-21) 2020-21 2024-25 Base Proposed Change Regional Programs Project Atholton HS Centennial HS 1,460 10% 25% 1,360 11% 12% Glenelg HS 1,420 <5 <5 10% 14% i9% 1-1% 15% L% 1-5% Hammond HS 1,220 Howard HS 1,420 Long Reach HS 1,488 Marriotts Ridge HS 1,615 5% :§: [1% Mt Hebron HS 1,400 16% Oakland Mills HS 1,400 5% »2% 8% 14% n% Reservoir HS 1,551 26% 28% t% River Hill HS 1,488 <5 Wilde Lake HS 1,424 5% 138% 1-8% 5% Regional ED 1-2% Regional ED 1-4% MS Regional ED Countywide HS FARM 22% SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 14 8/20/2019 Sending and Receiving Matrix - Elementary Receiving Elementary tn i2 c 0 0 -c < .c •c a. 1/1 ? 0 s fcUO -a GQ -0 0 0 w ro CL E & £GO s g Atholton ES Bellows Spring ES Boliman Bridge E5 00 JB s_ u £ u s u tS .it: g T3 E u -sL 0 s Q t3 a: D. & 20 Bryant Woods ES Bushy Park ES Centennial Lane ES Clarksville ES Clemens Crossing ES Cradle rock ES 70 47 Dayton Oaks ES Deep Run ES 130 Ducketts Lane ES ElkridgeES Forest Ridge ES Fulton ES ^ German Crossing ES 03 Guilford ES 0) Hanover Hills ES +-» E (U LLJ w c -0 c a> LO Hammond ES Hollifiel d Station ES llchesterES JeffersHillES Laurel Woods ES Lisbon ES 32 Longfellow E5 ManorWoodsES Northfield ES Phelps Luck ES 17 Pointers Run ES Rockburn E5 20 Running Brook ES St Johns Lane ES Stevens Forest ES 161 Swansfield ES Talbott Springs E5 ThunderHillES Triadelphia Ridge ES 129 Veterans ES Waterloo ES Waveriy ES 78 West Friendship ES Worthington ES Total Receiving 70 0 0 52 254 0 161 20 0 17 Sending and Receiving Matrix - Middle School Receiving Middi( Schoo 00 -f= u c ro CQ QJ c c 0 m 0 c ro s -c tDO D 3 CO url LTl LO 5 bfl LO (U > ; ro u LO I £= 3 Q c T3 . 0 u- 0 0 c aj u c 0 E E ro x u 0 u QJ a. ro I LO c 0 -c ^. -u en 2 c UJ . ro s UT> 2 . I c 3 0 E +-' w LO 3 s s s "u c ro -^ ro 0 00 2 0 u 01 a. ro fU Q. & ru > +-• c (U >; K CL Bonnie Branch MS ClarksvilleMS -c Folly Quarter MS LO Glenwood MS cu Hammond MS u ~0 -0 tUO c -a c (U t/1 ^ 0 QJ 3 (U -0 s M c -a c CD w A (U 0 34 51 108 60 44 127 127 87 62 154 149 154 0 <10 <10 53 42 95 0 48 48 62 62 23 PatuxentValleyMS 23 117 FhomasViaductMS 117 17 Wilde Lake MS Total Receiving ro s J^. 207 57 16 Murray Hill MS Oakland Mills MS Patapsco MS > or> 34 Lake Elkhorn MS LimeKilnMS Mount View MS ,fo 207 Harpers Choice MS Mayfield Woods MS ti :3 ~0 107 Dunloggin MS 0 0 2 107 Burleigh Manor MS Elkridge Landing MS EllicottlVlillsMS u-> 115 87 0 117 0 0 42 154 224 SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN 27 0 0 107 0 105 0 0 74 ^L PAGE 16 8/20/2019 44 Sending and Receiving Matrix - High School Receiving High School LTI x t/1 c c c 0 4_i 4-> 0) £. < -c (J on tud • ^— 3: tuo c T3 c 0) an ru p 4-' 0 0 w cu c 0 t/1 I t/1 -0 _bp E E ro I I d) _0) u c 0 t/1 I -a co b X UQ I p s -a ro +-> 1_ \— s aj I I OQ 2 -0 c ro .^t (D 0 1/1 1_ 0 0) t/) d) a: I 3: 1_ ec 513 Atholton HS M c LO en I .0 97 610 231 Centennial HS 231 0 215 GlenelgHS Hammond HS 215 233 Howard HS 119 Long Reach HS 192 311 57 Marriotts Ridge HS 85 Mt Hebron HS Oakland Mills HS 233 82 256 96 Reservoir HS 202 River Hill HS 276 65 Wilde Lake HS Total Receiving 57 167 256 96 478 471 85 259 119 0 233 SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN 313 0 257 132 0 741 ^c 197 PAGE 17 8/20/2019 Walkers Reassigned The following is a count of walkers that are proposed to be reassigned. Please note that these numbers reflect the entire polygon enrolhnent when only a portion or fraction of the students residing in the polygon may actually reside in the walk zone. Walk zones for schools impacted by boundary adjustments will be re-evaluated following adoption of boundaries by the Board. Schools Students Note Elementary Bryant Woods ES -> Longfellow ES 85 Some may be able to walk to Longfellow ES Cradlerock ES -> Atholton ES 70 Not all were walkers to Cradlerock ES Lonfellow ES -> Bryant Woods ES 16 Stevens Forest ES -> Thunder Hill ES 102 Swansfield ES -> Longfellow ES 36 120 Thunder Hill ES -> Talbott Springs ES Middle Harpers Choice MS -> Wilde Lake MS 22 Wilde Lake MS -> Harpers Choice MS 17 These may be potentially elligible to walk to Harpers Choice MS High Long Reach HS -> Oakland Mills HS 24 Mt.Hebron HS -> Mariotts Ridge HS 82 Not all were walkers to Mt.Hebron HS SUPERINTENDENT'S ATTENDANCE AREA ADJUSTMENT PLAN PAGE 18 8/20/2019 Feed Percentages - Middle from Elementary Middle School w w V} -5 c 0 c CO m 2 ^ -s u s 0 tlO s= T3 c bO ^d LLJ 1/1 LQ s ^ s u Q LU I/) 2 (U t d >. 0 LL LO w s -0 -a JC c aj E s 0 0 u c 0 (D 3: 0 u U~l 2 c 0 ^. s; _>; & (0 I _(^ (U Atholton ES UJ QJ 3 35.7% BellowsSprlngES Bollman Bridge ES Bryant Woods ES 33.3% 52.2% Bushy Park ES Centennial Lane ES 55.6% Clarksville ES 36.6% 33.9% Clemens Crossing ES 31.1% CradlerockES 27.7% Dayton Oaks ES Deep Run ES Ducketts Lane ES 28.0% Elkridge ES 45.4% Forest Ridge ES Fulton ES 0 0 -c y LQ ^ro ^ Guilford ES 29.2% Hammond ES 55.6% Hanover Hills ES Hollifleld Station ES llchesterES aj cu Longfellow ES LU 43.1% 25.1% JeffersHillES Laurel Woods ES E 15.2% German Crossing ES 47.8% Lisbon ES 34.9% 29.0% Manor Woods ES Northfield ES PhelpsLuckES Pointers Run ES Rockburn ES 47.2% 15.3% 29.8% 15.8% 51.6% 10.7% 26.7% Running Brook ES 12.3% St Johns Lane ES Stevens Forest ES Swansfield ES 28.5% 14.5% Talbott Springs ES Thunder Hill ES 16.9% 38.9% Triadelphia Ridge ES 40.5% Veterans ES Waterloo ES 25.6% 16.4% Wave rly E5 West Friendship ES Worthington ES 41.7% Feed Percentages - High from Middle High School t/) 3: w LQ co I c 0 +-> 0 J= +-» < c c w M c c fU 0) (U 0 +-> u ec 00 c Q —J t/1 0 l_ ro 2 £ -Q (U I 2 +-> V} s -0 c fD ^ fU 0 LO L- 0 01 t/1 (U OC 40.4% 34.2% -0 T3 28.0% 45.5% Glenwood MS 54.5% 24.0% 17.0% 29.4% 15.9% 19.2% 8.8% 12.3% 18.1% 33.4% 33.4% Lime Kiln MS 28.7% Mayfield Woods MS 23.5% 6.3% 46.2% Mount View MS 70.0% 23.3% 44.5% Oakland Mills MS 2.9% 52.2% Patapsco MS 62.7% Patuxent Valley MS 47.0% Thomas Viaduct MS Wilde Lake MS $ 7.8% Harpers Choice MS Murray Hill MS 3 os 13.3% 31.6% Ellicott Mills MS Hammond MS aj 30.0% Elkridge Landing MS t/1 CD L» 58.4% Dunloggin MS 0 _c u 3: I "" BIR3 ^m R^S ^ran^MnSt •mgBg iMiasTMsi JSTMSJ 13 Superintendent's Proposed Redistricting - MS ^^ Burteigh Manor MS ^^ Clarksville MS Dunloggin MS Elkridge Landing MS ^ff^ Ellicott Mills MS ^^ Folly Quarter MS Glenwood MS 3Ej Hammond MS Harpers Choice MS ? 1 *'""- 'w^!^?r'M1 » jan ^E~VKiStw< <»2B Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 11 :47 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Here is my "support", please drop this radical resolution ! [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear council members, These three pages of "RESOLUTION" is one of the laughable piece of work I have ever encountered in my life. It seems to me that the sole purpose of this resolution is to endorse Dr. Martirano's redistricting proposal. Good team works. The entire resolution is lack of any hard evidence while missing many logic links. For example, resolution mentioned Brown V. BOE case, how does that case have anything to do with current HO? It also mentioned segregated schools defined as < 40% white population. It makes me believe you want to push your desegregate plan and "integration" by busing students based on race? The only reference of data is from The Benefits of 2 Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated Schools and Classrooms" (April 2019). First, as a math major and decades of working experience in finance industry, I fully understand how to digest the conclusion of any academic paper. Even the most tested statistics trading model largely tends to fail when start trading no matter how good the in sample test looks like. I would not even look at any conclusion from this kind of paper as the result is not controlled and even not tested. The same data I can give you completely different conclusion if I want depending on which one you like better. By the way, as a member of county legislative branch, you should know that public school pushing desegregation and integration by race was stroke down by Supreme Court in 2007 and therefore unconstitutional. I voted for you last time not to see you come up with this kind of racial resolution. My tax money pays you and you should spend time to solve real issues, to dig into the root cause of why the income disparity happens in HO, to propose resolution and legislations that will truly benefit HO resident. Please drop this radical resolution or you will lose my vote. Thanks Xuewu Sayers, Margery From: Edward Park Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:27 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: CR112-2019 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear Council Members, In a respectful and civil way, I must express my absolute disgust with the content of resolution CR112-2019. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing. You are really talking about P/essyi/. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, and "desegregation" in this day and age??? In Howard County, Maryland??? Just unbelievable... In your resolution I see nothing other than racially-charged, politically-motivated, Trump-like demagoguery at the expense of fine hardworking citizens of the county and their children. The sponsors of this resolution should be ashamed of themselves, and I am ashamed of myself for voting for Ms. Deb Jung last year. It was horrifying to see the superintendent's total nonsense redistricting proposal following your resolution release, which only tears apart communities, neighborhoods and the well-being of our precious children. Please do not disrespect your constituents like this for your personal political agenda. Through this resolution, you are overstepping the Council's authority with the aim of exerting undue political influence over the county superintendent and the Board of Education. I sincerely urge you to stop this political dog-and-pony show, and do what is truly best for the people of the county, by fixing the problems from their roots through optimal use of taxpayer money. Because if you don't, there will be consequences eventually. The people of Howard County are not as dumb as you might have thought. Thank you for reading. Sayers, Mlargery From: Joey Przyzycki Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:16 PM To: Jung, Deb; CouncilMail Subject: District 4 Polygon 186 constituents -NO to CR112 - NO to superintendent's proposed redistricting [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear Ms.Jung- Our family moved to Clarksville in June this year from out of state and are a part of District 4. We were drawn here by the excellent public schools and the diversity in the school system, which is much greater than where we come from. I want to emphasize that point-the diversity being a draw-because we believe in exposing our children to diverse viewpoints and backgrounds as an essential part of their education. We looked at many houses throughout the area but chose to live in Howard County, knowingly paying higher taxes than we would elsewhere, in addition to paying a premium price for a home in our school district of choice. We are staunch supporters of a vibrant, well-funded public school system that serves all children, regardless of socio-economic status, race, and any other demographic factors. You might say that we put our money where our mouth is on that issue. Your and Council Members Mercer Rigby and Dr. Brown's submission of proposed CR 112 marked the beginning of our warp speed education in local Howard County politics. We understand that the county council does not have any control over the redistricting process; however, since CR 112 appears to be an overt and well-timed attempt to influence it, we are writing to express our disgust. The language of this resolution and the rhetoric surrounding it is beyond inflammatory and divisive. It is clearly intended to manipulate the terms of the public discourse, implicitly labeling those who oppose this sham "de-segregration" as supporters of "segregation" and thus racist. This is unconscionable, and we will not be silenced by it. Under the superintendent's plan for our polygon (186), our children would be moved out of the middle school that we carefully selected, Clarksville Middle, to Harper's Choice, meaning, according to our research, a move from a school where upwards of 80% of children test proficient in English and Math to one where 20-30% do. It makes it difficult for us to juggle our commutes with school activities. It hurts our home value. Most of all, it is an unfair burden on our children. They would have to start over again in a new middle school next year, after starting over this year. They would then be exposed (again!) to more redistricting in high school within 2 years (!), in an already-announced follow on round. For these reasons, we oppose the plan. We understand that overcrowding and socio-economic disparities have reached critical levels in some areas and must be addressed. We would be happy for any children who would prefer to attend under capacity schools such as CMS or River Hill to be provided transportation courtesy of our tax dollars to do so. We would be happy to see our tax dollars put toward building more schools, or seeding innovative programs, such as IB or a performing arts magnet, into existing schools. However, there is no defensible reason why our tax dollars should be used to bus our children OUT of our under capacity neighborhood schools. (Yes, we have submitted a letter to rectistricting@hcpss) That is not "equity" -that is punishment. No parent in their right mind would stand by to see their children tossed around like footballs. We are asking you, as our representative, to represent us. We ask you to use your position and any influence you have in this matter to counter individuals such as the superintendent, who arrogantly seek to override our decisions on what is best for our children. We ask you to reconsider the language of CR 112, which unfairly demonizes and conflates those who oppose the superintendent's redistricting proposal with civil rights opponents. If nothing else, these recent events have impressed upon us how important it is that we get actively involved in local politics in order to advocate for our children, who can't protect themselves from political gamesmanship played at their expense. We intend to do so, including campaigning vigorously against you and any other council members who choose to pursue the unfortunate route of sowing division and racial animus in pursuit of well intended, but ultimately destructive, ideological agendas, or for political gain. Respectfully, Ted & Joey Przyzycki Sayers, Margery From: Inbal Sander Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:07 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: testimony CR 112 Attachments: CR 112 feedback.pdf [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear Councilmember Young, I live in District 4 and am your constituent. I do not agree with CR112 and although I know you introduced it, I think you should carefully reconsider your support. I agree that there is a problem with socioeconomic disparities in our county, but this resolution calls on HCPSS and no one else to address it. It appears as if you are taking a pass. I think this is actually your job. We need faster solutions than waiting for our current kindergartener's to graduate better equipped to fix the problems created by today's policies. Our HCPSS need to focus on meeting children's educational needs today and maximizing graduation rates today, not meeting unvalidated metrics imposed upon them by politicians. If you are going to have such a resolution, please modify it to include actionable items and data. For example data showing proven strategies that HCPSS can use to improve graduation rates. Also, please consider county council resolutions that might help black, Hispanic and FARM families outside of the school system. Finally, I also think that, when reasonable, you should fully fund the HCPSS budget. Inbal Sander Rising Waves Way Sayers, Margery From: cmanganillo@proclaimsystems.com Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:36 AM To: CouncilMail Subject: CR 112 Opposition [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Hi All, This is in reference to the Howard County Council proposal Resolution 112 (htfps://apps.howardcountvmd.gov/olis/GetFile.aspx?id=25521) seeking to address socioeconomic disparity in Howard County. While I am in favor of seeking to solve real problems in the County due to socioeconomic imbalances... I oppose this resolution (as it is written) on multiple fronts and have many factual counter-arguments to the statements presented in the resolution... but I don't want to waste my voice on these for which I know will be brought to light through other's testimony, rather I will focus on an aspect that is quite elementary but sets the tone for the whole resolution. It all starts with the term "Integration" used in the very first sentence: "A RESOLUTION requesting the Howard County Public School System to draft, approve, and implement a lawful multiyear Integration Plan to ensure that Howard County Public Schools are integrated by socioeconomic factors". The term "Integration" is a politically-charged/incendiary/emotionally-evoking term. Don't think for a minute this specific phrase was chosen unthoughtfully. This was an intentional/calculated phrasing chosen by the team of highpriced attorneys and PR firms (which my tax dollars paid for... I might add) that coached the Council on how to draft this document. It is referenced again further down in the 4th statement of the resolution (see bold): "...K-12 racial and social-economic achievement gap; WHEREAS, Howard County did not fully integrate its public school system until 1965, 11 years 15 after the Brown v, Board of Education decision, when the segregated Harriet Tubman High 16 School was closed and the students were sent to integrate Howard County public schools;" This term usage above (used to support and further define "integration" perceptively to the reader) is an attempt to conflate/confuse/mislead the reader into evoking emotions of racial segregation... Later in the document... it says the resolution is about balancing "socioeconomic factors" (not race)... Then why include this self-contradictory language? Make no mistake, it is on purpose! The lawyers who coached the Council on the wording and positioning of this resolution WANT us to feel this confusion... (I have to say, masterfully deceptive...) Think about it... who can oppose a resolution that supports "Integration" without being called a racist? Even 1 feel it right now... and I have a mixed-race family myself. Brilliantly, there is no way to publicly oppose it without having at least a smell of "racism"... You lose before you even start... By choosing to use the term "Integration" in the headline, the lawyers have stacked the deck against thoughtful opposition or discussion of the actual topics sought to be addressed. As we all know... in today's sound-bite world, details are often superfluous (think Donald Trump)... How can I oppose "Integration" and not be called a racist? Brilliant tactic!!!!! But the people of Howard County aren't as naTve/sheepish as you might think. Because we realize that this characterization is intentionally deceptive. This entire thing is about economic disparity. Fine... Let's debate/talk about this and how/ifwe should solve each of these issues at the county level... but don't call it "Integration" to intentionally deceive. 2 Why should we trust that this Council will be fair and balanced when even the very first line of the resolution is intentionally deceptive? Carl Manganillo EllicottCity, MD Sayers, Margery From: Alexander Chudnovsky Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:27 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Oppose CR-112 Attachments: Oppose CR 112alex.docx [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Please see attachment September 4, 2019 Dear County Executive Ball and County Council Members, As many in our community, I have been monitoring the press releases and commentaries on "integration", "race" and "socioeconomics" in Howard County. I am angered by some of the racial implications and charged language used by our elected officials, including member of our county council. This has been further inflamed by our Superintendent's recent redistricting proposal. "Howard County Public Schools have become increasingly segregated by race and socioeconomic status," Councilwoman Christiana Mercer Rigby said. "Redistricting is a civil rights issue in Howard County, and it's time to take meaningful strides toward integration in our education system." Racial and socioeconomic segregation in this county is due to poor zoning and development decision. It is not due to inequalities in our education system or lack of access to education. Poverty has been clustered in areas of Howard County due poor decision making by our past leadership. Directly supporting students and parents in these clustered areas is crucial. More rational future zoning and planning decisions are needed as well. Redistricting and busing kids all over the county will do nothing to help our most needy. Some in our county government have stated that CR-112 may not directly be related to the current redistricting proposal, however it is based on the same argument being utilized by our Superintendent which is clearly misguided. It also demonstrates a gross overreach on the part of the county council. The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) is one of the most successful in the nation. As Superintendent Michael Martirano said "all Howard County schools are excellent." Kids living in pockets of low incoming housing have the same access to the same great education as do the kids living other parts of the county. Instead of spending money on busing and causing chaos for thousands of families, efforts and funds should be spent on the crucial social services that students and families need and not on cosmetic issues such as redistribution of FARM students. It has been argued that this resolution has nothing to do with the current redistricting proposal but that is obviously not the case. Certain members of the county council have even been so bold as to offer "political coverage" to members of the Board of Education. BOE members are independently elected officials for a crucial reason, to keep our children out of politics. The language offered by members of the county council in this resolution borders on racial hate mongering. My family is multi-racial and lives in perhaps the most racially diverse neighborhoods in the county. If you are not familiar, our neighborhood in Polygon 3176 is a majority-minority area that is represented by a mix of African American, African, Asian, Latino, White and Southern Asian families. We are a close knit community that celebrates our diversity. The racial implication and insinuations are frankly insulting. Socioeconomic discrepancies are not foreign to those of us living in my neighborhood. My wife and I both grew up in apartment complexes as "latch key kids." From this experience we learned that offering a long bus ride across town is not the solution. The solution takes more work and insight and must include ensuring that all county schools have equal access to before/after care, enrichment programs, and the tools to bring up Math/English proficiency county wide. For the sake of those truly in need in our county, I urge you to reject this resolution and abandon this misguided endeavor and focus on realigning our budget with needs of Howard County's most vulnerable. The current proposals endorsed by certain members of our county council have no doubt played a role in the most recent misguided redistricting proposal. It pays lip service to equity but does nothing to improve our children's education. Equity is an important moral issue. Our budgets are not just financial documents but moral ones as well. I urge you to reject and retract the CR 112- 2019 plan. This is not a Civil Rights issue! This is a Social Reform Issue! It is a wrongheaded plan which does not deal with the issues facing our most vulnerable. Stop the hate mongering and invest in the families and kids who live in low income communities and give them the opportunities all children deserve! Sincerely, Alex Chudnovsky Sayers, Margery From: H Kan Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:56 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Opposition to CR11 2 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HC Council, I understand there is a bill CR112 being introduced calling to desegregate HCPSS based on socioeconomic measures. Well, I have no problem with achieving social justice. However, redistricting has become so politically charged now that it is not really focusing on addressing real needs of the needed. I wonder why we need to do this from the Council and how you think this may help with the current situation. I would suggest facilitating and letting the communities to work effectively with BOE to address real needs. The political slogans and moves may only make things worse. As a person who grew up in the orthodox communist environment in China but now I am a proud American, I have seen all these political movements. The entire American society is becoming politically charged. China is becoming more practical and learned their lessons. Let me tell you this advice if I may, focus less on ism's and politically charged languages and actions, focus on real issues by working with and uniting people. Let us not waste our time on politics but rather focus on real work and excellent work that shows real benefits. Our country does not need more politics. Our country needs people who focus on real work and good work. Thanks. Respectfully, Hongjun Kan Clarksville, MD Sayers, Margery From: Ming Du Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 3:55 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: Oppose CR-112 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Howard County Council, I'm opposed to county resolution CR-112. I think it's a very clear indication of county council's ineptitude of promoting people out of poverty - because you cannot find a way to solve this very troubling issue, you blame naturally formed society, using our children as pawns, and mixed up all the numbers in order to save all your faces. As a tax payer, I demand that you find real solutions to the problem, pour resource heavily into areas that need it, train people and help them find jobs. Throw away your political ambitions, and really keep your constituents in your heart - don't disturb people lives. As one who lived in socialist country for more than 20 years - I'm telling you that your ideology does not work. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one" - Thomas Paine "...the essence of the evil government is that it anticipates bad conduct on the part of its citizens. Any government which assumes that the population is going to do something evil has already lost its franchise to govern." - Philip Dick Ming Du Ellicott City resident JulieKim, M.D. 5910 Perfect Calm Court Clarksville, MD 21029 Septembers, 2019 To Whom It May Concern, It was a pleasure seeing Superintendent Martirano at the River Hill Protest 8/27/19 and watch him engage with the crowd. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to his Superintendent's Attendance Area Adjustment Plan (see attached). I am a concerned Clarksville Elementary School parent, resident of polygon 187, and prospective homebuyer. As a transplanted New Yorker, I was delighted to see the value placed on socioeconomic diversity. We can learn so much from people different from ourselves and there is a tendency in the suburbs to live in a homogenous bubble. I am also a child of immigrants who emphasized education and hard work to live the good life. My conception of the good life is to raise my children in a safe, healthy, diverse environment in which to grow and maximize their potential. It is why I moved to Howard County, despite the cost, commute, and my own cosmopolitan tendencies. I represent a multi-ethnic coalition of public school parents opposing redistricting, as it is currently proposed. As a clinical trial reviewer, I see the following concerns generated by the report: a. The report indicates (page 10/34) that Clarksville Elementary (with a maximum capacity of 543) will receive 161 students, more than tripling the proportion of Free and Reduced-Priced Meals Program (FARM) recipients from <5% to 17%. However, it will not send any out. Since this school is using all available classrooms, it appears class size and student:teacher ratios will have to increase to accommodate the proposed change. The physical plant is already strained; the cafeteria doubles as an auditorium and different grades take shifts for lunch because its capacity is limited. I am concerned that Clarksville Elementary is being overly burdened if the goal is desegregation and equally distributing the FARM burden across the county. Other less ethnically diverse elementary schools (i.e., Lisbon, Bushy Park, Dayton) have larger or similar capacity but are receiving 0-47 students with minimal increase in FARM percentage (either staying at <5% or maxing at 12%). It is unclear why more FARM students aren't being transferred to those particular schools to better equalize the FARM and racial proportion across the county. To distribute ethnic diversity and FARM students more evenly across the county and minimize undue stress on Clarksville Elementary, please consider sending more students to other elementary schools and decrease the number of students received in Clarksville Elementary. b. The report indicates (page 21/34) that test scores will decline from base-to-proposed at Clarksville Elementary by approximately 10% in PARCC-Read (from 83%-74%) and PARCC-Math (from 89%-79%). 1 However, we are preparing our children to enter global hyper competition in the future. It appears as though the unfortunate by-product of the plan is reduced academic excellence and rigor. I am concerned with mediocrity and teaching to the test. We must maintain a challenging academic environment. With a large influx of low-scoring students (averaging an alarming 50% below the current norm), it seems most of them may be a grade level or more behind their peers. I am concerned that advanced learners will be ignored and left to stagnate, while others are struggling to remediate the bare minimum of skills needed to pass standardized tests. To ensure the highest levels of academic engagement, please provide recommended strategies on how slow and advanced learners would be integrated in the same school. For instance, will there be intensive remediation efforts prior to redistricting to ensure a smooth transition for those behind grade level? As a former SAT and TOEFL instructor, can I and other Howard County residents volunteer for Saturday tutoring of students with failing test scores? Since the upgrade in academic peers constitute a de facto scholarship for those who might not be able to afford to live in Clarksville, can the students selected to go be FARM students within 1 standard deviation of the current PARCC average to permit more effective skills transfer? Will we be able to reinstate our technology teacher full-time (whose position was reduced to half-time) next year? Will classes be tracked? As a graduate of one of the top magnet schools in the country (e.g., Hunter College High School), I would also like to recommend designating one of the centrally located high schools into a magnet once the new high school (HS 13) is in place. Unlike traditional exam schools, if there were a quota system (i.e., top 10% from every feeder school and historically marginalized population, such as FARMS), advanced learners of all backgrounds across the county would have an opportunity to interact meaningfully. We already see a successful version of this each summer at the Howard County Gifted and Talented Summer Institute, when children all over the county congregate at Wilde Lake Middle School. In the DMV region, Fairfax and Montgomery counties have enjoyed reputable magnet high schools (i.e., Thomas Jefferson High School) that feed into top colleges and universities for some time.1,2 c. It is of concern, as a prospective homebuyer, that many neighbors in Clarksville have dashed expectations for desirable middle and high schools after signing on mortgages for expensive homes. I am reluctant to invest more time and money in a community that does not value my contribution or respect prior commitments. Moreover, it stinks that some board members might stand to gain from redistricting by transferring their children into the desired schools and possibly increasing their property values. Such blatant conflicts of interest and apparent abuse of public office should not be tolerated. To minimize corruption, please request that such board members be recused. 1 https://www. niche.com/kl2/search/best-maRnet-hiRh-schools/s/virginia/ 2 https://www.niche.com/kl2/search/best-maEnet-high-schools/s/maryland/ Finally, I am concerned with the tenor of the debate. Councilmembers Rigby, Jones and Jung recently publicly stated: This socioeconomic and racial segregation in the school system is contributing to increasing achievement gaps and decreasing graduation rates for low-income students and students of color. Historic systems have created these achievements gaps [SIC] and it is incumbent on the County to introduce new systems that foster necessary change.3 It is important to acknowledge that de facto segregation is a stubborn stain that persists in our country due to the legacy of slavery since 1619. However, it appears that Councilmembers Rigby, Jones and Jung are defining segregation too narrowly. There seems to be a flawed working assumption that Asian Americans do not count as students of color or experience setbacks due to exclusion and underestimation. Please note that the report indicates (pages 26-27/34) Clarksville Elementary and Clarksville Middle are already ethnically diverse schools with over 50% students of color (e.g., Asian American, African American, Latino). I am also aware that Clarksville Elementary serves a disproportionate population of disabled students. Unfortunately, the proposed plan penalizes many students of color (i.e., Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos) and Whites in Clarksville with relocation to less desirable schools to remedy a wrong they did not commit. While diversifying socioeconomically is a worthy goal, disruption and anguish for those currently in Clarksville should be minimized because we are in this together. As you may already be aware, Howard County leads the state of Maryland in public school quality.4 Currently, it is uniquely poised to lead our nation in achieving intelligent integration, equal opportunity and academic excellence, which I believe are values consistent with Columbia's founders and unite us. Let's not squander this historic opportunity and expand the pie for all. Our community can do better than fight over scraps, be divided, and repeat mistakes of the past. Thank you for your time and attention. Feel free to contact me for any questions or comment. All the best to you, Julie P.S. Please see the attached photo of my son with his friends; multi-ethnic students on their first day of school at Clarksville Elementary. With the proposed plan, they would be zoned to separate middle schools. CC: Shawna Frazier, M.B.A. Maria Gutierrez, M.D. Claudia Palmer, R.N. Christian Cao Yinqi Zhang, Ph.D. Rong Guo, Ph.D. 3httDS://cc.howardcountvmd.KOv/Portals/0/Documents/CouncilMain/Press%20Releases/2019/CMR OJ DJ%20Desegregati on%20Press%20Release.pdf 4 https://www. niche.com/kl2/d/howard-county-public-schools-md/ Sayers, Margery From: Tim & Deb Lattimer Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 8:41 PM To: CouncilMail Subject: I strongly support CR1 12-2019 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] I strongly support CR112-2019 and urge the County Council to approve it as soon as possible. If Howard County aspires to be that "shining city on a hill," then we have to make equity and inclusion a high priority lens through which we look at how we define our schools' intake areas. I applaud the leadership of grateful to Howard County Council Chair Christiana Mercer Rigby, Vice Chair Dr. Opel Jones, and Councilmember Deb Jung in spotlighting the importance of equity and inclusion as values that must be advanced in any HCPSS effort to redistrict our schools. Our kids gained immeasurably from their attendance at Long Reach High School over the past six years. Going to a school with great diversity was enriching for our kids and better prepared them to deal with the current and future realities of a globalized world. I welcome and appreciate the powerful message embodied in CR112-2019 and hope the Council will approve it unanimously. Thanks and best regards, Tim Lattimer, resident of Columbia, MD Sayers, Margery From: Priti Bajaj Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:16 PM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; Kathleen_Hanks@hcpss.org Subject: Opposition to the Superintendent's Redistricting Plan Attachments: Opposition to the Superintendent's Redistriciting Plan.docx [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Please see the attached letter regarding the Superintendent's redistricting plan. Thank you. Septembers/ 2019 Re: Opposition to the Superintendent's Redistricting Plan Dear Board of Education Members, My name is Priti Bajaj and I am a current resident of Howard County (Polygon 176). I am writing to express my concerns regarding the redistricting plan put forth by Dr. Martirano. As a mother of three, the redistricting of polygon 176 would more than double the distance my children would have to travel to get to school. It would also triple their commute time on the bus. This extended commute would not only be costly to the Howard County school system/ it would also be detrimental to the growth of our children. As a pediatrician/1 know the effects that a longer commute ride can have on children. There are various studies that have been published that describe the association between longer commute rides and less sleep, less exercise, less involvement in extracurricular activities, worse academic achievement/ and increased stress in children. Children with longer commute rides are also less likely to be socially integrated in their school community. Thus, with the drastic increase in commute times/ this redistricting plan would be causing devastating harm to all of the children of Howard County. As a pediatrician, I also know the negative effects that switching schools can have on children. Studies have demonstrated that youth who switch schools are more likely to demonstrate negative behavior and educational outcomes. With preparations in place for High School #13 to be built in 2023, it is important that this massive relocation of 7/396 students be postponed in order to limit the number of switches these Howard County students will have to make in the future. In regards to River Hill specifically/ currently, River Hill High School is projected to be at 94% projected utilization for the 2019/2020 school year. This is at the lower end of the target utilization range. Therefore/ it seems contradictory that under Dr. Martirano's plan, River Hill would send 478 of its own students to other schools and receive 741 students from other schools. This is extremely disruptive and unnecessary for a school that is currently at the lower end of the target utilization range. Instead/ it would make more sense for a school like River Hill to receive students from nearby schools/ such as Wilde Lake or Atholton, without sending 478 students out to other schools. Finally, transferring students from schools with lower FARM ratios to schools with higher FARM ratios only results in more equal FARM percentages on paper for the schools. It does not actually help students in need. It is important that the Howard County Board of Education focus on providing direct resources and educational opportunities for schools/children in need, instead of shuffling students around for better averages on paper. This will not solve the problem of helping children in need. After carefully analyzing Dr. Martirano's plan, I reject his proposed redjstricting plan and encourage the Howard County Board of Education to carefully reevaluate this plan for the benefit of all of the children of Howard County. The fate and well being of our children are in your hands. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Priti KaurBajaj/ MD Polygon 176 Sayers, Margery From: Walsh, Elizabeth Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 3:36 PM To: Sayers, Margery Subject: FW: Resolution No. 112-2019 FYI- Testimony From: Laurie Liskin Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 11:36 AM To: Walsh, Elizabeth Cc: Dvorak, Nicole Subject: Resolution No. 112-2019 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear Liz, I am writing to ask you to support Resolution No. 112 - 2019 and all plans to integrate Howard County Public Schools. All the research clearly shows that integrated schools improve overall test scores and graduation rates, benefiting everyone in Howard County. It is essential that we provide the best possible educational opportunities for everyone in the county and especially for those who need them most. Years ago, my community was redistricted from Centennial to Wilde Lake. There was an enormous hue and cry. The end result was that my daughter and her cohorts got a great education, went on to good colleges, successful careers, etc. and also benefited from meeting students from diverse backgrounds. Please support Resolution 112-2019. Laurie Liskin 4642 Smokey Wreath Way, Ellicott City, MD 21042 Sayers, Margery From: Jyoti Gupta Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 2:27 PM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.nnd.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving non-FARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with_gj_for th^ community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Thanks Jyoti Gupta 214-843-5576(Cell) Sayers, Margery From: Shyam Balani Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:28 PM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; Kathleen_Hanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon - 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving non-FARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Shyam K Balani 12198 Hayland Farm Way Ellicott City 25 Sayers, Margery From: Sunia A. Lessing Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11:28 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delnnont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; Hcpss Redistricting; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; kathleen_hanks@hcpss.org; karen.salmon@maryland.gov; deborah.nelson@maryland.gov; monica.bias@maryland.gov; teresa.dantzlerl @maryland.gov Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon 1181 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Good Morning, Dear BOE members, council members, state senators and representatives of our school system, This email is in regards to the proposed redistrictmg plan by Dr. Martii-ano. Whereas I appreciate the need for redistrictuig, the current plan is a blatant disregard for our children for who they are, and that is CHILDREN, not polygons, or statistics! By your definition; Equitable - Just or fair access, opportunities, and supports needed to help students, families, and staff reach their full potential by removing barriers to success that individuals face. It does not mean equal or everyone having the same things. According to this plan, 2/3 of my children will be displaced from our neighborhood of mostly farmland and sent to a Columbia school 6 miles away. My high schoolet would have to leave the house at 6am. She has social anxiety and it took a YEAR for us to get her comfortable to perform at hei: potential. She considers herself a "loner", and shy. A change to the magnitude of what you ai-e proposing is going to disrupt her basic needs of community, friendships, and comfort, not to mention her academics in the crucial junior year. Her current HS is RHHS. It is currently at under utilization. According to your considerations for i-edistricring, Facility Utilization - Where reasonable, school attendance area utilization should stay within the target utilization for as long a period of time as possible is considered to be the NUMBER ONE factor! For your NUMBER 2 factor, you are talking about Community StabUit)?. Where reasonable, school attendance areas should promote a sense of commuaity in both the geographic place (e.g., neighborhood or place m wUch a student lives) and the promotion of a student from each school level through the consideration of: a. Feeds that encourage keeping students together from one school to the next. For example, avoiding feeds of less than 15% at the receiving school. b. Areas that are made up of contiguous communities or neighborhoods. As mentioned above, our polygon is comprised of mostly farmland, with another family having a child in elementary school. We rely on neighbors for rides from after school activities who live relatively close to us. Our friendships have been already established by reaching out to neighborhoods near us, and establishing TRUST with other parents, whether they are in high school or middle school. We help each other out by babysitting for each other because of school proximity and drives that are directly to the schools. You are disrupting our contiguous communities, and you are relocating my child away from every other one of her friends!!! How is this possible!?? I am heartbroken and outraged at the same time! My heart is shattered for all of these kids who will have to adapt in one of their most challenging years in high school. Now, to the point of equity mentioned above. If equity is defined at JUST and FAIR ACCESS, then transfer the students from Wilde Lake to RHHS, or GHS, where the schools are under capacity. Disrupt 216 kids, not 7000!!!! What is wrong with your logic? How can you justify the impact you are having on this entire beautiful county by destroying it? What are your projected outcomes? What historical studies were analyzed to show that improvement is obtained by just simply shuffling our kids around? How did that work out for when Centennial kids moved to Wilde Lake? It is NOT your job to adjust for socioeconomic status by dehumanizing my kids, turning them into a percentage and moving them! First of all, they will not participate in ANY after school activities. I'd rather have them in club sports near our home, where it is easy for us to drive to and manage our work schedule. Second, have you thought for ONE second the destruction you'd create for the Wilde Lake kids? Let me give you an example: I immigrated from Romania at a high school age. I started in a Chicago Public School in 9th grade, in ESOL classes, Algebra 1 and all the other required classes. My English was basically sign language. I had a strong Romanian community that was instrumental of surviving the adjustment period. My friends in different classrooms, a Romanian teacher, the after school activities with said friends. I was shy and afraid to talk in English. Because of their strong support I finished as a Salutatorian of that school. I attribute that to my classmates, my teacher, and my parents. My parents had no clue what PTA was, or that I had to play volleyball after school so I can get into college! And I was taking public transportation to school to and from my HUD housing in Chicago. I attended the University of Chicago on scholarship, and finished it in three years. The transition from my community to U of C was HELL! It looks amazing on paper! Brand new immigrant, finishes top of the class, gets into a Top 10 US school with an acceptance rate of 8%, and finished in 3 years!! Woohooo, right?? Not so fast! I hit a brick wall!! I could barely cope with the amount of work, and had to completely redo my study habits. I was floating between depression, anxiety and fear of letting my parents down. I lived on campus, but they knew that something was off. They would call me every day to make sure I was ok. I got out in three years because I could not stand being there for one more second! And no, it is not the school's fault. It is the transition that you are proposing, of taking kids out of their Title 1 school that allows for smaller class sizes, for their supportive environment and friends, and transferring them to a highly competitive school where they may hit a brick wall. The solution? Give parents choice. Let the parents decide if they are willing to drive to pick up their kids from their afterschool activities. Of course they would have to drive since the infrastructure of the county does not allow for public transportation to these schools, yet. Look for example at how JumpStart worked out, the good and the bad. Let the kids and the parents make the choice if they want to move. Each school is a representative of their community. People love to work, shop and send their kids to schools in their own communities. Provide the necessary support for those kids, but don't uproot them from their comfort zone unless they want to! My parents were supportive even on their minimum wage salaries. Their presence was always known, as well as their expectations. That does not require money. I am now in a comfortable career, serving our veterans at the VA Hospital. I give back to those who afforded me the freedoms of the USA, rather than private practice. Your proposal have brought out those who call me "grossly privileged" and that my kids' high school needs more "diversity". I have worked for my privilege from ZERO! It is infuriating to hear people who already had an advantage that I did not have when I came here: know ENGLISH. My parents came with two suitcases as their belongings and have not made one excuse for my brother and I as far as school was concerned. We both have doctorate degrees. So for someone to completely dismiss my parents, my work and what I choose to have for my kids is enraging. When anyone chooses to walk in my shoes, and escape communism and make it on nothing, that's when they criticize my choices about where I live and send my kids to school. I sincerely hope that you will re-evaluate your options and give strong consideration to voucher programs, choice programs or magnet programs. Right now, this debate is tearing this county apart in the name of race, privilege and poverty. Stop the madness. Sincerely, Sunia Lessing Mom to three girls in polygon 1181 SuniaA. Lessing, DDS, MS Baltimore VA Medical Center Dental Clinic WN. GreeneSf. ~Rsom2D163 Ba/fimore, MD 21201 443-310-2323 Sayers, Margery From: qianlee2011@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11:13 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: The morning schedule....Against the redistricting. [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Qjan Li (polygon 176) Today is the first day of new school year and I know if my children are still adjusting from summer vacation I can drive them to their middle school and high school in the morning if they need more time to rest(especially in the morning). But what am I going to do for next year? Our current river hill high school is only 2miles away but the proposed redistricting will be sending one of my child to Wilde Lake high which is 7 miles away from our house and 10 miles away from our middle school(folly quarter). My husband has a lot of business trips as he works hard to provide the family so I need to handle the children all by myself in the morning most of the time. Please stop the long commute proposal. Let students have more sleep time and attend our neighborhood high school. Regards, Qian Li Sent from my iPhone Sayers, Margery From: Anya V Sent: Tuesday, Septembers, 2019 11:11 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Hello [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear Board of Education Members, I am writing on behalf of my family resident of Polgyon 176 who are concerned about the proposed impact of Dr Martirano's Presentation of the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan, dated August 20, 2019. As noted in the Executive Summary on Page 4, this proposal was developed with three primary goals as excerpted below: The driving priorities for this process: 1. Balance capacity utilization among schools throughout HCPSS, cost effectively. 2. Advance equity by addressing the distribution of students participating in the Free and Reduced price meals program (FARMs) across schools to the extent feasible. 3. Plan ahead for the High School #13 redistricting by minimizing double moves as much as possible. We have also studied and respect the published policies which the Board of Education utilizes in making decisions with regard to school attendance areas, specifically Policy 6010 (https://www.hcpss.orR/policies/6000/6010-schoolattendance-areas/): Unfortunately, the Presentation of Attendance Area Adjustment Plan, dated August 20, 2019 is not consistent with the guidelines of Policy 6010 and does not achieve the three primary goals as stated in Dr Martirano's letter. Please consider the following facts. School Attendance Area: School Attendance area and geographic proximity is a consideration of Policy 6010. The proposed redistricting of Polygon 176 would more than double the distance students travel to get to school. - Using Google Maps, Walnut Creek / Polygon 176 is 2.1 Miles from River Hill High School (RHHS). Walnut Creek / Polygon 176 is 5.8 miles from Wilde Lake High School (WLHS). - Using WAZE, the commute time from Polygon 176 to Wilde Lake High School would be 3x as long as the commute to River Hill High School. - In addition, many of the students from Polygon 176 would have to drive through River Hill High School bus and car traffic, en-route to Wilde Lake High School under the August 20, 2019 proposal. Capacity Utilization: Policy 6010 identifies three key aspects to school capacity which are (1) Projections [item P], (2) Target Utilization [item S] which is defined as enrollment between 90% and 110% utilization of program capacity and (3) Utilization [item T]. The 2019 Feasibility Study (https://www.hcpss.org/f/schoolplanning/2019/2019-feasibilitv-study.pdf) notes the following findings: 1. River Hill High School is projected to be at 94% Projected Utilization for 2019/2020 school. This is at the lower end of the Target Utilization range. 2. Page 33 of the Feasibility Study indicates that River Hill is within Target Utilization through the 10 year projection period of the study. 3. Under Dr Martirano's proposal, River Hill would send 478 students to other schools and receive 741 students from other schools. This is extremely disruptive and unnecessary for a school that is currently operating within each of guidelines [P], [S] and [T] of Policy 6010. 4. We believe the board should reject a plan which moves approximately 7,400 total students including 478 students from River Hill High School which is currently operating within Board Policy guidelines with regard to Projections, Target Utilization and Utilization. 5. We believe any re-districting proposal should instead be focused on those five High Schools that are operating above Target Utilization levels (110%). 6. We believe the Board of Education should support a plan that includes less disruption at schools that are operating within the guidelines of [P], [S] and [T]. For instance, since River Hill High School is operating well within the target utilization range, perhaps it should receive students from nearby schools such as Wilde Lake, Atholton or Howard, without sending 478 students out to other schools. Certainly, the Board of Education can request a plan that achieves better capacity utilization with less than 7,396 total students being relocated. Equity: The very first sentence of the Policy Statement of HCPSS Policy 6010 is The Board of Education of Howard County, with the advice of the Superintendent, establishes school attendance areas to provide quality, equitable educational opportunities to all students and to balance the capacity utilization of all schools. Furthermore, "equitable" is defined in the policy statement as: Just or fair access, opportunities, and supports needed to help students, families, and staff reach their full potential by removing barriers to success that individuals face. It does not mean equal or everyone having the same things. The Presentation of the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan dated August 20, 2019 is not consistent with the Board of Education Policy Statement 6010, nor does it follow the BoE's definition of achieving "equitable" educational opportunities. We hereby request the Board of Education identify ways to provide additional educational resources to the students in need. Transferring students from a school with a low FARM ratio to a school with a high FARM ratio, only results in better "averages" for the schools. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY INCREMENTAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES OR OPPORTUNITES DIRECTLY TO THE STUDENTS. In conclusion, we recommend the Board of Education reject the Presentation of Attendance Area Adjustment Plan dated August 20, 2019 due to the numerous and serious inconsistencies with regard to both Policy 6010 and the stated goals of the proposal. - The proposal would triple the commuting time of students in Polygon 176 - Many affected schools including River Hill High School are operating within the Board of Education projection, utilization and capacity guidelines and would experience a total student transfer of over 1,000 children inclusive of students being sent and received. Boundary adjustments should be focused on schools operating over capacity or projected to be over capacity based on the 2019 Feasibility study. - The proposal does not provide additional resources directly to students in need, it simply provides more consistent FARM ratios across schools. Children do not need consistent FARM ratios, they need additional education resources provided directly to their schools. Regards, Anya.V Sayers, Margery From: Anjali Riya Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11 :09 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org; Anjali Lal Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Ploygon 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Members, I am writing as a concerned Howard County resident (Polygon 176) and parent about the proposed impact of Dr Martirano's Presentation of the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan, dated August 20,2019. The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings/ etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases/ commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving non-FARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. As noted in the Executive Summary on Page 4, this proposal was developed with three primary goals as excerpted below: The driving priorities for this process: 1. Balance capacity utilization among schools throughout HCPSS, cost effectively. 2. Advance equity by addressing the distribution of students participating in the Free and Reduced price meals program (FARMs) across schools to the extent feasible. 3. Plan ahead for the High School #13 redistricting by minimizing double moves as much as possible. We have also studied and respect the published policies which the Board of Education utilizes in making decisions with regard to school attendance areas/ specifically Policy 6010 (https://www.hcpss.orR/policies/6000/6010-schoolattendance-areas/): Unfortunately/ the Presentation of Attendance Area Adjustment Plan, dated August 20, 2019 is not consistent with the guidelines of Policy 6010 and does not achieve the three primary goals as stated in Dr Martirano's letter. Please consider the following facts. School Attendance Area: School Attendance area and geographic proximity is a consideration of Policy 6010. The proposed redistricting of Polygon 176 would more than double the distance students travel to get to school. - Using Google Maps/ Walnut Creek/ Polygon 176 is 2.1 Miles from River Hill High School (RHHS). Walnut Creek / Polygon 176 is 5.8 miles from Wilde Lake High School (WLHS). - Using WAZE/ the commute time from Polygon 176 to Wilde Lake High School would be 3x as long as the commute to River Hill High School. - In addition/ many of the students from Polygon 176 would have to drive through River Hill High School bus and car traffic/ in-route to Wilde Lake High School under the August 20, 2019 proposal. This additional driving distance will be costly for the school system and potentially dangerous for children. Capacity Utilization: Policy 6010 identifies three key aspects to school capacity which are (1) Projections [item P]/ (2) Target Utilization [item S] which is defined as enrollment between 90% and 110% utilization of program capacity and (3) Utilization [item T]. The 2019 Feasibility Study (https://www.hcpss.org/f/schoolplanning/2019/2019- feasibilitystudy.pdf) notes the following findings: 1. River Hill High School is projected to be at 94% Projected Utilization for 2019/2020 school. This is at the lower end of the Target Utilization range. 2. Page 33 of the Feasibility Study indicates that River Hill is within Target Utilization through the 10-year projection period of the study. 3. Under Dr Martirano's proposal, River Hill would send 478 students to other schools and receive 741 students from other schools. This is extremely disruptive and unnecessary for a school that is currently operating within each of guidelines [P], [S] and [T] of Policy 6010. 4. The board should reject a plan which moves approximately 7,400 total students including 478 students from River Hill High School which is currently operating within Board Policy guidelines regarding Projections, Target Utilization and Utilization. 5. Any re-districting proposal should instead be focused on those five High Schools that are operating above Target Utilization levels (110%). 6.1 believe the Board of Education should support a plan that includes less disruption at schools that are operating within the guidelines of [P], [S] and [T]. For instance, since River Hill High School is operating well within the target utilization range, perhaps it should receive students from nearby schools such as Wilde Lake, Atholton or Howard, without sending 478 students out to other schools. Certainly, the Board of Education can request a plan that achieves better capacity utilization with less than 7,396 total students being relocated. Equity: The very first sentence of the Policy Statement of HCPSS Policy 6010 is The Board of Education of Howard County, with the advice of the Superintendent/ establishes school attendance areas to provide quality, equitable educational opportunities to all students and to balance the capacity utilization of all schools. Furthermore, "equitable" is defined in the policy statement as: Just or fair access, opportunities, and supports needed to help students, families, and staff reach their full potential by removing barriers to success that individuals face. It does not mean equal or everyone having the same things. The Presentation of the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan dated August 20, 2019 is not consistent with the Board of Education Policy Statement 6010, nor does it follow the BoE's definition of achieving "equitable" educational opportunities. We hereby request the Board of Education identify ways to provide additional educational resources to the students in need. Transferring students from a school with a low FARM ratio to a school with a high FARM ratio, only results in better "averages" for the schools. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY INCREMENTAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES OROPPORTUNITES DIRECTLY TO THE STUDENTS. In conclusion, I recommend the Board of Education reject the Presentation of Attendance Area Adjustment Plan dated August 20, 2019 due to the numerous and serious inconsistencies regarding both Policy 6010 and the stated goals of the proposal. - The proposal would triple the commuting time of students in Polygon 176 - Many affected schools including River Hill High School are operating within the Board of Education projection, utilization and capacity guidelines and would experience a total student transfer of over 1,000 children inclusive of students being sent and received. Boundary adjustments should be focused on schools operating over capacity or projected to be over capacity based on the 2019 Feasibility study. - The aspect of this proposal intended to create "equity" does not provide additional resources directly to students in need. Children do not need consistent FARM ratios; they need additional education resources provided directly to their schools and classrooms. Thank you, Anjali La I 5021 Lindera Ct., Ellicott City, ND/20142 Howard County Resident Sayers, Margery From: Marissa Josiah Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11 :08 AM To: mavis_e]lis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon 1176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving non-FARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Sayers, Margery From: Michael Wallace Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11 :05 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; Christina_delmont-smalls@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; kathleen_hanks@hcpss.org Subject: Opposition to the Howard County redistricting plan [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] I'm writing this letter in opposition to the proposed Howard County redistricting plan. I will be moving to the area next spring and have several concerns over the proposed plan. 1. My children will be living approximately 5 minutes to the local high school but in the proposed plan will be having to travel approximately 30 minutes to school. It will obviously affect their "out the door" time and will therefore cut down on sleep time at the most important time in their lives for sleep. 2. The plan only looks at the number of FARM students and the percentages of those students at each school. It does nothing to help those students out. Having more non-FARM students will not help the FARM students become better students, and if anything, might give them ill-feeling towards the new students, or make themselves feel worse for causing this change. 3. What happens in a couple of years when the new school opens? Does this happen again? I'm not sure why this couldn't have been delayed until the new school opens. 4. Overcrowding and under-utilized schools was not even addressed. I'm hoping this decision can be delayed until more information is reviewed and a decision is not made strictly based on the percentages of FARM students. Thank for your consideration, Michael Wallace Sayers, Margery From: Shyam Balani Sent: Tuesday, Septembers, 2019 11:02 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-tanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon - 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving non-FARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Shyam K Balani President BizlT Consultants Inc. Cell: 1-253-678-4503 10 Work: 1-443-873-1493 Email: shvam.balani(5)bizitconsultants.com Web: http://www.bizitconsultants.com Add: 6700 Alexander Bell Dr., Suite 200 Columbia, MD 21046 USA 11 Sayers, Margery From: Sunil Komathi Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 11 :02 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon -176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving non-FARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Thanks 12 Sayers, Margery From: Smitha Kuppalli Sent: Tuesday, Septembers, 2019 11:00 AM To: kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmontsmall@hcpss.org; jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; superintendent@hcpss.org; Ball, Calvin Subject: Smitha Kuppalli, Opposing redistricting plan: polygon 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, Regarding the proposed redistricting plan, I am opposing this measure due to the below: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents/ siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does not fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving nonFARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Smitha Kuppalli Polygon 176 13 Sayers, Margery From: primal bhatia Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 201 9 10:59 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan : Polygon 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Members, I am writing this letter to express my disappointment over the proposed school redistricting plan by the School Superintendent. This proposal puts in place a complex, more expensive and time consuming transportation plan. Its moving lots of children from their local walkable schools to further away schools and putting parents in trouble when they have kids in two different schools in different parts of the howard county. One on the west side and other on the east side. This proposal, by focusing on FARM numbers, is taking away opportunity away from students, rather than moving towards the goal of an equitable education to all students within Howard County. By sending children from River Hill High School to Wilde Lake High School, the affected students are losing the very opportunities on which many families relied on when they moved to this area. In addition, it also increases the commute time for students and families, from under 5 minutes to River Hill, to over 25 minutes to Wilde Lake. This increased drive time will impact after-school learning opportunities for children and take time away from families. This applies not just for students being shifted to Wilde Lake, but also those who are shifted to River Hill. If this proposal moves forward, I will have one child going to Wilde Lake and another going in the opposite direction to Folly Quarter Middle School. Instead of the two schools being closer together, I will have to limit after school activities for my children due to increased distance and increased commute time between the schools. There have to be better alternatives than uprooting existing families in the River Hill and Wilde Lake School districts. Why not add resources to the other schools and have them come up to par with River Hill, rather than breaking down what is already working at River Hill? Also, from my understanding, River Hill is under capacity, so it does not seem to make sense to move students out of this school. Again, I do not support this drastic change that will be taking away opportunities from children in Howard County. I implore you to review the facts, implication to all HCPS students and their communities and reject Dr. Martirano's ill conceived proposal 14 Sincerely, Primal Bhatia MD 12122 Hayland Farm Way Ellicott City, MD 20142 15 Sayers, Margery From: Ligeia Zeruto Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:57 AM To: boe@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org; jenniferjnallo@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Kathleen_Hanks@hcpss.org; CouncilMail; Rigby, Christiana; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Walsh, Elizabeth; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; Jones, Opel; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us Subject: Oppose Current Redistricting Proposal for 2020 HOCO [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Good Morning on another beautiful first day of school in Howard County! I vehemently oppose the current redistricting proposal based on lack of quantitative data or a full representation of the will of the people of the county. A quick research of the public outreach surveys, hearings and emails sent tell us that less than 2% of the county returned any information to the BOE or a third party study design group. The outreach for public opinion was poor and yielded incomplete canvassing of the county. I fear that this proposal has created a division in this county that now has undertones of race based on skin color. I have a lot of concern about how people are being bucketed into race and socioeconomic stratification and this is now being transferred to our children. Releasing this unfounded and poorly researched proposal (where are the ROI studies or forecasts for the courses of action mentioned? What I see is woefully incomplete). And lastly, how will all the additional transportation be paid for to bus our friends to the 21st closest school (as an example)? Which parts of HCPSS enrichment activities will be cut to pay for transport? Concerned parent- Ligeia Zeruto #2176 16 Sayers, Margery From: Sriman Sista Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:54 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon - 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member/ The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered/ expensive busing / transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings/ etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (20-30 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new Jessup HS school slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving nonFARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. 17 Sayers, Margery From: SiddeswarAmbarkar Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:53 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; Kathleen_Hanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon 1183 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineerect, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving nonFARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Thanks, Siddeswar ####################### SiddeswarAmbarkar 18 Cell 301 263 4845 Home 240 477 7200 19 Sayers, Margery From: Krishna Veeramachaneni Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:52 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon - 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered/ expensive busing / transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three mites or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (20-30 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new Jessup HS school slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving nonFARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. 20 Sayers, Margery From: BaskarSwaminathan Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:50 AM To: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trentkittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; Kathleen_Hanks@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Subject: Fwd: Oppose Redistricting Plan - 183 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Forwarded message From: Baskar Swaminathan Date: Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:22 AM Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - 183 To: , , , , Jennifer mallo@hcpss.orR>, , Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving nonFARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS/ and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities/ and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. Thanks Baskar Swaminathan 21 Sayers, Margery From: Subba R Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 201 9 10:49 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont~small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon - 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive busing / transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (20-30 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new Jessup HS school slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving nonFARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS/ and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. 22 Sayers, Margery From: Shekhar Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:48 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabina_taj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; student_member@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org Cc: Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; Kathleen_Hanks@hcpss.org Subject: Oppose Redistricting Plan - Polygon 176 [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear HCPSS Board of Education Member, The Superintendent's redistricting proposal: 1. Puts in place a complex, over-engineered, expensive transportation program. 2. Moves thousands of children irresponsibly. The negative impact on individual family members is many more thousands when considering parents, siblings, etc. 3. Does not fundamentally fix overcrowding with 21 schools still above the 110% capacity. 4. Adds substantially to children's commute times. In many cases, commutes times will triple moving from three miles or less (5-15 minutes) to seven miles or more (30 - 45 minutes). 5. Does not address or incorporate student population management regarding the new HS 13 slated for 2023. Is the county planning to do this all over again in a few years? 6. Introduces a redistribution of FARMS rates. Why? This does nor fix overcrowding and is an exercise in spreading out an issue not fixing it. FARM populations can be addressed or redistributed without moving non-FARM children. 7. Leads to a permanent divide between a substantial part of the Community and the Superintendent, the HCPSS, and BoE. This proposal was done "to the community", not "with or for the community". I implore you to review the facts, implications to all Howard County Public School students and their communities, and reject Dr. Martirano's ill-conceived proposal. 23 Best Regards, Shekhar Gupta 214-476?2856 (Ceii) 24 Sayers, Margery From: Neelima Busireddy Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 10:43 AM To: mavis_ellis@hcpss.org; kirsten_coombs@hcpss.org; vicky_cutroneo@hcpss.org; christina_delmont-small@hcpss.org;jennifer_mallo@hcpss.org; sabinajaj@hcpss.org; chao_wu@hcpss.org; studentjnember@hcpss.org; redistricting@hcpss.org; boe@hcpss.org; superintendent@hcpss.org; Ball, Calvin; Jones, Opel; Jung, Deb; Yungmann, David; Rigby, Christiana; Walsh, Elizabeth; CouncilMail; katiefry.hester@senate.state.md.us; trent.kittleman@house.state.md.us; warren.miller@house.state.md.us; KathleenJ-lanks@hcpss.org Subject: Testimony: Reject Proposed Attendance Area Adjustment Plan Attachments: BOE Letter from Busireddy Family.pdf [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] » All, » » Please see the attached testimony from Busireddy Family to REJECT the proposed Attendance Area Adjustment Plan. » » » Thanks, »Vishnu & Neelima Busireddy » 5002 Crape Myrtle Ct, Ellicott City, MD 21042 » » »» Thanks, » Neelima Busireddy August 26,2019 Vishnu and Neelima Busireddy 5002 Crape Myrtle Ct EUicottCity,MD21042 vishnubusireddy@fimail.com nbusireddy@gmail.com 410-294-1120 To: redistricting(%hcpss.org Howard County Board of Education Members Ms. Mavis Ellis mavis ellis(%hcpss.org Ms. Kirsten Coombs kirsten coombs(%hcpss.org Ms. Vicky Cutroneo vicky_cutroneo(%hcpss.org Ms. Christina Delmont-Small Christina delmont-small(%hcpss.org Ms. Jennifer Mallo Jennifer mallo(a),hcpss.org Ms. SabinaTaj sabina tai(a),hcpss.org Mr. Chao Wu chao wu(%hcpss.org student memberfajhcpss.org, and Superintendent, Howard County Public School System Dr. Michael J. JVtartirano, Dear Board of Education (BOB) Members and Dr. Martirano, We are parents of a 7th grader going into Folly Quarter Middle School. As longtime residents of Howard County, our intent is to stay here and raise our son in this wonderful and diverse community of ours. Based on the current school boundaries, he will be attending Folly Quarter Middle and River Hill High. We are writing to you about the proposed impact ofDr Martirano's Presentation of the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan, dated August 20, 2019. As noted in the Executive Summary on Page 4, this proposal was developed with three primary goals as excerpted below: The driving priorities for this process: 1. Balance capacity utilization among schools throughout HCPSS, cost effectively. 2. Advance equity by addressing the distribution of students participating in the Free and Reduced-price Meals program (FARMs) across schools to the extent feasible. 3. Plan ahead for the High School #13 redistricting by minimizing double moves as much as possible. 1 I Page We have also studied and respect the published policies which the BOE utilizes in making decisions with regard to school attendance areas, specifically Policy 6010 (https://www.hcpss.oi-g/policies/6000/6010-school-attendance-areas/): Unfortunately, recommendations from the Presentation of Attendance Area Adjustment Plan, dated August 20, 2019 is not consistent with the guidelines of Policy 6010 and does not achieve the three primary goals as stated in Dr Martirano's letter. Please consider the following facts. School AttendanceArea: School Attendance area and geographic proximity is a consideration of Policy 6010. The proposed redistricting ofPolygon 176 (we reside in this area) would more than double the distance students travel to get to school and does not make any logical sense. My son and other kids in the neighborhood think of River Hill High as their future high school from the time we moved to our current neighborhood more than 5 years ago from a different part ofEllicott City to be closer to our friends, and their families and to have the kids continue their bonding and brotherhood. The proposed redistricting plan is going to crush their childhood dreams by forcing upon them this unreasonable, thoughtless, and divisive redistricting plan which will not only separate kids from their friends, take the communities apart, and introduce them to the political games that the so called leaders are shoving upon the kids, families, and the community. My son and his friends dreamt of representing the River Hill and River Hill Hawks in activities, ranging from sports to educational competitions and other school programs, not only because of its proximity to our house and go past the school whenever we have to step out of our neighborhood, but also because of seeing older kids in the neighborhood and cousins representing the school, participating and contributing in school fundraiser events, which led to these innocent young brains to create affinity and bonding to the River Hill High and make them believe and think that they will one day be attending the same school which they drive past few times every day. Our neighborhood kids also got acquainted to the school, as they go there to play tennis and other sports during summer holidays and on weekends and evenings. It is not fair to shatter the dreams of my son and other kids in this great neighborhood and across the county, by saying that "NO YOU CAN'T ATTEND YOUR LOCAL SCHOOL". Using Google Maps, Walnut Creek / Polygon 176 is 2.1 Miles from River Hill High School (RHHS). Walnut Creek / Polygon 176 is 5^_miles from Wilde Lake High School (WLHS). Using WAZE, the commute time from Polygon 176 to Wilde Lake High School would be 3x as long as the commute to River Hill High School. In addition, many of the students from Polygon 176 would have to drive past the River Hill High School and through River Hill High School bus and car traffic, en-route to Wilde Lake High School under the August 20, 2019 proposal. 2 I Page Capacity Utilization: Policy 6010 identifies three key aspects to school capacity which are (1) Projections [item P], (2) Target Utilization [item S] which is defined as enrollment between 90% and 110% utilization of program capacity and (3) Utilization [item T]. The 2019 Feasibility Study (https://www.hcpss.org/f/schoolplanning/2019/2019-feasibilitystudy.pdf) notes the following findings: 1. River Hill High School is projected to be at 94% Projected Utilization for 2019/2020 school. This is at the lower end of the Target Utilization range. 2. Page 33 of the Feasibility Study indicates that River Hill is within Target Utilization through the 10-year projection period of the study. 3. Under Dr Martirano's proposal, River Hill would send 478 students to other schools and receive 741 students from other schools. This is extremely disruptive and unnecessary for a school that is currently operating within each of guidelines [P], [S] and [T] of Policy 6010. 4. We believe the board should reject a plan which moves approximately 7,400 total students including 478 students from River Hill High School which is currently operating within Board Policy guidelines with regard to Projections, Target Utilization and Utilization. 5. We believe any re-districtine proposal should instead be focused on those five High Schools that are operating above Target Utilization levels (110%). 6. We believe the Board of Education should support a plan that includes less disruption at schools that are operating within the guidelines of [P], [S] and [T], For instance, since River Hill High School is operating well within the target utilization range, perhaps it should receive students from nearby schools such as Wilde Lake, Atholton or Howard, without sending 478 students out to other schools. We believe it is a wonderful idea to bring students from underperforming schools to better performing adjacent schools, but moving students the other way with the specific purpose of adjusting the statistics is misguided and sets a terrible precedence. We respectfully request that the BOE request a plan that achieves better capacity utilization with less than 7,396 total students being relocated. Equity: The very first sentence of the Policy Statement ofHCPSS Policy 6010 is The Board of Education of Howard County, with the advice of the Superintendent, establishes school attendance areas to provide qualify, equitable educational opportimities to all students and to balance the capacity utilization of all schools. Furthermore, "equitable" is defined in the policy statement as: Just or fair access, opportunities, and supports needed to help students, families, and staff reach their full potential by removing barriers to success that individuals face. It does not mean equal or everyone having the same things. 3 I Page The Presentation of the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan dated August 20, 2019 is not consistent with the Board of Education Policy Statement 6010, nor does it follow the BOE's definition of achieving "equitable" educational opportunities. It is quite evident that the recommendations for redistricting is a case of social engineering and purely based on race and ethnicity. There is no logic or case studies offered to show this type of social engineering will be successful. We hereby request the BOE identify ways to provide additional educational resources, funding for schools in need, raise awareness, create plans to include parent volunteers and others to contribute their time and effort to enrich kids with activities ranging from education to recreational, author new programs to have peer to peer learning and knowledge sharing sessions which will benefit all the kids across the county, rather than adjusting the statistics to make you feel good. Transferring students from a school with a low FARM ratio to a school with a high FARM ratio, only results in adjusting the statistics for the schools, but DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY INCREMENTAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES OR OPPORTUNITES DIRECTLY TO THE STUDENTS. Socioeconomic issues such as income equality, better employment opportunities should be addressed by our elected officials at the County and State levels. In conclusion, we recommend the Board of Education reject the Attendance Area Adjustment Plan Recommendations dated August 20, 2019 due to the numerous and serious inconsistencies with regard to both Policy 6010 and the stated goals of the proposal. We recommend the BOE to be considerate and sympathetic to the magnanimous negative effect this plan will shower on the county residents and their families, to the quality of life that Howard county has been providing so far, please STOP and NOT ALLOW this dreaded Number Game to be Played with the county residents! The proposal would triple the commuting time of students in Polygon 176. Many affected schools including River Hill High School are operating within the Board of Education projection, utilization and capacity guidelines and would experience a total student transfer of over 1 ,000 children inclusive of students being sent and received. Boundary adjustments should be focused on schools operating over capacity or projected to be over capacity based on the 2019 Feasibility study. The proposal does not provide additional resources directly to students or schools in need, it simply provides more consistent FARM ratios across schools. Children do not need consistent FARM ratios, they need additional education resources and funding provided directly to their schools. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, )'}J^wJi^f^i>t^j^ ^Muebw^f^ Vishnu and Neelima Busireddy 4 IP age Sayers, Margery From: Beth Krakower Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2019 9:24 PM To: CouncilMail; Ball, Calvin Subject: CR-112 Attachments: CC letter, do ex Follow Up Flag: Follow up Completed Flag Status: [Note: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please only click on links or attachments if you know the sender.] Dear County Council and Dr. Ball, Attached you will find my letter that I have sent to the Board of Education. I am sending this to you today due to the purposed CR112-2019. Each time I have emailed you over the years with regards to HCPSS I have received an email back stating that you do not have any jurisdiction over the school system/ yet you felt it then necessary to create CR112-2019 to give yourself jurisdiction over what and how the school system operates. You may not have it both ways you either get involved in issues with regards to the school system or you stay out of it and allow the school system to work within itself. You have created this mess by purposing this resolution and calling it an integration plan because you feel the school system is segregated. You used language that is incendiary and you knew would pit communities against each other in any purposed plan that HCPSS put forward. You should be ashamed of yourself for talking out of both sides of your mouth. Sincerely, Beth Krakower Dear Board of Education Members, I am writing you today in opposition of the Superintendents redistricting plan. In this plan it is stated that we are trying to be more equitable. It has been stated over and over that fair does not always equal equitable. I agree with this statement from the top of my head to the tip of my toes. This statement always brings to mind the following cartoon that has been shown at multiple professional development presentations across this county. I do not; however, believe that this plan establishes equity. One could even argue that it makes the situation worse for many students. Due to the fact that I do not live in Columbia I am going to write specifically about the part of the plan that effects my family, but these arguments can be made about all sections of this plan. Fact: Columbia has a well established public transportation system that allows families to get to and from school easily. Outside of Columbia proper there is no such system that allows families and children to get to and from a school not within walking distance. In the case of this redistricting plan the students who are able to stay after school at Wilde Lake for sports, music, extra help from a teacher, etc. will no longer be able to do so due to the fact that they will have no way to get home. Parents who could easily walk or take a bus to Wilde Lake will no longer be able to do so and will in turn not be able to access the school and be supportive of their children without a taking a taxi or an Uber with funds that they may not have. Fact: Wilde Lake High School has multiple programs in place to support and help students and families thrive. They have a Social Worker to assist in navigating not only the school system, but also the public assistance programs in Howard County. River Hill High School has none of these programs. Will these programs be added to River Hill in order to make the playing field level? Fact: Wilde Lake High School has a Wellness Center and River Hill High School does not. Will a Wellness Center be added to River Hill to service the students and families that need access to those services? How much will the cost be to provide these services at Wilde Lake and at River Hill because if you are trying to create equity then those services need to be provided where the students are otherwise this plan actually makes the situation worse for students because they no longer have access to something they did have access to. Fact: Wilde Lake High School has the Bridges Program. The Bridges program consists of staff to support students in academic and non-academic areas from 2:45-4:15. It also provides food and homework support during that time. Will this program also be moved to River Hill High School? How will the students who participate (if they even have a program to participate in) get home? Again One would argue that this actually makes the playing field less equitable because services are being taken away from students in this plan. According to Policy 6010 consideration should be taken to the distance from a school and the amount of time a student would spend on a bus. Again I will talk specifically about my situation, but this can be applied to the majority of the moves being purposed in this redistricting plan. Currently we are 3 miles from River Hill High School door to door and the bus ride is supposed to be approximately 55 minutes long. As we all know Bus routes are not linear. Wilde Lake High School is over 8 miles door to door and I cannot imagine how long that bus route will be. These numbers and times don't take into account weather and traffic. There are multiple studies that speak to the negative effect on students who spend significant amounts of time traveling to and from school. This plan doesn't even take that research into consideration in reality it goes against all the current research related to sleep and travel times to and from school. In addition, Policy 6010 states: Efficient use of available space. For example, maintain a building's program capacity utilization between 90% and 100%. At this time the feasibility study states that the Western part of the county has capacity that needs to be utilized, however; this plan has students moving East. We have 5 high schools closer by significant amounts to us then the purposed plan of transferring to Wilde Lake High School. Glenelg High School is 2 miles. River Hill High School is 3 miles, Marriotts Ridge High School is 5.3 miles, Atholton High School is 6 miles, Centennial High School is 5.9 miles, yet we are purposed to go to Wilde Lake High School which is 8 miles from our home. This change goes against your own policy in this respect. Policy 6010 states: Community Stability. Where reasonable, school attendance areas should promote a sense of community in both the geographic place (e.g., neighborhood or place in which a student lives) and the promotion of a student from each school level through the consideration of: Areas that are made up of contiguous communities or neighborhoods. Frequency with which any one student is reassigned, making every attempt to not move a student more than once at any school level or the same student more frequently than once every five years. This plan is not made up of contiguous communities or neighborhoods. One could make the argument that it actually is exactly the opposite of this. And due to the construction of High School #13 and the undefined attendance area and how that will effect capacity for the rest of the county there is a significant chance that this move would be for less than 2 years as again the capacity for students is in the Western part of the county and this move is moving students to the East. I purpose waiting until there is a clearly defined plan of how High School #13 will be filled and how that plan will affect the county as a whole. And last but not least, in the last budget cycle we had a budget short fall that impacted schools significantly due to support positions having to be cut. One of the largest line items in the current and all budgets is the cost of transportation. This plan increases the cost of transportation significantly. How will this significant increase in transportation costs affect funding for next year and years to come? How can you as a board support a plan that would take away funding from students and the support that they so desperately need to increase transportations costs and the cost of having to provide the services already available in schools to the schools that will be receiving students to make things equitable. I have listened to Dr. Martirano on multiple occasions speak about the fact that Equity does not always equal fair and I could not agree more. Equity is giving the kids what they need, however; this plan does not provide equity it actually takes the supports that students need away as our students are used to make things look good on paper, but in reality makes students' education worse by taking what they need away. Please think about what I have said and vote against the Dr. Martiano's plan. Sincerely, Beth Krakower Parent of current HCPSS students, Teacher of 23 years of HCPSS, and K-12 Product of HCPSS ,,,^,^ ,„,„, f^^ 9/4/19 ^ TO COUNTS EXECUTUVE Dr. Calvin Ball, COUNCIL MEMBERS, SCHOOL BOARD Cc: Dr. M, Superintendent Howard County Homes are overpriced . THESE homes are not worth the price—compare prices of new and existing homes in neighboring Carroll and Frederick counties BUT some people have been willing to pay for these "Overpriced" homes because the schools. Repeat: Some people have been willinfi to buy these overprice homes because of the schools. Now you are disrupting that and will disrupt the whole housing market (AND TAX BASE) like you did with the last major redistricting in 1996 when many moved out of the county to neighboring Carroll County which helped increased the RISE IN CARROLL COUNTS TEST SCORES. You may be politicians but you don't thin k like educators and sociologists History Lesson here: Demographics change Baltimore City Schools were the top in the 1950s and 1960s Demographics changed (Whites moved out, Blacks moved in) and Baltimore County then Montgomery County became the top Demographics changed again( Whites moved out, more blacks and browns moved in) and then Howard County became the top And in all those districts, when the demographics changed, the test scores changed White and Asians high. Browns and Blacks with Blacks lowest. IN ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Now the Council and School Board want to hasten Howard County from being number 1 to mediocre. People (Of all races) are upset and this is not racial nor socioeconomic. The reason: Parents have one chance to educate their children and those who truly value education will make sure their child has the best education possible and by moving to a certain neighborhood for that child goes to a certain school only to be told that that child has to be rectistricting to a school because of FARM children? THIS IS NOT THE 1950s when there was inequality in the schools. All Howard County schools have resources and Title One schools have even MORE resources. It's the family and the culture. 'O- L ^ v jfjH!! , IPNS.U. .Q u-Ad-it ^^ ^ s^ ^^^^^ jc-o-r»~^c"T V4<3 21Q43-439293 i ij{.p}ij^ji ,>ij j i,i,)jjjj,,,jjl,{.),,;,(jj jj,jj,,pj}jjjj HC;'. ^ Let's get real! If Black people acted right and scored high like Asians no one would be complaining about the redistricting of schools but data shows Black people commit the most crime, has the lowest achievement scores, have the most discipline problems (in school )and most (not all) especially those urbanized black are loud, mde and just plain nasty. I'm sure everyone of us have encountered such a person in our lifetime. I can speak about this because I am Black. I described myself as a middle class black because I don't fall into the typical stereotype black as demonstrated in the video of the black family brawl at Disney land this past July which is the typical urbanized black family. How can children learn m that home environment? I'm know the County wants to help but moving those children to other schools will not solve the problem. In high school, moving Wilde lake students to River hill and vice versa will not solve the problem but escalate a bigger problem. Students don't have time for a social engineering experiment. They want to participate in extracumcular activities, they want to go to college. River Hill has a name and a reputation . People spent millions in real estate to live there. I can understand why they are upset. I would be too. That is why I am writing this letter because many residents will not share the tme reason for this outcry for fear of being labeled racist. It's not racist if you want the best for your child. They can only be educated once Teenagers are rough for any society but for blacks, it becomes who's got the better hau- now that extensions or not, some of the rich will have cars while others catch the bus. Middle and High school students well aware of what is going on about this redistricting will have issues if the Board agrees to this plan. (Board should table this until more input from the community) Test scores will still be low among blacks because Education is not on the radar as other cultures. The superintendent said all Howard county schools are good. They have the resources and that makes them good but certain schools have more disciplined problems than others. Why? These children are out of control because they have not been taught proper manners and behavior in the classroom. Parents are uncooperative. There are screamers m the elementary school and students have to have their lessons interrupted because the screamer is not moved but the class has to moved Blacks (some not all) have the show off in middle and high school to get attention and dismpt the learning process. These are the discipline problems in the target schools and parents know this. Wilde Lake used to be a top-notch school but demographics changed but why move others into a school that has low test scores for years. Redistricting in the 1990s didn't change the scores. It's the people. You bring in the Asians, they will score higher than a Black who would have been at the top. You move Blacks to River Hill and Asians will out score them and they will not be able to rise to the top. The Blacks should have their school and prove that they can ACHIEVE in spite of being FARM. I remember Black groups saying white teachers couldn't teach black kids but when other minority groups came to Howard County schools and scored higher than Blacks, then they blamed the funding and the target schools had more fundmg. Target schools have more computers than other schools. Blacks still scored low. Even Africans are scoring higher than Blacks. And it's not just Howard County. It's statewide. Look at MSDE test results. And sadly, nationwide. ^; (,,«^Mh,^^p«!f. . i,,h(,'^,"»f (((,jin( ^^7° •n^'^y'J<"\ -^^ ^^9,^ ) J^r^r^ ^w^y/-) ^3 ^^ ^9/T? .s- *Ws • ys.v<<,fl'?- ^ S^- fj''^. ^Ji';?^ ^•^^j^'^i.Ji. .^-^^ .Z-7^n-^'T~) ^7^^^7^^^/^ 7^/ y /'^w%^-