Option H is permanent and the old Wootton HS campus will be closed for good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

You had me until this last bit. You can’t be both a party to the litigation and the trier of fact. You gave examples of what facts are acceptable (admissible) as evidence, but then you want to “value the weight of those facts” and decide whether “they establish anything.” This is the epitome of the childish refrain “that doesn’t count” and seems to indicate you won’t accept anything that contradicts your view of the current debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

Actually there is quite a bit of research that indicates that peer group positively impacts academic performance. So...no not medicore.

https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211091.pdf
https://www.education-progress.org/en/focus/31-peereffects

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

You had me until this last bit. You can’t be both a party to the litigation and the trier of fact. You gave examples of what facts are acceptable (admissible) as evidence, but then you want to “value the weight of those facts” and decide whether “they establish anything.” This is the epitome of the childish refrain “that doesn’t count” and seems to indicate you won’t accept anything that contradicts your view of the current debate.

OK, so just to back up here....I started this exchange by challenging that a "party to the litigation" had not "established" anything. So to some degree we are on the same page.

However, that PP had asserted that we "weren't making much progress in this discussion." This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. Ad I do believe that people can engage on an issue and arrive at conclusions...but that should be done on the basis of fact/evidence/data....not mere assertions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

Actually there is quite a bit of research that indicates that peer group positively impacts academic performance. So...no not medicore.

https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211091.pdf
https://www.education-progress.org/en/focus/31-peereffects

Remember that any studies or research are probably based on the assumptions that school systems have the goal of raising the bottom, not lowering the bar.

But from what we've seen MCPS is intent on lowering the bar.

Our child's math class in MCPS literally stopped instruction about two or three weeks at the end of each marking period because the teacher said that they were ahead of the rest of the county and finished everything and didn't have to do anything until the next marking period. So they spent those next two or three weeks on their Chromebooks playing games.

The other example is eliminating the countywide regional magnets. People on DCUM acknowledged, they are perfectly fine with removing the very high level countywide programs to something that is more widely available but may be pretty much the equivalent of honors classes at some other schools.

If it really was just an issue of not being fair due to the limited amount of seats, they could have explored expanding the program by maybe another 30 or 60 seats and/or make sure there are a set number of seats for students from the underrepresented schools (and maybe demographics/income based on FARMS eligibility). Or if it is an issue of access, maybe opening an additional program. So three magnets, instead of two, and/or two county wide IB programs instead of just RMIB. Not water it down to six and limit the geographic areas that feed into each one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

Actually there is quite a bit of research that indicates that peer group positively impacts academic performance. So...no not medicore.

https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211091.pdf
https://www.education-progress.org/en/focus/31-peereffects

Remember that any studies or research are probably based on the assumptions that school systems have the goal of raising the bottom, not lowering the bar.

But from what we've seen MCPS is intent on lowering the bar.

Our child's math class in MCPS literally stopped instruction about two or three weeks at the end of each marking period because the teacher said that they were ahead of the rest of the county and finished everything and didn't have to do anything until the next marking period. So they spent those next two or three weeks on their Chromebooks playing games.

The other example is eliminating the countywide regional magnets. People on DCUM acknowledged, they are perfectly fine with removing the very high level countywide programs to something that is more widely available but may be pretty much the equivalent of honors classes at some other schools.

If it really was just an issue of not being fair due to the limited amount of seats, they could have explored expanding the program by maybe another 30 or 60 seats and/or make sure there are a set number of seats for students from the underrepresented schools (and maybe demographics/income based on FARMS eligibility). Or if it is an issue of access, maybe opening an additional program. So three magnets, instead of two, and/or two county wide IB programs instead of just RMIB. Not water it down to six and limit the geographic areas that feed into each one.

PP here and I agree with most of what you write. But, respectfully, is it relevant to the issue of whether adding a small percentage of low performing (on average in the aggregate) students to a large amount of high performing students will make a school mediocre?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

Actually there is quite a bit of research that indicates that peer group positively impacts academic performance. So...no not medicore.

https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211091.pdf
https://www.education-progress.org/en/focus/31-peereffects

Remember that any studies or research are probably based on the assumptions that school systems have the goal of raising the bottom, not lowering the bar.

But from what we've seen MCPS is intent on lowering the bar.

Our child's math class in MCPS literally stopped instruction about two or three weeks at the end of each marking period because the teacher said that they were ahead of the rest of the county and finished everything and didn't have to do anything until the next marking period. So they spent those next two or three weeks on their Chromebooks playing games.

The other example is eliminating the countywide regional magnets. People on DCUM acknowledged, they are perfectly fine with removing the very high level countywide programs to something that is more widely available but may be pretty much the equivalent of honors classes at some other schools.

If it really was just an issue of not being fair due to the limited amount of seats, they could have explored expanding the program by maybe another 30 or 60 seats and/or make sure there are a set number of seats for students from the underrepresented schools (and maybe demographics/income based on FARMS eligibility). Or if it is an issue of access, maybe opening an additional program. So three magnets, instead of two, and/or two county wide IB programs instead of just RMIB. Not water it down to six and limit the geographic areas that feed into each one.

PP here and I agree with most of what you write. But, respectfully, is it relevant to the issue of whether adding a small percentage of low performing (on average in the aggregate) students to a large amount of high performing students will make a school mediocre?

It’s not a small number. It’s up to 1/3 addition from Gaithersburg catchment area. If you have followed this thread or community chat channel closely, you’ll see sup and some ESs under GHS are actively advocating a modified option H to add 1-2 more ESs belonging to GHS currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

Actually there is quite a bit of research that indicates that peer group positively impacts academic performance. So...no not medicore.

https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211091.pdf
https://www.education-progress.org/en/focus/31-peereffects

Remember that any studies or research are probably based on the assumptions that school systems have the goal of raising the bottom, not lowering the bar.

But from what we've seen MCPS is intent on lowering the bar.

Our child's math class in MCPS literally stopped instruction about two or three weeks at the end of each marking period because the teacher said that they were ahead of the rest of the county and finished everything and didn't have to do anything until the next marking period. So they spent those next two or three weeks on their Chromebooks playing games.

The other example is eliminating the countywide regional magnets. People on DCUM acknowledged, they are perfectly fine with removing the very high level countywide programs to something that is more widely available but may be pretty much the equivalent of honors classes at some other schools.

If it really was just an issue of not being fair due to the limited amount of seats, they could have explored expanding the program by maybe another 30 or 60 seats and/or make sure there are a set number of seats for students from the underrepresented schools (and maybe demographics/income based on FARMS eligibility). Or if it is an issue of access, maybe opening an additional program. So three magnets, instead of two, and/or two county wide IB programs instead of just RMIB. Not water it down to six and limit the geographic areas that feed into each one.

PP here and I agree with most of what you write. But, respectfully, is it relevant to the issue of whether adding a small percentage of low performing (on average in the aggregate) students to a large amount of high performing students will make a school mediocre?

It’s not a small number. It’s up to 1/3 addition from Gaithersburg catchment area. If you have followed this thread or community chat channel closely, you’ll see sup and some ESs under GHS are actively advocating a modified option H to add 1-2 more ESs belonging to GHS currently.

Exactly-in the end it will be about 1/3 the school. That’s not small. MCPS wants it at capacity. The scores will plummet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

Actually there is quite a bit of research that indicates that peer group positively impacts academic performance. So...no not medicore.

https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211091.pdf
https://www.education-progress.org/en/focus/31-peereffects

Remember that any studies or research are probably based on the assumptions that school systems have the goal of raising the bottom, not lowering the bar.

But from what we've seen MCPS is intent on lowering the bar.

Our child's math class in MCPS literally stopped instruction about two or three weeks at the end of each marking period because the teacher said that they were ahead of the rest of the county and finished everything and didn't have to do anything until the next marking period. So they spent those next two or three weeks on their Chromebooks playing games.

The other example is eliminating the countywide regional magnets. People on DCUM acknowledged, they are perfectly fine with removing the very high level countywide programs to something that is more widely available but may be pretty much the equivalent of honors classes at some other schools.

If it really was just an issue of not being fair due to the limited amount of seats, they could have explored expanding the program by maybe another 30 or 60 seats and/or make sure there are a set number of seats for students from the underrepresented schools (and maybe demographics/income based on FARMS eligibility). Or if it is an issue of access, maybe opening an additional program. So three magnets, instead of two, and/or two county wide IB programs instead of just RMIB. Not water it down to six and limit the geographic areas that feed into each one.

PP here and I agree with most of what you write. But, respectfully, is it relevant to the issue of whether adding a small percentage of low performing (on average in the aggregate) students to a large amount of high performing students will make a school mediocre?

It’s not a small number. It’s up to 1/3 addition from Gaithersburg catchment area. If you have followed this thread or community chat channel closely, you’ll see sup and some ESs under GHS are actively advocating a modified option H to add 1-2 more ESs belonging to GHS currently.

Exactly-in the end it will be about 1/3 the school. That’s not small. MCPS wants it at capacity. The scores will plummet.

And it won’t be the historically high performing Wootton, even if they keep the name. This is why numerous posters have said they’re not just moving Wootton to a new building. It’s also why some are claiming MCPS is closing a school without following proper procedures.

Wootton families want to keep the school where it is, but with some minor repairs. There is money for these repairs, but MCPS would rather cover up their mismanagement in building Crown above the necessary capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are making much progress in this discussion. We have established that if H passes, the Wootton name will disappear, the new replacement school will be mediocre, that many people who bought into the Wootton district will be seeking to move or to send their kids to private schools, and that we will continue to elect people who think all of this is good for the county.

I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You saying something does not "establish" it.

Pedantic much?

Try a substantive response next time. You will be taken more seriously.

P.S. Mandy Patinkin did it better than you.

OK, let's try this:
1. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the Wootton name will disappear?
2. What are your facts to support the conclusion that the school will be mediocre?

I'm looking for facts here, which are needed to "establish" something. Conjecture doesn't count.

DP. Just so we’re on the same page here. Please define what you will accept as “facts” to support. Do you mean direct evidence, or will you accept circumstantial evidence? Will you accept past behaviors and statistics as “facts” to support these will likely happen?

Happy to spend the time to provide a substantive response, but I won’t waste my time if you’re going to act like a child and claim “that doesn’t count because <fill in the blank>”. That kind of response will only demonstrate you never wanted answers and are only virtue signaling to your supporters on this thread.

PP thanks for asking. Certainly, circumstantial evidence counts. For example, if you can find anybody involved in the decision at any point making a statement saying that Wootton's name is problematic or should be changed, that would be relevant. Or if you can point to any research that the geographic location of a school impacts the quality of education, or that the school at Wootton would provide less advanced programs, or that when a physical location changes the quality of teachers declines... Anything like that.

And then we can value the weight of those facts to see if they establish anything.

DP but one fact you can add is that the school(s) they are adding as feeders have lower test scores (fact) and very inactive/nonexistent PTAs( I know this is true for Rosemont-not 100% for the other schools but will guarantee they are not as active as the current Wootton feeders PTA).

There is no magic that is going to make low performing kids suddenly be high performing when put in a new school. So, in turn the overall performance of the school will decline. Therefore-mediocre.

Actually there is quite a bit of research that indicates that peer group positively impacts academic performance. So...no not medicore.

https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211091.pdf
https://www.education-progress.org/en/focus/31-peereffects

Remember that any studies or research are probably based on the assumptions that school systems have the goal of raising the bottom, not lowering the bar.

But from what we've seen MCPS is intent on lowering the bar.

Our child's math class in MCPS literally stopped instruction about two or three weeks at the end of each marking period because the teacher said that they were ahead of the rest of the county and finished everything and didn't have to do anything until the next marking period. So they spent those next two or three weeks on their Chromebooks playing games.

The other example is eliminating the countywide regional magnets. People on DCUM acknowledged, they are perfectly fine with removing the very high level countywide programs to something that is more widely available but may be pretty much the equivalent of honors classes at some other schools.

If it really was just an issue of not being fair due to the limited amount of seats, they could have explored expanding the program by maybe another 30 or 60 seats and/or make sure there are a set number of seats for students from the underrepresented schools (and maybe demographics/income based on FARMS eligibility). Or if it is an issue of access, maybe opening an additional program. So three magnets, instead of two, and/or two county wide IB programs instead of just RMIB. Not water it down to six and limit the geographic areas that feed into each one.

PP here and I agree with most of what you write. But, respectfully, is it relevant to the issue of whether adding a small percentage of low performing (on average in the aggregate) students to a large amount of high performing students will make a school mediocre?

It’s not a small number. It’s up to 1/3 addition from Gaithersburg catchment area. If you have followed this thread or community chat channel closely, you’ll see sup and some ESs under GHS are actively advocating a modified option H to add 1-2 more ESs belonging to GHS currently.

No, most are advocating for adding Fields Road ES, which is currently at QO rather than GHS.