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

[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.

I posted research showing that the lower test scores are likely to increase, not the other way around.

Do you have any data to show that “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:

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.

I posted research showing that the lower test scores are likely to increase, not the other way around.

Do you have any data to show that “scores will plummet”?

Do you have any research to show that adding extremely low performing students to make up 1/3 of a school won’t?

[Anonymous]

Academic performance is one thing. GHS students associated with MS-13 would be a bigger concern.

[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:

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.

I posted research showing that the lower test scores are likely to increase, not the other way around.

Do you have any data to show that “scores will plummet”?

Do you have any research to show that adding extremely low performing students to make up 1/3 of a school won’t?

It’s simple logic. The larger the addition, the greater dilution.

[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:

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.

I posted research showing that the lower test scores are likely to increase, not the other way around.

Do you have any data to show that “scores will plummet”?

Do you have any research to show that adding extremely low performing students to make up 1/3 of a school won’t?

No. Do you have any data to show that the students joining the new school are “extremely low performing”? And. An you help me get to the addition to create 1/3 based on what is in Option H?

[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:

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.

I posted research showing that the lower test scores are likely to increase, not the other way around.

Do you have any data to show that “scores will plummet”?

Do you have any research to show that adding extremely low performing students to make up 1/3 of a school won’t?

It’s simple logic. The larger the addition, the greater dilution.

First, there is research to show that test scores of the lower performers are likely to increase.

Second, if your assertion is that the minority proportion will stay low, that has no impact on other kids’ scores, so why does it matter?

[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.

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

I have nothing against Fields Road ES and think that it should definitely go to Crown (or QO).

But it also is one of the schools that has one of the highest FARMS rate in the QO cluster at 52 percent FARMS. Then the other is Browns Station with 56 percent FARMS.

Look at the FARMS rates at the other QO ES schools:
Rachel Carson 27.9
Diamond 15
Jones Lane 36 (and has the island near the Muddy Branch Shopping Center
Thurgood Marshall 45

And coincidentally in some of these latest proposals, MCPS has Browns Station and Fields Road going to Gaithersburg HS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Fields Road or QO. But saying Fields Road is okay because is coming from QO and not Gaithersburg isn't proof to make concerned Wootton families feel better. Because MCPS looks like it's trying to shed the schools with the highest FARMS rate from QO.

And if MCPS thinks that the areas from Fields Road and Brown Station is movable. Who's to say they won't decide to move it to Crown instead of Gaithersburg HS?

[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:

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.

I have nothing against Fields Road ES and think that it should definitely go to Crown (or QO).

But it also is one of the schools that has one of the highest FARMS rate in the QO cluster at 52 percent FARMS. Then the other is Browns Station with 56 percent FARMS.

Look at the FARMS rates at the other QO ES schools:
Rachel Carson 27.9
Diamond 15
Jones Lane 36 (and has the island near the Muddy Branch Shopping Center
Thurgood Marshall 45

And coincidentally in some of these latest proposals, MCPS has Browns Station and Fields Road going to Gaithersburg HS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Fields Road or QO. But saying Fields Road is okay because is coming from QO and not Gaithersburg isn't proof to make concerned Wootton families feel better. Because MCPS looks like it's trying to shed the schools with the highest FARMS rate from QO.

And if MCPS thinks that the areas from Fields Road and Brown Station is movable. Who's to say they won't decide to move it to Crown instead of Gaithersburg HS?

Exactly-it doesn’t really matter where Fields is currently zoned for-it’s a low performing school that will likely be added under a revised H. And I imagine all of rosemont will be added as well instead of the partial. That’s 2 feeders right there. Plenty to makeup 1/3 of a school considering most HS’s only have around 5 feeder elementary schools total. I love how some of you think that this change will suddenly make these students completely change their academic performance. Maybe I could believe that if the movement was in elementary/middle in more formative years but by and large that ship has sailed by HS. They aren’t all the sudden going to have a different performance level because the building is different/new and they have some new peers.

[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:

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.

I have nothing against Fields Road ES and think that it should definitely go to Crown (or QO).

But it also is one of the schools that has one of the highest FARMS rate in the QO cluster at 52 percent FARMS. Then the other is Browns Station with 56 percent FARMS.

Look at the FARMS rates at the other QO ES schools:
Rachel Carson 27.9
Diamond 15
Jones Lane 36 (and has the island near the Muddy Branch Shopping Center
Thurgood Marshall 45

And coincidentally in some of these latest proposals, MCPS has Browns Station and Fields Road going to Gaithersburg HS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Fields Road or QO. But saying Fields Road is okay because is coming from QO and not Gaithersburg isn't proof to make concerned Wootton families feel better. Because MCPS looks like it's trying to shed the schools with the highest FARMS rate from QO.

And if MCPS thinks that the areas from Fields Road and Brown Station is movable. Who's to say they won't decide to move it to Crown instead of Gaithersburg HS?

Exactly-it doesn’t really matter where Fields is currently zoned for-it’s a low performing school that will likely be added under a revised H. And I imagine all of rosemont will be added as well instead of the partial. That’s 2 feeders right there. Plenty to makeup 1/3 of a school considering most HS’s only have around 5 feeder elementary schools total. I love how some of you think that this change will suddenly make these students completely change their academic performance. Maybe I could believe that if the movement was in elementary/middle in more formative years but by and large that ship has sailed by HS. They aren’t all the sudden going to have a different performance level because the building is different/new and they have some new peers.

First, there is research to show that it WILL have a positive effect on scores. So you can deny it, but it would help if you gave evidence-based reasons.

Second, even if those students' scores did not improve, why does it matter? A kid currently zoned for Wootton won't have lower scores just by being in proximity to those with lower scores. Right?

[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:

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.

I have nothing against Fields Road ES and think that it should definitely go to Crown (or QO).

But it also is one of the schools that has one of the highest FARMS rate in the QO cluster at 52 percent FARMS. Then the other is Browns Station with 56 percent FARMS.

Look at the FARMS rates at the other QO ES schools:
Rachel Carson 27.9
Diamond 15
Jones Lane 36 (and has the island near the Muddy Branch Shopping Center
Thurgood Marshall 45

And coincidentally in some of these latest proposals, MCPS has Browns Station and Fields Road going to Gaithersburg HS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Fields Road or QO. But saying Fields Road is okay because is coming from QO and not Gaithersburg isn't proof to make concerned Wootton families feel better. Because MCPS looks like it's trying to shed the schools with the highest FARMS rate from QO.

And if MCPS thinks that the areas from Fields Road and Brown Station is movable. Who's to say they won't decide to move it to Crown instead of Gaithersburg HS?

The concern with adding fields road is overcrowding. You start with a school already overcrowded and has more development coming. It’s only getting worse over time.

[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:

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.

I have nothing against Fields Road ES and think that it should definitely go to Crown (or QO).

But it also is one of the schools that has one of the highest FARMS rate in the QO cluster at 52 percent FARMS. Then the other is Browns Station with 56 percent FARMS.

Look at the FARMS rates at the other QO ES schools:
Rachel Carson 27.9
Diamond 15
Jones Lane 36 (and has the island near the Muddy Branch Shopping Center
Thurgood Marshall 45

And coincidentally in some of these latest proposals, MCPS has Browns Station and Fields Road going to Gaithersburg HS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Fields Road or QO. But saying Fields Road is okay because is coming from QO and not Gaithersburg isn't proof to make concerned Wootton families feel better. Because MCPS looks like it's trying to shed the schools with the highest FARMS rate from QO.

And if MCPS thinks that the areas from Fields Road and Brown Station is movable. Who's to say they won't decide to move it to Crown instead of Gaithersburg HS?

Exactly-it doesn’t really matter where Fields is currently zoned for-it’s a low performing school that will likely be added under a revised H. And I imagine all of rosemont will be added as well instead of the partial. That’s 2 feeders right there. Plenty to makeup 1/3 of a school considering most HS’s only have around 5 feeder elementary schools total. I love how some of you think that this change will suddenly make these students completely change their academic performance. Maybe I could believe that if the movement was in elementary/middle in more formative years but by and large that ship has sailed by HS. They aren’t all the sudden going to have a different performance level because the building is different/new and they have some new peers.

First, there is research to show that it WILL have a positive effect on scores. So you can deny it, but it would help if you gave evidence-based reasons.

Second, even if those students' scores did not improve, why does it matter? A kid currently zoned for Wootton won't have lower scores just by being in proximity to those with lower scores. Right?

It's like you don't believe the behavioral problems caused by the poor kids won't negatively affect the UMC kids.

OK, so you've moved on from arguing about test scores and to something else? So test scores are likely to improve for the low performing students. Glad we can agree.

Now, let's talk about behavioral problems. What are these behavioral problems from the students that would be joining at Crown and what negative affects do you predict?

[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:

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.

I have nothing against Fields Road ES and think that it should definitely go to Crown (or QO).

But it also is one of the schools that has one of the highest FARMS rate in the QO cluster at 52 percent FARMS. Then the other is Browns Station with 56 percent FARMS.

Look at the FARMS rates at the other QO ES schools:
Rachel Carson 27.9
Diamond 15
Jones Lane 36 (and has the island near the Muddy Branch Shopping Center
Thurgood Marshall 45

And coincidentally in some of these latest proposals, MCPS has Browns Station and Fields Road going to Gaithersburg HS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Fields Road or QO. But saying Fields Road is okay because is coming from QO and not Gaithersburg isn't proof to make concerned Wootton families feel better. Because MCPS looks like it's trying to shed the schools with the highest FARMS rate from QO.

And if MCPS thinks that the areas from Fields Road and Brown Station is movable. Who's to say they won't decide to move it to Crown instead of Gaithersburg HS?

Exactly-it doesn’t really matter where Fields is currently zoned for-it’s a low performing school that will likely be added under a revised H. And I imagine all of rosemont will be added as well instead of the partial. That’s 2 feeders right there. Plenty to makeup 1/3 of a school considering most HS’s only have around 5 feeder elementary schools total. I love how some of you think that this change will suddenly make these students completely change their academic performance. Maybe I could believe that if the movement was in elementary/middle in more formative years but by and large that ship has sailed by HS. They aren’t all the sudden going to have a different performance level because the building is different/new and they have some new peers.

First, there is research to show that it WILL have a positive effect on scores. So you can deny it, but it would help if you gave evidence-based reasons.

Second, even if those students' scores did not improve, why does it matter? A kid currently zoned for Wootton won't have lower scores just by being in proximity to those with lower scores. Right?

It's like you don't believe the behavioral problems caused by the poor kids won't negatively affect the UMC kids.

OK, so you've moved on from arguing about test scores and to something else? So test scores are likely to improve for the low performing students. Glad we can agree.

Now, let's talk about behavioral problems. What are these behavioral problems from the students that would be joining at Crown and what negative affects do you predict?

Just fyi-i’m not the pp. I posted about the scores. Why does everyone on this thread think only one person is responding?

[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:

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.

I have nothing against Fields Road ES and think that it should definitely go to Crown (or QO).

But it also is one of the schools that has one of the highest FARMS rate in the QO cluster at 52 percent FARMS. Then the other is Browns Station with 56 percent FARMS.

Look at the FARMS rates at the other QO ES schools:
Rachel Carson 27.9
Diamond 15
Jones Lane 36 (and has the island near the Muddy Branch Shopping Center
Thurgood Marshall 45

And coincidentally in some of these latest proposals, MCPS has Browns Station and Fields Road going to Gaithersburg HS.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with Fields Road or QO. But saying Fields Road is okay because is coming from QO and not Gaithersburg isn't proof to make concerned Wootton families feel better. Because MCPS looks like it's trying to shed the schools with the highest FARMS rate from QO.

And if MCPS thinks that the areas from Fields Road and Brown Station is movable. Who's to say they won't decide to move it to Crown instead of Gaithersburg HS?

Exactly-it doesn’t really matter where Fields is currently zoned for-it’s a low performing school that will likely be added under a revised H. And I imagine all of rosemont will be added as well instead of the partial. That’s 2 feeders right there. Plenty to makeup 1/3 of a school considering most HS’s only have around 5 feeder elementary schools total. I love how some of you think that this change will suddenly make these students completely change their academic performance. Maybe I could believe that if the movement was in elementary/middle in more formative years but by and large that ship has sailed by HS. They aren’t all the sudden going to have a different performance level because the building is different/new and they have some new peers.

First, there is research to show that it WILL have a positive effect on scores. So you can deny it, but it would help if you gave evidence-based reasons.

Second, even if those students' scores did not improve, why does it matter? A kid currently zoned for Wootton won't have lower scores just by being in proximity to those with lower scores. Right?

It's like you don't believe the behavioral problems caused by the poor kids won't negatively affect the UMC kids.

OK, so you've moved on from arguing about test scores and to something else? So test scores are likely to improve for the low performing students. Glad we can agree.

Now, let's talk about behavioral problems. What are these behavioral problems from the students that would be joining at Crown and what negative affects do you predict?

Just fyi-i’m not the pp. I posted about the scores. Why does everyone on this thread think only one person is responding?

PP here. Thanks for clarifying. My bad, I shouldn't have made that assumption, particularly when I find it annoying when others do it!

What is your take on the test scores?

[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 actually does. Because you'll have students with different baselines, coming from different elementary schools which had different rigors, to prepare them for the higher level classes.

So what happens when they get to high school?

Just have the more advanced classes be primarily made up of students who came from the original Wootton feeder schools?

So how about opening it up and make it more accessible to more students? Well what happens if they can't keep up? MCPS isn't going to fail them. So they need to slow down the curriculum until everyone in the class understands.

This is why some levels of AP classes are different between schools. I post this often but we used to know sub who would sub for the AP math and science classes. And they'd point out which schools had students who were actually college level and which schools were really just an AP class by name. And the results would be reflected in the AP results report that MCPS releases each year. The students at all of the schools were 4.0 students. But students at one school couldn't even get a good number of students to earn a 3 on the exam and shows the issues of the rigor of their school and the preparation it did to help with them to take the exam.

[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 actually does. Because you'll have students with different baselines, coming from different elementary schools which had different rigors, to prepare them for the higher level classes.

So what happens when they get to high school?

Just have the more advanced classes be primarily made up of students who came from the original Wootton feeder schools?

So how about opening it up and make it more accessible to more students? Well what happens if they can't keep up? MCPS isn't going to fail them. So they need to slow down the curriculum until everyone in the class understands.

This is why some levels of AP classes are different between schools. I post this often but we used to know sub who would sub for the AP math and science classes. And they'd point out which schools had students who were actually college level and which schools were really just an AP class by name. And the results would be reflected in the AP results report that MCPS releases each year. The students at all of the schools were 4.0 students. But students at one school couldn't even get a good number of students to earn a 3 on the exam and shows the issues of the rigor of their school and the preparation it did to help with them to take the exam.

PP here and I appreciate this argument. A couple issues with it though. First, it entirely discounts the research that says those less prepared are likely to rise to the level of the instruction and the cohort. This means that the scenario you describe is not likely to happen, at least not on a large scale. Relatedly, this argument undercuts other arguments that the quality of the teacher is what makes Wootton on average get higher test scores.