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

[Anonymous]

I wasn't convinced until after this thread. H is definitely the best plan, modified to include Fields Road of course.

[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 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.

Only because the students the teachers at Wootton get have the necessary foundation to build upon. This foundation is built through elementary and middle school.

[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.

Wootton cluster has six ES, and you're complaining about adding one maybe two ES to Crown because .... omg.. the scores will plumment.

In as much as your striver kid's academics won't rub off on a poor brown kid, the poor brown kid's poor performance won't rub off on your kid.

There will be enough striver kids at Crown from Wootton to still have lots of AP classes, and probably the STEM magnet.

You Wootton parents are racist and ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't convinced until after this thread. H is definitely the best plan, modified to include Fields Road of course.

+1

Another good option is to keep Wootton on Wootton pkwy, but add Fields Rd there. Could remove Travilah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't convinced until after this thread. H is definitely the best plan, modified to include Fields Road of course.

+1

Another good option is to keep Wootton on Wootton pkwy, but add Fields Rd there. Could remove Travilah.

As long as crown opens as a permanent school

[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.

Wootton cluster has six ES, and you're complaining about adding one maybe two ES to Crown because .... omg.. the scores will plumment.

In as much as your striver kid's academics won't rub off on a poor brown kid, the poor brown kid's poor performance won't rub off on your kid.

There will be enough striver kids at Crown from Wootton to still have lots of AP classes, and probably the STEM magnet.

You Wootton parents are racist and ridiculous.

They probably don't want the white or asian families who have average kids either. They should have an entrance exam and any child who has under a 240 MAP and even one B should not be allowed to attend.

[Anonymous]

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

Funny thing, some of our kids are in schools you'd never consider and they've never see any MS-13 or gang activity. However, they also don't have rapes in the locker room by sports teams or coaches abusing them either... you act like Wooton has no issues and the issues its had in the last five years are very serious. MS-13 should be the least of your concerns.

[Anonymous]

I thought the thread is about GHS kids going to Wootton at Crown. Do Brown station ES and Field Road ES currently zoned to GHS or QO? There is no established magnet HS in regional boundary study zone 5 (where QO and GHS are). Does someone proposes that all high FARM ES which include Brown station ES & Field road ES should stay with GHS and QO under region 5, and they are the main reasons that Wootton oppose 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: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.

Wootton cluster has six ES, and you're complaining about adding one maybe two ES to Crown because .... omg.. the scores will plumment.

In as much as your striver kid's academics won't rub off on a poor brown kid, the poor brown kid's poor performance won't rub off on your kid.

There will be enough striver kids at Crown from Wootton to still have lots of AP classes, and probably the STEM magnet.

You Wootton parents are racist and ridiculous.

They have 6 ES right now-yes. But after the move 1-2 Wootton feeders will likely be pushed out. The only people that keep mentioning color are posters against Wootton parents-not a single Wootton parent has made a comment saying they don’t want kids of a certain race. Not wanting the scores at your child’s score to seriously decrease is not racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Funny thing, some of our kids are in schools you'd never consider and they've never see any MS-13 or gang activity. However, they also don't have rapes in the locker room by sports teams or coaches abusing them either... you act like Wooton has no issues and the issues its had in the last five years are very serious. MS-13 should be the least of your concerns.

Did you actually read the information that the rape allegation was false? Or did you just choose to ignore it and continue spreading the misinformation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't convinced until after this thread. H is definitely the best plan, modified to include Fields Road of course.

+1

Another good option is to keep Wootton on Wootton pkwy, but add Fields Rd there. Could remove Travilah.

As long as crown opens as a permanent school

With the kids that currently go to Wooten, plus a few others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't convinced until after this thread. H is definitely the best plan, modified to include Fields Road of course.

+1

Another good option is to keep Wootton on Wootton pkwy, but add Fields Rd there. Could remove Travilah.

As long as crown opens as a permanent school

With the kids that currently go to Wooten, plus a few others.

You clearly don’t live in the cluster-you can’t even spell the high school name correctly. So of course you want this.

They are not going to add more schools to Wootton in its current location-it doesn’t have room. So you also support overcrowding? awesome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't convinced until after this thread. H is definitely the best plan, modified to include Fields Road of course.

+1

Another good option is to keep Wootton on Wootton pkwy, but add Fields Rd there. Could remove Travilah.

As long as crown opens as a permanent school

With the kids that currently go to Wooten, plus a few others.

You clearly don’t live in the cluster-you can’t even spell the high school name correctly. So of course you want this.

They are not going to add more schools to Wootton in its current location-it doesn’t have room. So you also support overcrowding? awesome.

Crown is bigger than Wootton, so it can accommodate more students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't convinced until after this thread. H is definitely the best plan, modified to include Fields Road of course.

+1

Another good option is to keep Wootton on Wootton pkwy, but add Fields Rd there. Could remove Travilah.

As long as crown opens as a permanent school

With the kids that currently go to Wooten, plus a few others.

You clearly don’t live in the cluster-you can’t even spell the high school name correctly. So of course you want this.

They are not going to add more schools to Wootton in its current location-it doesn’t have room. So you also support overcrowding? awesome.

Crown is bigger than Wootton, so it can accommodate more students.

But the person they were responding to was saying to keep Wootton on Wootton parkway-which is not Crown. Reading is fundamental.

[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.

Wootton cluster has six ES, and you're complaining about adding one maybe two ES to Crown because .... omg.. the scores will plumment.

In as much as your striver kid's academics won't rub off on a poor brown kid, the poor brown kid's poor performance won't rub off on your kid.

There will be enough striver kids at Crown from Wootton to still have lots of AP classes, and probably the STEM magnet.

You Wootton parents are racist and ridiculous.

They have 6 ES right now-yes. But after the move 1-2 Wootton feeders will likely be pushed out. The only people that keep mentioning color are posters against Wootton parents-not a single Wootton parent has made a comment saying they don’t want kids of a certain race. Not wanting the scores at your child’s score to seriously decrease is not racist.

Pure speculation to make the Option seem worse than it actually is does not help your case. Unless you have any evidence/facts?