Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why do Asians make 30% more than whites when America put the Japanese in internment camps, wouldn’t even let Chinese people buy property after they were treated horribly in the 19th and early 20th Century? If it’s such a racist system why was it set up so that white people are doing so poorly compared to Asians? Sounds like a pretty poorly planned racist system.

Today, income inequality in the U.S. is greatest among Asians. From 1970 to 2016, the gap in the standard of living between Asians near the top and the bottom of the income ladder nearly doubled, and the distribution of income among Asians transformed from being one of the most equal to being the most unequal among America’s major racial and ethnic groups.

In this process, Asians displaced blacks as the most economically divided racial or ethnic group in the U.S., according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data. While Asians overall rank as the highest earning racial and ethnic group in the U.S., it is not a status shared by all Asians: From 1970 to 2016, the gains in income for lower-income Asians trailed well behind the gains for their counterparts in other groups.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so would you like to deliberately and willingly increasing the chance of having "bad apples" around your kids?

Increasing "bad apples" around your kids, how? Are you saying that there are more "bad apples" among poor kids than among non-poor kids?

No. I am not saying that, you are. It is amazing so many people just want to distort other's view so that they could argue against an easier target - sorry, that is a target out of your imagination.

I am saying there is a better chance of having "bad apples" from low-performing kids. Doesn't matter if they are poor or rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so would you like to deliberately and willingly increasing the chance of having "bad apples" around your kids?

Increasing "bad apples" around your kids, how? Are you saying that there are more "bad apples" among poor kids than among non-poor kids?

No. I am not saying that, you are. It is amazing so many people just want to distort other's view so that they could argue against an easier target - sorry, that is a target out of your imagination.

I am saying there is a better chance of having "bad apples" from low-performing kids. Doesn't matter if they are poor or rich.

But nobody is talking about adjusting boundaries based on test scores. In fact, how would you even do this? They are talking about adjusting boundaries based on school capacity and demographics. So if your comment is, "Why would you want your kid to be around more students with low test scores?", it's irrelevant to the discussion.

To say nothing of your idea that kids with low test scores are more likely to be "bad apples" than kids with high test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so would you like to deliberately and willingly increasing the chance of having "bad apples" around your kids?

Increasing "bad apples" around your kids, how? Are you saying that there are more "bad apples" among poor kids than among non-poor kids?

No. I am not saying that, you are. It is amazing so many people just want to distort other's view so that they could argue against an easier target - sorry, that is a target out of your imagination.

I am saying there is a better chance of having "bad apples" from low-performing kids. Doesn't matter if they are poor or rich.

But nobody is talking about adjusting boundaries based on test scores. In fact, how would you even do this? They are talking about adjusting boundaries based on school capacity and demographics. So if your comment is, "Why would you want your kid to be around more students with low test scores?", it's irrelevant to the discussion.

To say nothing of your idea that kids with low test scores are more likely to be "bad apples" than kids with high test scores.

Seriously -- my kid has low test scores and she's hardly a trouble maker. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so would you like to deliberately and willingly increasing the chance of having "bad apples" around your kids?

Increasing "bad apples" around your kids, how? Are you saying that there are more "bad apples" among poor kids than among non-poor kids?

No. I am not saying that, you are. It is amazing so many people just want to distort other's view so that they could argue against an easier target - sorry, that is a target out of your imagination.

I am saying there is a better chance of having "bad apples" from low-performing kids. Doesn't matter if they are poor or rich.

But nobody is talking about adjusting boundaries based on test scores. In fact, how would you even do this? They are talking about adjusting boundaries based on school capacity and demographics. So if your comment is, "Why would you want your kid to be around more students with low test scores?", it's irrelevant to the discussion.

To say nothing of your idea that kids with low test scores are more likely to be "bad apples" than kids with high test scores.

The goal is to work on capacities and demographics. People do not have to be against your goals. If they feel that your actions could bring other effects, they can raise these concerns even if those are not what you intended to do.


When you adjust school boundaries, you either move some students away, or bring some students in. If people have reasons to believe that the students being brought in are more likely low performers, they can
certainly be concerned about that.

So now the question is, do people have reasons to believe that? Well, not reasons strong enough to win a court battle I guess, but there are reasons that would make some common sense - e.g. if you bring in students from a school that apparently performs worse than the current one, would it not be more likely that those students being moved be lower-performers than those in the current school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, so would you like to deliberately and willingly increasing the chance of having "bad apples" around your kids?

Increasing "bad apples" around your kids, how? Are you saying that there are more "bad apples" among poor kids than among non-poor kids?

No. I am not saying that, you are. It is amazing so many people just want to distort other's view so that they could argue against an easier target - sorry, that is a target out of your imagination.

I am saying there is a better chance of having "bad apples" from low-performing kids. Doesn't matter if they are poor or rich.

But nobody is talking about adjusting boundaries based on test scores. In fact, how would you even do this? They are talking about adjusting boundaries based on school capacity and demographics. So if your comment is, "Why would you want your kid to be around more students with low test scores?", it's irrelevant to the discussion.

To say nothing of your idea that kids with low test scores are more likely to be "bad apples" than kids with high test scores.

Seriously -- my kid has low test scores and she's hardly a trouble maker. Jeez.

Oh, there are high performing drug dealers too.

We are talking about statistics, not a few individual examples.

There are some "low performers" who became low performers because they simple do not study. There are likely very few high-performers that can do that (becoming high performers because they do not study?).
Students who do not study at school, can be quite annoying at times (especially in team projects).

As for other aspects of being a "bad apple", maybe low performers and high performers have similar contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The goal is to work on capacities and demographics. People do not have to be against your goals. If they feel that your actions could bring other effects, they can raise these concerns even if those are not what you intended to do.

When you adjust school boundaries, you either move some students away, or bring some students in. If people have reasons to believe that the students being brought in are more likely low performers, they can
certainly be concerned about that.

So now the question is, do people have reasons to believe that? Well, not reasons strong enough to win a court battle I guess, but there are reasons that would make some common sense - e.g. if you bring in students from a school that apparently performs worse than the current one, would it not be more likely that those students being moved be lower-performers than those in the current school?

This is you.

BoE: We're trying to make schools less segregated by gender. In practice, this means that schools that currently have very few girls will have some more girls.
Poster #1: Panic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Poster #2: I guess you're scared of girls, huh?
You: Who said anything about girls, you sexist? PP#1 just doesn't want their son in a school with more short people.
Poster #3: BoE isn't adjusting boundaries based on height. Also, lots of girls aren't short, and lots of boys are short.
You: Nonetheless, it is a common-sense concern that if the boundaries are adjusted to bring in more students from schools with short people, then there will be more short people in the school that currently has very few girls. And it's reasonable for parents to not want their boys to be around more kids who don't pick their clothes up off the floor.
Poster #4: Where did you get the idea that girls are less likely to pick their clothes up off the floor than boys?
Poster #5: Yeah, I have a daughter, and she picks her clothes up off the floor.
You: People keep trying to make this about gender, and it's not. It's also not saying that there aren't currently some people at the school who are short and don't pick their clothes up off the floor. It's just about the valid worry that there will be more short people in the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The goal is to work on capacities and demographics. People do not have to be against your goals. If they feel that your actions could bring other effects, they can raise these concerns even if those are not what you intended to do.

When you adjust school boundaries, you either move some students away, or bring some students in. If people have reasons to believe that the students being brought in are more likely low performers, they can
certainly be concerned about that.

So now the question is, do people have reasons to believe that? Well, not reasons strong enough to win a court battle I guess, but there are reasons that would make some common sense - e.g. if you bring in students from a school that apparently performs worse than the current one, would it not be more likely that those students being moved be lower-performers than those in the current school?

This is you.

BoE: We're trying to make schools less segregated by gender. In practice, this means that schools that currently have very few girls will have some more girls.
Poster #1: Panic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Poster #2: I guess you're scared of girls, huh?
You: Who said anything about girls, you sexist? PP#1 just doesn't want their son in a school with more short people.
Poster #3: BoE isn't adjusting boundaries based on height. Also, lots of girls aren't short, and lots of boys are short.
You: Nonetheless, it is a common-sense concern that if the boundaries are adjusted to bring in more students from schools with short people, then there will be more short people in the school that currently has very few girls. And it's reasonable for parents to not want their boys to be around more kids who don't pick their clothes up off the floor.
Poster #4: Where did you get the idea that girls are less likely to pick their clothes up off the floor than boys?
Poster #5: Yeah, I have a daughter, and she picks her clothes up off the floor.
You: People keep trying to make this about gender, and it's not. It's also not saying that there aren't currently some people at the school who are short and don't pick their clothes up off the floor. It's just about the valid worry that there will be more short people in the school.

Apparently you don't have better ways of presenting your argument, and can only use such an unfit analogy.

Why unfit?
For example, you have to assume concerns about other students being "short" is as valid as (concerns about) other students being "low performers". This is clearly not the case.

There are other issues similar to this one I pointed out. To summarize: you simply made a futile effort - it does not work. Please stop making these "smart" analogies - if you can't stay focused on the problem then let's call an end to our "discussion".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do Asians make 30% more than whites when America put the Japanese in internment camps, wouldn’t even let Chinese people buy property after they were treated horribly in the 19th and early 20th Century? If it’s such a racist system why was it set up so that white people are doing so poorly compared to Asians? Sounds like a pretty poorly planned racist system.

Today, income inequality in the U.S. is greatest among Asians. From 1970 to 2016, the gap in the standard of living between Asians near the top and the bottom of the income ladder nearly doubled, and the distribution of income among Asians transformed from being one of the most equal to being the most unequal among America’s major racial and ethnic groups.

In this process, Asians displaced blacks as the most economically divided racial or ethnic group in the U.S., according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data. While Asians overall rank as the highest earning racial and ethnic group in the U.S., it is not a status shared by all Asians: From 1970 to 2016, the gains in income for lower-income Asians trailed well behind the gains for their counterparts in other groups.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/

That was very interesting. As an Asian American who grew up lower income to uneducated parents, I think it's important for people to not lump all us Asians together, just like other groups. I do feel the lower income Asian Americans get lost in this discussion as they are a smaller group, but no more or less important than other groups.

Moreover, the gains for lower-income Asians lagged behind the gains for lower-income blacks (67%), whites (45%) and Hispanics (37%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do Asians make 30% more than whites when America put the Japanese in internment camps, wouldn’t even let Chinese people buy property after they were treated horribly in the 19th and early 20th Century? If it’s such a racist system why was it set up so that white people are doing so poorly compared to Asians? Sounds like a pretty poorly planned racist system.

Today, income inequality in the U.S. is greatest among Asians. From 1970 to 2016, the gap in the standard of living between Asians near the top and the bottom of the income ladder nearly doubled, and the distribution of income among Asians transformed from being one of the most equal to being the most unequal among America’s major racial and ethnic groups.

In this process, Asians displaced blacks as the most economically divided racial or ethnic group in the U.S., according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data. While Asians overall rank as the highest earning racial and ethnic group in the U.S., it is not a status shared by all Asians: From 1970 to 2016, the gains in income for lower-income Asians trailed well behind the gains for their counterparts in other groups.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/

That was very interesting. As an Asian American who grew up lower income to uneducated parents, I think it's important for people to not lump all us Asians together, just like other groups. I do feel the lower income Asian Americans get lost in this discussion as they are a smaller group, but no more or less important than other groups.

Moreover, the gains for lower-income Asians lagged behind the gains for lower-income blacks (67%), whites (45%) and Hispanics (37%).

+1 People see the high gains of a certain class of highly educated Asian immigrants. It's important to dis aggregate by SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently you don't have better ways of presenting your argument, and can only use such an unfit analogy.

Why unfit?
For example, you have to assume concerns about other students being "short" is as valid as (concerns about) other students being "low performers". This is clearly not the case.

There are other issues similar to this one I pointed out. To summarize: you simply made a futile effort - it does not work. Please stop making these "smart" analogies - if you can't stay focused on the problem then let's call an end to our "discussion".

Yes! Let's! Hooray!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For most sane parents, this is an entirely financial debate because none of us would ever consider actually sending our children to failing schools if rezoned. It would just be expensive to move, that's all.

I hope the BOE understands that it can change boundaries, but it will never get our kids.

+1 VA has better public university system anyway. I am not a W parent, we go to ES with about 20% FARMS rate, our school is very diverse and so are MS and HS. However, my house could be potentially rezoned to neighboring school cluster, that I am not sending my kid to. we will either move within our cluster, our more likely move to VA with eye on college options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For most sane parents, this is an entirely financial debate because none of us would ever consider actually sending our children to failing schools if rezoned. It would just be expensive to move, that's all.

I hope the BOE understands that it can change boundaries, but it will never get our kids.

+1 VA has better public university system anyway. I am not a W parent, we go to ES with about 20% FARMS rate, our school is very diverse and so are MS and HS. However, my house could be potentially rezoned to neighboring school cluster, that I am not sending my kid to. we will either move within our cluster, our more likely move to VA with eye on college options.

If you're going to move to Virginia because you just recently moved to Cabin Branch and don't want your child to go to Seneca Valley HS instead of Clarksburg HS - well, go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Having more low performing kids at your school doesn’t hurt your kid. [/b]The biggest predictors of educational CPS kids WANT more diversity. Thank goodness the kids are not as fearful as the parents.

ok

It slows down the pacing of instruction and makes if much harder on the teacher to plan and grade. On level used to be for kids with strong enough foundation. Now it's become a skills' class. You've heard this before - again and again and again.

So if low performers are added to a school, your on level child will become bored, as the majority of time will be spent on remediation.

I know you all don't "get it" b/c you're not in the classroom. But so many of you REFUSE to listen, too.

just turn a deaf ear . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Having more low performing kids at your school doesn’t hurt your kid. [/b]The biggest predictors of educational CPS kids WANT more diversity. Thank goodness the kids are not as fearful as the parents.

ok

It slows down the pacing of instruction and makes if much harder on the teacher to plan and grade. On level used to be for kids with strong enough foundation. Now it's become a skills' class. You've heard this before - again and again and again.

So if low performers are added to a school, your on level child will become bored, as the majority of time will be spent on remediation.

I know you all don't "get it" b/c you're not in the classroom. But so many of you REFUSE to listen, too.

just turn a deaf ear . . .

Anybody reading DCUM would think that the only "low performers" are poor/black/brown kids zoned for other schools. No "low performers" with family backgrounds like mine, living in my neighborhood, no sir!