General question about MCPS landscape

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has alot of mismanagement where the teachers have so much overtime and useless meetings to accomplish while grading alone bulks up their hours to double overtime (content teachers that is) and their is a big push for teachers not to report incidents or they suffer retaliation. All in all, the kids that show up get decent grades but not alot of feedback on their work bc teachers are busy putting out fires, keeping their head above water, and appeasing admin who will fire us if we see any violence.

Oh shut up
Maga

OP this is BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS veteran.

Think of it in these terms, OP:

A. The wealthy neighborhoods to the south-west of MoCo (Bethesda, Chevy-Chase, Potomac, etc) have the schools with the best test scores and largest cohort of families who care about education. The schools are generally safer (be aware that there are safety issues at all schools, we're talking about a gradient in terms of frequency of incidents), and the general atmosphere in school is mostly studious, with a very large list of advanced courses that kids can take at the high school level.

No, most parents care about their kids' education. At the other schools, kids do not have access to the same education and courses. Many of our kids also test well but there is a huge mix of kids, including ESOL and SN, unlike those schools that send them to our schools. Our kids don't have math classes after AP Calc BC. So much for MCPS equity.


B. There's a number of more affordable middle class neighborhoods where schools are acceptable, with parental involvement to make sure their kids are kept on an academically successful path and don't get distracted by social problems at school. There might not be all the course options that the top schools have, but they're still OK.

No, there are many good neighborhoods and middle class is subjective. Many of us in these neighborhoods are highly involved, if not more involved than you are. You really have no clue.

C. There are less privileged neighborhoods with schools that are constantly beset by the behavior problems of multiple students, some of whom are in gangs. These schools have many families who due to financial pressures and lack of education, cannot adequately nurture their children's academics. Don't go there.

The behavior is just as bad at the W and richer schools - read the news)

So are the wealthy schools "cut-throat"? Maybe, but you also have the benefit of a studious cohort, a certain level of daily safety in school, more academic options (Walter Johnson has Latin, Walt Whitman has all the languages prized by the State Department and intelligence agencies, both have post-AP college math courses).

There are other, critical, considerations:
1. Commute, for daily life satisfaction.
2. Real estate prices, for what you can afford but also how you invest your money.

Personally, I would go with the best school district you can afford that also works with your commute. Even in the 2008 recession, my house in Bethesda didn't lose value. I didn't just invest in an education. I invested in the neighborhood.

Finally, I am multiethnic and not American and couldn't care less about diversity. My kids' education and my money (real estate investment) matter far more than how many kids look like them in their school. It's not like any other kid could have the same mix of ethnicities anyway

I'm so grateful my kids don't go to school with your kids as you are exhausting and racist.

+1another MCPS veteran “grateful etc”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS veteran.

Think of it in these terms, OP:

A. The wealthy neighborhoods to the south-west of MoCo (Bethesda, Chevy-Chase, Potomac, etc) have the schools with the best test scores and largest cohort of families who care about education. The schools are generally safer (be aware that there are safety issues at all schools, we're talking about a gradient in terms of frequency of incidents), and the general atmosphere in school is mostly studious, with a very large list of advanced courses that kids can take at the high school level.

No, most parents care about their kids' education. At the other schools, kids do not have access to the same education and courses. Many of our kids also test well but there is a huge mix of kids, including ESOL and SN, unlike those schools that send them to our schools. Our kids don't have math classes after AP Calc BC. So much for MCPS equity.


B. There's a number of more affordable middle class neighborhoods where schools are acceptable, with parental involvement to make sure their kids are kept on an academically successful path and don't get distracted by social problems at school. There might not be all the course options that the top schools have, but they're still OK.

No, there are many good neighborhoods and middle class is subjective. Many of us in these neighborhoods are highly involved, if not more involved than you are. You really have no clue.

C. There are less privileged neighborhoods with schools that are constantly beset by the behavior problems of multiple students, some of whom are in gangs. These schools have many families who due to financial pressures and lack of education, cannot adequately nurture their children's academics. Don't go there.

The behavior is just as bad at the W and richer schools - read the news)

So are the wealthy schools "cut-throat"? Maybe, but you also have the benefit of a studious cohort, a certain level of daily safety in school, more academic options (Walter Johnson has Latin, Walt Whitman has all the languages prized by the State Department and intelligence agencies, both have post-AP college math courses).

There are other, critical, considerations:
1. Commute, for daily life satisfaction.
2. Real estate prices, for what you can afford but also how you invest your money.

Personally, I would go with the best school district you can afford that also works with your commute. Even in the 2008 recession, my house in Bethesda didn't lose value. I didn't just invest in an education. I invested in the neighborhood.

Finally, I am multiethnic and not American and couldn't care less about diversity. My kids' education and my money (real estate investment) matter far more than how many kids look like them in their school. It's not like any other kid could have the same mix of ethnicities anyway

I'm so grateful my kids don't go to school with your kids as you are exhausting and racist.

I thought the progressive stance was that kids in low income schools were more likely to have behavioral problems due to concentrated poverty. The call is therefore for more resources aimed at these schools. Now you are saying all schools are equally likely to have behavioral problems. Does this mean the poorer schools don’t need more resources to address the behavior issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS veteran.

Think of it in these terms, OP:

A. The wealthy neighborhoods to the south-west of MoCo (Bethesda, Chevy-Chase, Potomac, etc) have the schools with the best test scores and largest cohort of families who care about education. The schools are generally safer (be aware that there are safety issues at all schools, we're talking about a gradient in terms of frequency of incidents), and the general atmosphere in school is mostly studious, with a very large list of advanced courses that kids can take at the high school level.

No, most parents care about their kids' education. At the other schools, kids do not have access to the same education and courses. Many of our kids also test well but there is a huge mix of kids, including ESOL and SN, unlike those schools that send them to our schools. Our kids don't have math classes after AP Calc BC. So much for MCPS equity.


B. There's a number of more affordable middle class neighborhoods where schools are acceptable, with parental involvement to make sure their kids are kept on an academically successful path and don't get distracted by social problems at school. There might not be all the course options that the top schools have, but they're still OK.

No, there are many good neighborhoods and middle class is subjective. Many of us in these neighborhoods are highly involved, if not more involved than you are. You really have no clue.

C. There are less privileged neighborhoods with schools that are constantly beset by the behavior problems of multiple students, some of whom are in gangs. These schools have many families who due to financial pressures and lack of education, cannot adequately nurture their children's academics. Don't go there.

The behavior is just as bad at the W and richer schools - read the news)

So are the wealthy schools "cut-throat"? Maybe, but you also have the benefit of a studious cohort, a certain level of daily safety in school, more academic options (Walter Johnson has Latin, Walt Whitman has all the languages prized by the State Department and intelligence agencies, both have post-AP college math courses).

There are other, critical, considerations:
1. Commute, for daily life satisfaction.
2. Real estate prices, for what you can afford but also how you invest your money.

Personally, I would go with the best school district you can afford that also works with your commute. Even in the 2008 recession, my house in Bethesda didn't lose value. I didn't just invest in an education. I invested in the neighborhood.

Finally, I am multiethnic and not American and couldn't care less about diversity. My kids' education and my money (real estate investment) matter far more than how many kids look like them in their school. It's not like any other kid could have the same mix of ethnicities anyway

I'm so grateful my kids don't go to school with your kids as you are exhausting and racist.

I thought the progressive stance was that kids in low income schools were more likely to have behavioral problems due to concentrated poverty. The call is therefore for more resources aimed at these schools. Now you are saying all schools are equally likely to have behavioral problems. Does this mean the poorer schools don’t need more resources to address the behavior issues?

Kids can have behavioral problems regardless of their socioeconomic status. Allocating more public resources to poorer communities is just common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS veteran.

Think of it in these terms, OP:

A. The wealthy neighborhoods to the south-west of MoCo (Bethesda, Chevy-Chase, Potomac, etc) have the schools with the best test scores and largest cohort of families who care about education. The schools are generally safer (be aware that there are safety issues at all schools, we're talking about a gradient in terms of frequency of incidents), and the general atmosphere in school is mostly studious, with a very large list of advanced courses that kids can take at the high school level.

B. There's a number of more affordable middle class neighborhoods where schools are acceptable, with parental involvement to make sure their kids are kept on an academically successful path and don't get distracted by social problems at school. There might not be all the course options that the top schools have, but they're still OK.

C. There are less privileged neighborhoods with schools that are constantly beset by the behavior problems of multiple students, some of whom are in gangs. These schools have many families who due to financial pressures and lack of education, cannot adequately nurture their children's academics. Don't go there.

So are the wealthy schools "cut-throat"? Maybe, but you also have the benefit of a studious cohort, a certain level of daily safety in school, more academic options (Walter Johnson has Latin, Walt Whitman has all the languages prized by the State Department and intelligence agencies, both have post-AP college math courses).

There are other, critical, considerations:
1. Commute, for daily life satisfaction.
2. Real estate prices, for what you can afford but also how you invest your money.

Personally, I would go with the best school district you can afford that also works with your commute. Even in the 2008 recession, my house in Bethesda didn't lose value. I didn't just invest in an education. I invested in the neighborhood.

Finally, I am multiethnic and not American and couldn't care less about diversity. My kids' education and my money (real estate investment) matter far more than how many kids look like them in their school. It's not like any other kid could have the same mix of ethnicities anyway

TLDR: spent tons of money to buy in Bethesda and needs to justify that choice by stereotyping a bunch of schools and entire communities

+1 haha.

RMHS has the IB magnet, which in cluster students can join in 11th grade, but even if they don't, those IB classes are open to everyone in the cluster. They also have MVC and tons of AP classes.

What mix of ethnicities are your kids that you can't find them in MCPS? There are a lot of mixed race kids, my own included.

What do you mean in the cluster? Do you mean in the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Avoiding high farms has nothing to do with race or diversity. A lot of the kids are just not properly supervised outside of school.

I live in the DCC and all the teens I've encountered were perfectly nice and courteous. I know hearing that must be triggering for you since you spent a ton of money to be far away from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Avoiding high farms has nothing to do with race or diversity. A lot of the kids are just not properly supervised outside of school.

I live in the DCC and all the teens I've encountered were perfectly nice and courteous. I know hearing that must be triggering for you since you spent a ton of money to be far away from them.

Most dcum are narrow minded and rely on GreatSchools-type of bs scores in judging schools. Doesn’t bother me—would rather those types stay isolated in their pressure cooker schools and away from my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an MCPS veteran.

Think of it in these terms, OP:

A. The wealthy neighborhoods to the south-west of MoCo (Bethesda, Chevy-Chase, Potomac, etc) have the schools with the best test scores and largest cohort of families who care about education. The schools are generally safer (be aware that there are safety issues at all schools, we're talking about a gradient in terms of frequency of incidents), and the general atmosphere in school is mostly studious, with a very large list of advanced courses that kids can take at the high school level.

No, most parents care about their kids' education. At the other schools, kids do not have access to the same education and courses. Many of our kids also test well but there is a huge mix of kids, including ESOL and SN, unlike those schools that send them to our schools. Our kids don't have math classes after AP Calc BC. So much for MCPS equity.


B. There's a number of more affordable middle class neighborhoods where schools are acceptable, with parental involvement to make sure their kids are kept on an academically successful path and don't get distracted by social problems at school. There might not be all the course options that the top schools have, but they're still OK.

No, there are many good neighborhoods and middle class is subjective. Many of us in these neighborhoods are highly involved, if not more involved than you are. You really have no clue.

C. There are less privileged neighborhoods with schools that are constantly beset by the behavior problems of multiple students, some of whom are in gangs. These schools have many families who due to financial pressures and lack of education, cannot adequately nurture their children's academics. Don't go there.

The behavior is just as bad at the W and richer schools - read the news)

So are the wealthy schools "cut-throat"? Maybe, but you also have the benefit of a studious cohort, a certain level of daily safety in school, more academic options (Walter Johnson has Latin, Walt Whitman has all the languages prized by the State Department and intelligence agencies, both have post-AP college math courses).

There are other, critical, considerations:
1. Commute, for daily life satisfaction.
2. Real estate prices, for what you can afford but also how you invest your money.

Personally, I would go with the best school district you can afford that also works with your commute. Even in the 2008 recession, my house in Bethesda didn't lose value. I didn't just invest in an education. I invested in the neighborhood.

Finally, I am multiethnic and not American and couldn't care less about diversity. My kids' education and my money (real estate investment) matter far more than how many kids look like them in their school. It's not like any other kid could have the same mix of ethnicities anyway

I'm so grateful my kids don't go to school with your kids as you are exhausting and racist.

I thought the progressive stance was that kids in low income schools were more likely to have behavioral problems due to concentrated poverty. The call is therefore for more resources aimed at these schools. Now you are saying all schools are equally likely to have behavioral problems. Does this mean the poorer schools don’t need more resources to address the behavior issues?

Kids can have behavioral problems regardless of their socioeconomic status. Allocating more public resources to poorer communities is just common sense.

Nice avoiding the point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Avoiding high farms has nothing to do with race or diversity. A lot of the kids are just not properly supervised outside of school.

I live in the DCC and all the teens I've encountered were perfectly nice and courteous. I know hearing that must be triggering for you since you spent a ton of money to be far away from them.

Why are absences high and why do they get bad grades? It's not because they are naturally dumb. It's because they are not properly supervised outside of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you so much everyone! We both work in downtown DC, so closer the better but of course that means housing prices are high…

A quick follow on question… Which metro station along the red line has good parking? If anyone can let me know that would be most appreciated! Well of course do a lot more research over the next year or two including the boundary study.

Glenmont metro had great parking and you can actually get a seat because it’s the first stop.