B-CC MS number 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to truly care about this and advocated heavily for Option 1. But sensing Option 7 is inevitable (even though it will dramatically increase the achievement gap and hurt all children involved), I am so done. I am taking my children, my time and my resources and am currently touring and applying my kids to private schools. You don't get to use and abuse my community without consequences. Flight is beginning. Good luck to those left behind.

I am sorry you feel that way but I think you are being overdramatic. Reasonable people can disagree about option 1 vs option 7 but there is no reason to believe either will "dramatically increase the achievement gap" or "use and abuse" any community (although some RCF parents would probably argue that could to them under option 1).

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.


I also have to say it is distasteful, at best, how people are trying to use the swastika incident to argue for their preferred option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to truly care about this and advocated heavily for Option 1. But sensing Option 7 is inevitable (even though it will dramatically increase the achievement gap and hurt all children involved), I am so done. I am taking my children, my time and my resources and am currently touring and applying my kids to private schools. You don't get to use and abuse my community without consequences. Flight is beginning. Good luck to those left behind.

I am sorry you feel that way but I think you are being overdramatic. Reasonable people can disagree about option 1 vs option 7 but there is no reason to believe either will "dramatically increase the achievement gap" or "use and abuse" any community (although some RCF parents would probably argue that could to them under option 1).

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.


I also have to say it is distasteful, at best, how people are trying to use the swastika incident to argue for their preferred option.

How is it distasteful? One of the arguements against Option 7 is for fairness, for equity in diversity and the implications on it's society at large to re-segregate the schools. That is exactly what Option 7 does is re-segregate the schools by putting all the brown children in one and creating an all white rich school in Westland. It is a problem and the swastika incident is proof and an indicator of that, like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain to me why RCF prefers 7. I understand wanting a closer middle school, but I don't get the splitting up the school between the Immersion and English Academy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why RCF prefers 7. I understand wanting a closer middle school, but I don't get the splitting up the school between the Immersion and English Academy.

We don't. We want Option 6 but that's not going to happen. So, between 1 and 7, 7 is preferable because of proximity.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why everyone is accepting that proximity be the number one issue for MS. I'm an involved parent but I don't GO TO Westland that often. Middle school is not elementary school, the kids don't need or want us there. You don't volunteer in the classroom. The activity bus means they can stay after-school and you don't pick them up. I just don't see putting your child into an over-crowded school when you have a chance for better classroom size and resources.

[Anonymous]

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.

What I am saying is that Westland now has a 10% FARMS rate and those kids pass state tests at 60-65%. What do you think is going to happen when the FARMS rate is doubled under Option 7? In MCPS, pass rates and FARMS are correlated.
I wish this was not the case, but we can't pretend there is no relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.

What I am saying is that Westland now has a 10% FARMS rate and those kids pass state tests at 60-65%. What do you think is going to happen when the FARMS rate is doubled under Option 7? In MCPS, pass rates and FARMS are correlated.
I wish this was not the case, but we can't pretend there is no relationship.



What data are you using for Westland test results? I see plenty of schools way beyond 15% Farms which BcC2 would have where test results aren't vastly different on the PARRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.

What I am saying is that Westland now has a 10% FARMS rate and those kids pass state tests at 60-65%. What do you think is going to happen when the FARMS rate is doubled under Option 7? In MCPS, pass rates and FARMS are correlated.
I wish this was not the case, but we can't pretend there is no relationship.

What data are you using for Westland test results? I see plenty of schools way beyond 15% Farms which BcC2 would have where test results aren't vastly different on the PARRC.
DATA from MCPS directly
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/03412.pdf
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/westlandms/homepage/Westland%20SIP%20Link%20201516%20Jan%2020.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.

What I am saying is that Westland now has a 10% FARMS rate and those kids pass state tests at 60-65%. What do you think is going to happen when the FARMS rate is doubled under Option 7? In MCPS, pass rates and FARMS are correlated.
I wish this was not the case, but we can't pretend there is no relationship.



You seem to be confusing correlation and causation. I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that there is going to be some correlation between standardized testing and SES, so a school with higher rates of FARMS will likely see lower test scores, but that doesn't mean that school has a greater achievement gap than any other school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to truly care about this and advocated heavily for Option 1. But sensing Option 7 is inevitable (even though it will dramatically increase the achievement gap and hurt all children involved), I am so done. I am taking my children, my time and my resources and am currently touring and applying my kids to private schools. You don't get to use and abuse my community without consequences. Flight is beginning. Good luck to those left behind.

I am sorry you feel that way but I think you are being overdramatic. Reasonable people can disagree about option 1 vs option 7 but there is no reason to believe either will "dramatically increase the achievement gap" or "use and abuse" any community (although some RCF parents would probably argue that could to them under option 1).

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.


I also have to say it is distasteful, at best, how people are trying to use the swastika incident to argue for their preferred option.

How is it distasteful? One of the arguements against Option 7 is for fairness, for equity in diversity and the implications on it's society at large to re-segregate the schools. That is exactly what Option 7 does is re-segregate the schools by putting all the brown children in one and creating an all white rich school in Westland. It is a problem and the swastika incident is proof and an indicator of that, like it or not.

Again stop with the divisive over the top statements. Westland is now 63% white. Under option 7 it would be 68% white, and the new MS would be 55% white. Is that perfectly balanced? Not surprisingly, given the history of racial discrimination in real estate development and lending, no it isn't. But is it resegregating the schools by putting all the brown children in one school? Obviously not.

And the swastika incident is upsetting enough without you trying to exploit it for whatever grievance you think you have over school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A lower FARMS rate currently at Westland hasn't lowered the achievement gap, so why do you think a higher one, with higher ESOL won't increase the gap?

Could you explain your logic here? You are saying that a lower FARMS rate has had no effect on the achievement rate, so therefore a higher FARMS will of course dramatically increase it? I just don't get how you are getting from A to B.

What I am saying is that Westland now has a 10% FARMS rate and those kids pass state tests at 60-65%. What do you think is going to happen when the FARMS rate is doubled under Option 7? In MCPS, pass rates and FARMS are correlated.
I wish this was not the case, but we can't pretend there is no relationship.

What data are you using for Westland test results? I see plenty of schools way beyond 15% Farms which BcC2 would have where test results aren't vastly different on the PARRC.

DATA from MCPS directly
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/03412.pdf
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/westlandms/homepage/Westland%20SIP%20Link%20201516%20Jan%2020.pdf


Yes you are looking at grade 8 only with no comparison to other schools. If you go to Maryland report card and play around with the different schools yo can schools like Rocky hill have twice the FARMs as Westland but only slightly worse percentage wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Bethesda voice an opinion? I think the new Option 11 sends them to the new school. Did the Board's line of questioning tell you anything about which way they might go?

Bethesda is strongly opposed to option 11, because of practically immediate overpopulation at one school and underpopulation at the other.
It favors either option 1 or 7 (sorry, OP).

OP here, completely agree that 11 is super yucky. But knowing what BE went through with split articulation I don't see how they can support 7 which brings that madness to RCF

As a BE parent, this is nonsense. We all understand that Spanish Immersion is a special and *voluntary* program that does not need to be anywhere. They could decide tomorrow to relocate it to a different ES and MS and has no bearing on boundaries. Therefore, Option 7 for the immersion program does not represent any split articulation at all. As stated in the MCPS report, 85% of kids in the immersion program are out of boundary anyway. I for one anyway would even appreciate it if they moved it out of Westland because frankly we don't have the room. The downtown Bethesda sector plan will double the population in downtown Bethesda in addition to the 2,500 housing units that have been added just in the last two years. Westland is going to need all of the space that it can get.

[Anonymous]

It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a non RCF parent who posted here that he/she could tell the deck was stacked against the Immersion families when he/she saw the testimony. How could a school recommend that their own school be split? That did not come from an immersion family so all the comments asking why immersion families feel the deck is stacked against them are misdirected. That being said, Immersion families are being thrown under the bus when the PTA supports a recommendation that splits the school and while you throw out your statistics of 55 % you don't mention that only 1/3 of immersion families were included in that vote. My child's vote came back in his yellow folder and he said he forgot to turn it in so our vote never made it in for the vote tally. I wonder how many other votes if 2/3 of the families that were not included actually had their votes counted - it would have resulted in a different outcome. It's so sad to be part of a school that actually votes against itself.

As the PP above you noted, immersion is irrelevant. This is about boundaries for the schools. MCPS could decide next year to cut this immersion program entirely due to budget cuts and immersion families would be back to their home schools.

The PP did get something wrong though, OOB for the immersion program is 87%! Read the report yourself.

87 percent of the students in the Rock Creek Forest Elementary School Spanish Immersion Program attend the school from outside the B-CC Cluster

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIPFY18_SupplementA_BCCMS2.pdf

It is frankly fanciful to suggest that immersion students are getting "thrown under the bus" when 9 out of 10 are coming from outside the boundary. Furthermore, decision that affect everyone in this cluster should not be made to accommodate students in a special magnet program who do not live in the boundary in the first place.

If in fact you are an upset immersion parent, this is just stupid and you are stupid. You are getting a great deal so shut up and butt out of it. If you persist I will start lobbying MCPS to move the immersion programs entirely. Surely it would be great to start putting special magnet programs in lower performing schools to attract higher performing students? Or not?

[Anonymous]

Get off your high horse with threats. Please do lobby to have it removed. The BCC cluster does not welcome the program that is the most sought after in the county and the BCC cluster doesn't deserve to have it. I'd love to see it somewhere else!