Where are all you families of high performing students planning on moving to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far what I've gathered is that this is for equity reasons and so that more kids will benefit from PTA funding provided by wealthier parents.

Perhaps the county should consider splitting up the PTA funds much like the way restaurants divvy up credit card tips. Combine them all in one big pot and then divide up the funds equally among all of the schools.

Some schools are ready have sharing arrangements with other PTAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, one benefit would be that at least some low-income kids would have access to the crazy 6-digit amounts that rich schools’ PTAs raise every year for “enrichment.” Lower and middle income schools are busy cutting Box Tops to get a few hundred dollars while the rich schools are pulling in obscene amounts to be used for new technology, books, field trips, after-school activities. This is not a case of loving your children more or valuing education more. Normal people just can’t cut $1000 checks for the PTA.

Exactly. It’s simply about spreading the wealth—in a mandatory or forced but “charitable” way.

Our rich school donates upwards of 20K a year to Title 1 schools. So it's happening on some levels. But that 20K will pale compared to the costs of what MCPS is spending on the boundary survey and the chaos that will ensue when they make the recommendations.

Chaos! CHAOS, I TELL YOU!!!!!!!

Which recommendations are they going to make?

It seems appropriate here to remind people that public schools are a public good and that taxes are not user fees. If you want the user fee model, that's what private schools are for.

Exactly. So as part of MCPS providing public schools for the public good, they need to really evaluate if long bus rides are worth it for the public good.

That is why geographic proximity is 1 of the 4 factors that MCPS uses for boundary decisions. There are four factors, and geographic proximity is one of them.

Right, which is why they are not going to bus a kid across the county, but they will look adjacent clusters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far what I've gathered is that this is for equity reasons and so that more kids will benefit from PTA funding provided by wealthier parents.

Perhaps the county should consider splitting up the PTA funds much like the way restaurants divvy up credit card tips. Combine them all in one big pot and then divide up the funds equally among all of the schools.

I don't really think the boundary analysis has anything to do with PTA funds.

[Anonymous]

When funding for CES or STEM programs are moved to ESOL or other "catch up" programs in the public school, my special snowflake's education will be hurt. Public schools will always have to make budget trade offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, yes, I am indeed very afraid of that. So what assurances can you give me that my precious snowflake won’t be adversely affected in any way in terms of quality of education and social influence? Will the on grade level or high performing students receive EQUAL amount of teacher instruction and attention as a low performing student and not simply get shoved to the carpet. And don’t ignore the FACT that FARMS students tend to be low performing. That has already been established in numerous peer reviewed publications. Just give me some kind of assurance.

It does not matter if FARMS students tend to be low performing. When we look at negative impacts, we do not look at how this will help certain people (that is not called "negative"), we look at how this is going to hurt people.

Effectively, if you look at a plan with which you bring in more low performing (doesn't matter rich or poor, doesn't matter which race) students, that is a negative impact which can't be ignored.

Can I offer something instead: why don't MCPS make it a combination of merit and SES based thing: hold a test (or some other more objective standard/screening on their academic abilities), any FARMS student that can do well in that test/screening can then be eligible for going to a "better" school nearby.

Or, is the BoE really just trying to help those FARMS students who simply do not perform well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far what I've gathered is that this is for equity reasons and so that more kids will benefit from PTA funding provided by wealthier parents.

Perhaps the county should consider splitting up the PTA funds much like the way restaurants divvy up credit card tips. Combine them all in one big pot and then divide up the funds equally among all of the schools.

+1 Eliminates the need for bussing.

You think they are doing a boundary analysis because of PTA funds? That isn't even part of the equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far what I've gathered is that this is for equity reasons and so that more kids will benefit from PTA funding provided by wealthier parents.

Perhaps the county should consider splitting up the PTA funds much like the way restaurants divvy up credit card tips. Combine them all in one big pot and then divide up the funds equally among all of the schools.

+1 Eliminates the need for bussing.

No. PTA funding is not a factor in boundary decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, yes, I am indeed very afraid of that. So what assurances can you give me that my precious snowflake won’t be adversely affected in any way in terms of quality of education and social influence? Will the on grade level or high performing students receive EQUAL amount of teacher instruction and attention as a low performing student and not simply get shoved to the carpet. And don’t ignore the FACT that FARMS students tend to be low performing. That has already been established in numerous peer reviewed publications. Just give me some kind of assurance.

It does not matter if FARMS students tend to be low performing. When we look at negative impacts, we do not look at how this will help certain people (that is not called "negative"), we look at how this is going to hurt people.

Effectively, if you look at a plan with which you bring in more low performing (doesn't matter rich or poor, doesn't matter which race) students, that is a negative impact which can't be ignored.

Can I offer something instead: why don't MCPS make it a combination of merit and SES based thing: hold a test (or some other more objective standard/screening on their academic abilities), any FARMS student that can do well in that test/screening can then be eligible for going to a "better" school nearby.

Or, is the BoE really just trying to help those FARMS students who simply do not perform well?



The assumption is that FARMS kids will not be able to do well in the screening because of their situation. So MCPS may see it as a non-option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It does not matter if FARMS students tend to be low performing. When we look at negative impacts, we do not look at how this will help certain people (that is not called "negative"), we look at how this is going to hurt people.

Effectively, if you look at a plan with which you bring in more low performing (doesn't matter rich or poor, doesn't matter which race) students, that is a negative impact which can't be ignored.

Can I offer something instead: why don't MCPS make it a combination of merit and SES based thing: hold a test (or some other more objective standard/screening on their academic abilities), any FARMS student that can do well in that test/screening can then be eligible for going to a "better" school nearby.

Or, is the BoE really just trying to help those FARMS students who simply do not perform well?

Hey, poor kids! If you do really well on this test, we'll let you go to the rich kids' school!

How do you think that will go over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, one benefit would be that at least some low-income kids would have access to the crazy 6-digit amounts that rich schools’ PTAs raise every year for “enrichment.” Lower and middle income schools are busy cutting Box Tops to get a few hundred dollars while the rich schools are pulling in obscene amounts to be used for new technology, books, field trips, after-school activities. This is not a case of loving your children more or valuing education more. Normal people just can’t cut $1000 checks for the PTA.

Exactly. It’s simply about spreading the wealth—in a mandatory or forced but “charitable” way.

Our rich school donates upwards of 20K a year to Title 1 schools. So it's happening on some levels. But that 20K will pale compared to the costs of what MCPS is spending on the boundary survey and the chaos that will ensue when they make the recommendations.

Chaos! CHAOS, I TELL YOU!!!!!!!

Which recommendations are they going to make?

It seems appropriate here to remind people that public schools are a public good and that taxes are not user fees. If you want the user fee model, that's what private schools are for.

It seems appropriate here to remind people, that "public good" is not defined by some abstract theory, but more by the public involved.
If those who will be impacted do not like it, it can hardly be called "public good".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, yes, I am indeed very afraid of that. So what assurances can you give me that my precious snowflake won’t be adversely affected in any way in terms of quality of education and social influence? Will the on grade level or high performing students receive EQUAL amount of teacher instruction and attention as a low performing student and not simply get shoved to the carpet. And don’t ignore the FACT that FARMS students tend to be low performing. That has already been established in numerous peer reviewed publications. Just give me some kind of assurance.

It does not matter if FARMS students tend to be low performing. When we look at negative impacts, we do not look at how this will help certain people (that is not called "negative"), we look at how this is going to hurt people.

Effectively, if you look at a plan with which you bring in more low performing (doesn't matter rich or poor, doesn't matter which race) students, that is a negative impact which can't be ignored.

Can I offer something instead: why don't MCPS make it a combination of merit and SES based thing: hold a test (or some other more objective standard/screening on their academic abilities), any FARMS student that can do well in that test/screening can then be eligible for going to a "better" school nearby.

Or, is the BoE really just trying to help those FARMS students who simply do not perform well?

Do you really not see how it would benefit students if there weren't schools with very high FARMS rates? Clearly you don't want your kid to go to a school with a high FARMS rate -- don't you think it would benefit all students not to go to high FARMS schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It does not matter if FARMS students tend to be low performing. When we look at negative impacts, we do not look at how this will help certain people (that is not called "negative"), we look at how this is going to hurt people.

Effectively, if you look at a plan with which you bring in more low performing (doesn't matter rich or poor, doesn't matter which race) students, that is a negative impact which can't be ignored.

Can I offer something instead: why don't MCPS make it a combination of merit and SES based thing: hold a test (or some other more objective standard/screening on their academic abilities), any FARMS student that can do well in that test/screening can then be eligible for going to a "better" school nearby.

Or, is the BoE really just trying to help those FARMS students who simply do not perform well?

Hey, poor kids! If you do really well on this test, we'll let you go to the rich kids' school!

How do you think that will go over?

Does it sound worse than: "Hey, poor kids! If you are really poor, we'll let you go to the rich kids' school"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, yes, I am indeed very afraid of that. So what assurances can you give me that my precious snowflake won’t be adversely affected in any way in terms of quality of education and social influence? Will the on grade level or high performing students receive EQUAL amount of teacher instruction and attention as a low performing student and not simply get shoved to the carpet. And don’t ignore the FACT that FARMS students tend to be low performing. That has already been established in numerous peer reviewed publications. Just give me some kind of assurance.

PP, your kid will most likely be fine. And if your kid isn't fine, it won't be because there are poor kids at your kid's school. Plus, while there may be adverse effects, there may also be benefits. Have you considered the benefits?

-non-poor person whose kids go to school with poor kids

No, I am a pessimist so I prefer to focus on the negatives and trying to reduce them as much as possible. So will my kid get shoved to the carpet to allow the teacher enough time to bring up the low performing kids? Great for the low performing kid but not for mine. So I lose. And I’m hearing I will also have to fork up funds for these kids’ enrichment programs.

[Anonymous]

Keep voting for democrats where you flee to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, yes, I am indeed very afraid of that. So what assurances can you give me that my precious snowflake won’t be adversely affected in any way in terms of quality of education and social influence? Will the on grade level or high performing students receive EQUAL amount of teacher instruction and attention as a low performing student and not simply get shoved to the carpet. And don’t ignore the FACT that FARMS students tend to be low performing. That has already been established in numerous peer reviewed publications. Just give me some kind of assurance.

It does not matter if FARMS students tend to be low performing. When we look at negative impacts, we do not look at how this will help certain people (that is not called "negative"), we look at how this is going to hurt people.

Effectively, if you look at a plan with which you bring in more low performing (doesn't matter rich or poor, doesn't matter which race) students, that is a negative impact which can't be ignored.

Can I offer something instead: why don't MCPS make it a combination of merit and SES based thing: hold a test (or some other more objective standard/screening on their academic abilities), any FARMS student that can do well in that test/screening can then be eligible for going to a "better" school nearby.

Or, is the BoE really just trying to help those FARMS students who simply do not perform well?

Do you really not see how it would benefit students if there weren't schools with very high FARMS rates? Clearly you don't want your kid to go to a school with a high FARMS rate -- don't you think it would benefit all students not to go to high FARMS schools?

You think FARMS is a important factor to consider.
This is not necessarily the case for everyone else.

I don't care about the FARMS rate itself. I don't want my kid going to a school which has low performance. If the FARMS kids perform better (than non FARMS students),I really don't mind even if it is a 80% FARMS school.

And "to benefit ALL student", no, I don't think so. Politicians want people to believe that, I can certainly understand that part.