Gang Activity in Montgomery County Shcools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oops... typed in the wrong place in the previous post: What I am saying is that I haven't heard of a better metric than the test scores to assess school performance. What you are trying to do is use test scores to prove me wrong.

PP, nobody has said that test scores should be disregarded entirely. So that's a straw man. The discussion has been over whether overall average test scores for a school are a good measure of how good the school is.

And, speaking of goodness, I hope that you're not the PP who thinks that people with more money are more good than people with less money.

The phrase "better metric" implies that the metric in question is a good metric. But test scores are not necessarily a good metric because there are so many other factors, many of which cannot be reduced to a metric.

If 80 percent of lottery winners are broke in five years, does that mean if I win the lottery there is an 80 percent chance I will be broke in five years? No, it doesn't. If 40 percent of students at my kid's high school test poorly on standardized tests, does that mean my child might? No, it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

RM IB and non-IB are totally different if you are looking at test scores. I don't know how many FARMs stats in RM are coming due to FARMs students studying in IB here, but that may skew stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oops... typed in the wrong place in the previous post: What I am saying is that I haven't heard of a better metric than the test scores to assess school performance. What you are trying to do is use test scores to prove me wrong.

PP, nobody has said that test scores should be disregarded entirely. So that's a straw man. The discussion has been over whether overall average test scores for a school are a good measure of how good the school is.

And, speaking of goodness, I hope that you're not the PP who thinks that people with more money are more good than people with less money.

I am not the PP who believes s/he is better parent because s/he makes more money. That person is a complete moron.

Talking about test scores: I agree, they are not perfect, but they are the only quantitative metric we have. You like it or not, as correlated with SES as they are, the test scores mirror the level of education a school provides. Some school struggle with low SES students and it shows in the test scores. Putting your head in the sand and saying that all the schools are good is something that I expect BOE members to say, not an objective observer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

Oops... typed in the wrong place in the previous post: What I am saying is that I haven't heard of a better metric than the test scores to assess school performance. What you are trying to do is use test scores to prove me wrong.

Test scores are a data point. If kids from school A get scores considerably higher than similar kids (race, SES etc) at school B then it's probable that school A does a better job of educating that group of kids. That's the comparison to make WRT test scores, not just the overall for the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Prepared for what? If you mean college level work, you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Here are the 2016 SAT scores for mcps:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Scroll down to page 19 where scores are broken out by school and race.

At Einstein, which is a majority-minority school with a highish FARMS rate and NO magnet program, white kids have an average SAT score of 1821.

These students aren't hurting and are college ready.

For comparison, white students' scores at other schools without magnets:
WJ 1831
Wootton 1822
Churchill 1895
Whitman 1932
BCC 1864
Sherwood 1689

Can this thread be done now, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

I don’t get how people use the argument “test scores are only tied to SES” and then send their kids to a school with a bunch of really poor kids. SES is environmental as much as inherently germane to the family. You are undercutting your SES by not taking advantage of it, it doesn’t make immune your kids immune for the drags of the system if they are exsposed to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

I don’t get how people use the argument “test scores are only tied to SES” and then send their kids to a school with a bunch of really poor kids. SES is environmental as much as inherently germane to the family. You are undercutting your SES by not taking advantage of it, it doesn’t make immune your kids immune for the drags of the system if they are exsposed to it.

Say what?

Socioeconomic status refers to the family of origin's economic situation. That is what studies look at vis-a-vis school performance and success.

Poverty is not contagious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2016 SAT scores for mcps:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Scroll down to page 19 where scores are broken out by school and race.

At Einstein, which is a majority-minority school with a highish FARMS rate and NO magnet program, white kids have an average SAT score of 1821.

These students aren't hurting and are college ready.

For comparison, white students' scores at other schools without magnets:
WJ 1831
Wootton 1822
Churchill 1895
Whitman 1932
BCC 1864
Sherwood 1689

Can this thread be done now, please.

All I see is Einstein had the lowest score, other than Sherwood. Also there are so few white kids at Einstein it isn’t really a fair pool. What ever limited resources get broken out for the handful of middle class families, where schools like Whitman where every kids every kid need that level of enrichment. Also I love how Blair parents take great pride in the accomplishments of West county kids that are bussed to the school. Seems sort of disingenuous, you know where there are lots of high achieving kids like the west county kids you think makes Blair so special? West county, the schools there are filled with them.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Grand-Prize-in-Science-Competition-Goes-to-Bethesda-Teen-for-Work-on-Auction-Security/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

I don’t get how people use the argument “test scores are only tied to SES” and then send their kids to a school with a bunch of really poor kids. SES is environmental as much as inherently germane to the family. You are undercutting your SES by not taking advantage of it, it doesn’t make immune your kids immune for the drags of the system if they are exsposed to it.

Because as others keep saying, test scores is just one of many factors that make a school "good". Mostly, test scores is about SES. Sure, some lower income students do very well on SATs, and conversely some upper income kids don't do that well on SATs. But, in general, SAT scores are indeed tied to SES.

^^PP posted a thread stopper. White kids at Einstein score pretty close to white kids at some W schools. So, if you are a middle income white kid, you will probably score about the same at Einstein as you would at Wootton.

I agree there is some critical mass in terms of FARMs, however, in that too high FARMs rate can cause issues in school, though it may not impact a student's overall SAT score. But, I also feel that a really wealthy school has its own share of issues that I think would impact my DC's school experience. For us, we like having a mix of SES, not that such a school doesn't have its share of issues, but the issues don't seem as exaggerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, as has been reiterated many times in this thread. A child can thrive and do very well in many environments, and the idea that a kid who goes to Blair is automatically getting a lesser education or will be less prepared to take their place in society than a kid who went to Whitman just doesn't hold water.

A few exceptions at Blair may do as well or better than kids at Whitman, but statistically speaking, a kid that goes to Blair is not prepared as well as a kid that goes to Whitman. Look at the student body as populations, do not judge based on the fringes.

Your opinion only convinces me that my kid is doing just fine where he is. Why are you trying so hard to prove your subjective point?

+1 The thing is, you can't win an argument with someone like this. If you point out some of the great colleges that Blair grads attend, PP will just tell you it must be the (Bethesda or Potomac based) magnet students. If you talk about how happy your child is there, and how well they've done, PP will tell you that you are imagining things, or just have low standards.

You literally cannot win, even with data, because PP doesn't want to admit that middle class families who choose to live on the east side of the county might be making a smart choice.

I am zoned to Richard Montgomery HS (which is an ok school, but not great). I believe test scores are meaningful. If you have a better quantitative metric on how to evaluate school quality, I still haven't heard any.

I live in RM cluster. You do understand that test scores are mostly a reflection of the SES of the student body? What you are saying is that you think a school is only good if the lower income kids who don't have the support and opportunities at home, and probably parents who are less educated, to have similar test scores as those kids who have lots of enrichment and educated parents. Seriously?

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Pg 16 shows you the SAT score breakdown by FARMS in each HS. RM and QO have somewhat similar FARMS rate and very similar SAT scores for this group. Then compare the test scores between RM and Churchill for FARMS students. You will see RM does much better. Is RM the best at educating lower income students? No. But it's certainly doing pretty well by that metric.

Lower income students don't fare any better at Churchill than they do at Gaithersburg HS by this measure, and the oft deried Watkins Mill HS shows better scores for FARMS students than for Churchill.

Given that there are some RM cluster students in the IB program, it's a bit harder to extrapolate how well the RM cluster in bound only students do on the SATs. I don't know the demographics of the IB student body well enough to come up with an accurate number, but the numbers for the FARMs students is pretty telling.

I don’t get how people use the argument “test scores are only tied to SES” and then send their kids to a school with a bunch of really poor kids. SES is environmental as much as inherently germane to the family. You are undercutting your SES by not taking advantage of it, it doesn’t make immune your kids immune for the drags of the system if they are exsposed to it.

Say what?

Socioeconomic status refers to the family of origin's economic situation. That is what studies look at vis-a-vis school performance and success.

Poverty is not contagious.

Poverty is contagious, go live in SE and send you kids to school there, of course you wouldn’t... why is that? Also as proof, go read the Atlantic’s artical on poverty’s recidivism rates for African Americans which it attributes it heavily to their inclination to live in high poverty areas even after breaking into the middle class due to their desire to live among other AA.

I think it is a misleading that higher SES kids do better on test scores in low SES schools as it comes down to exsposure to information which is higher in those house holds. While the test scores are not impacted as much, the life standards and environmental impacts are more likely to align with the lower SES crowd due to peer influence which kids are highly susceptible to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2016 SAT scores for mcps:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Scroll down to page 19 where scores are broken out by school and race.

At Einstein, which is a majority-minority school with a highish FARMS rate and NO magnet program, white kids have an average SAT score of 1821.

These students aren't hurting and are college ready.

For comparison, white students' scores at other schools without magnets:
WJ 1831
Wootton 1822
Churchill 1895
Whitman 1932
BCC 1864
Sherwood 1689

Can this thread be done now, please.

All I see is Einstein had the lowest score, other than Sherwood. Also there are so few white kids at Einstein it isn’t really a fair pool. What ever limited resources get broken out for the handful of middle class families, where schools like Whitman where every kids every kid need that level of enrichment. Also I love how Blair parents take great pride in the accomplishments of West county kids that are bussed to the school. Seems sort of disingenuous, you know where there are lots of high achieving kids like the west county kids you think makes Blair so special? West county, the schools there are filled with them.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Grand-Prize-in-Science-Competition-Goes-to-Bethesda-Teen-for-Work-on-Auction-Security/

I'm no statistician, but is a 10 point difference between Einstein and WJ significant? I'm thinking not.

I agree this should be a thread stopper - but apparently it is not to those desperate to justify buying in Bethesda or Potomac, to prove that they and their kids are far superior (not just academically) to those of us in our shit shacks.

[Anonymous]

Weren't we discussing gang activity in mcps? I doubt any ms-13 kids stick around long enough to take the SATs.

[Anonymous]

Once the kid is age 20 MCPS has to click them out, even if they are freshmen or sophomores or have babies of their own using the taxpayer-funded title 1 nurseries on-site.

“Montgomery county community college” is happy to have them as taxpayer-funded students thereafter, indefinitely. cASA can help you sign up for all that you could possibly need and not need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the 2016 SAT scores for mcps:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/pdf/160929%20SAT%20Exam%20Participation%20Perform.pdf

Scroll down to page 19 where scores are broken out by school and race.

At Einstein, which is a majority-minority school with a highish FARMS rate and NO magnet program, white kids have an average SAT score of 1821.

These students aren't hurting and are college ready.

For comparison, white students' scores at other schools without magnets:
WJ 1831
Wootton 1822
Churchill 1895
Whitman 1932
BCC 1864
Sherwood 1689

Can this thread be done now, please.

All I see is Einstein had the lowest score, other than Sherwood. Also there are so few white kids at Einstein it isn’t really a fair pool. What ever limited resources get broken out for the handful of middle class families, where schools like Whitman where every kids every kid need that level of enrichment. Also I love how Blair parents take great pride in the accomplishments of West county kids that are bussed to the school. Seems sort of disingenuous, you know where there are lots of high achieving kids like the west county kids you think makes Blair so special? West county, the schools there are filled with them.


http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Grand-Prize-in-Science-Competition-Goes-to-Bethesda-Teen-for-Work-on-Auction-Security/

So kids at Whitman are more entitled to enrichment? More deserving? What exactly are you implying?

I say good for that kid from Bethesda. Does that mean every kid who does well at Blair is bused in from the west? Of course not. Do you feel bad for him because he was dragged down by having to sit next to the local kids in the non magnet classes he took?

As you know, plenty of kids from Silver Spring do very well at Blair and their parents have a right to be proud of their kid's school. I can't believe you have the audacity to call that disingenuous.