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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids graduated from W cluster, my youngest last year. I always thought MCPS was great and I didn't notice any recent changes. What is making families now reevaluate MCPS? Sincere question - I must have missed something, or it must've happened after my kids were out. Thanks.

People are (over-)reacting to the upcoming systemwide boundary analysis.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/boundary-analysis/

Would you prefer parents under-react? I’d rather have over active community members anytime.

I would prefer that parents react to the consultant's actual report and any subsequent decisions MCPS may make.

MCPS wants you to shut up and keeping taking it up the you-know-what. And keep paying your ever-increasing taxes of course.

homegrown BS curriculum 2.0, 2 level grading scale (A or B), test retakes, ESOL bonanza, BS studies every week, no differentiation, teeny tiny CES/Magnet programs with socially engineered admit pools, bloated incompetent Administration, 30 mins A WEEK of PE in elementary school (min of all U.S. states, counties, or city schools), 2-3 hours of chromebook time starting in K onward.

I mean, turn OP's question around, and give us a few good reasons why we should move to MoCo and MCPS. We both work, and don't have time to babysit and un-navigateable, untransparent huge county school district that only cares about one segment of students (underperforming). What about teaching all segments to potential?

Honestly if you are this unhappy with MCPS - I'm surprised you still live in the county. It doesn't sound like you like anything about the schools here and I don't see anything changing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am concerned about low-performing students - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group.

Am I that concerned so that I would want to start a compaign to remove them? No. And also I understand changes take more effort. So I am not for changes to the current situation. I am simply concerned enough so that I would resist any changes that could bring in more bad apples. Bringing in more low performing kids (again, doesn't matter if they are low performing white kids or asian kids or AA kids or hispanic kids or rich kids or poor kids) increases that chance so I would resist that.

If people believe there are benefits that outweigh the concerns, they can spell those out, but don't just dismiss these valid concerns.

Is that so hard to understand?

Given that MCPS makes boundary decisions based on where you live, not on what your test scores are -- yes, actually it is hard to understand.

If there were a discussion at your community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, would you respond, "I am concerned about people who don't swim well - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group."?

If that was the only factor, then there would not be any changes.

If there were a discussion at my community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, and if that is OPTIONAL, then saying "I am concerned that they don't swim well" - if it is true and if "we" swim well would be a valid concern. You may have better reasons to include them, but still them not swimming well is a valid concern.

Right. "Lots of people in Neighborhood A don't swim well, and I don't want bad swimmers from Neighborhood A swimming at the same pool my kid swims at (although I'm fine with bad swimmers from my neighborhood swimming at the same pool my kid swims at), so I don't want to let Neighborhood A become part of the community pool."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the post where someone was recommending splitting up the PTA funds across all schools. Funny. Already we pay higher income and property taxes which funds MCPS programs across the county. And now a PTA redistribution?? Ain't gonna happen.

You might pay higher income taxes. You don't pay higher property taxes - everyone pays the same rate. If you pay more property taxes, it's because the value of your property is higher.

Also, taxes aren't user fees. You're not entitled to more school services based on paying more taxes.

What does PTA fund have to do with these taxes?

What does the PTA fund have to do with boundary decisions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS wants you to shut up and keeping taking it up the you-know-what. And keep paying your ever-increasing taxes of course.

homegrown BS curriculum 2.0, 2 level grading scale (A or B), test retakes, ESOL bonanza, BS studies every week, no differentiation, teeny tiny CES/Magnet programs with socially engineered admit pools, bloated incompetent Administration, 30 mins A WEEK of PE in elementary school (min of all U.S. states, counties, or city schools), 2-3 hours of chromebook time starting in K onward.

I mean, turn OP's question around, and give us a few good reasons why we should move to MoCo and MCPS. We both work, and don't have time to babysit and un-navigateable, untransparent huge county school district that only cares about one segment of students (underperforming). What about teaching all segments to potential?

If you don't want to move to Montgomery County and send your kids to MCPS, then don't. That's fine. There are plenty of other places you can live and other schools you can send your kids to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am concerned about low-performing students - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group.

Am I that concerned so that I would want to start a compaign to remove them? No. And also I understand changes take more effort. So I am not for changes to the current situation. I am simply concerned enough so that I would resist any changes that could bring in more bad apples. Bringing in more low performing kids (again, doesn't matter if they are low performing white kids or asian kids or AA kids or hispanic kids or rich kids or poor kids) increases that chance so I would resist that.

If people believe there are benefits that outweigh the concerns, they can spell those out, but don't just dismiss these valid concerns.

Is that so hard to understand?

Given that MCPS makes boundary decisions based on where you live, not on what your test scores are -- yes, actually it is hard to understand.

If there were a discussion at your community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, would you respond, "I am concerned about people who don't swim well - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group."?

If that was the only factor, then there would not be any changes.

If there were a discussion at my community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, and if that is OPTIONAL, then saying "I am concerned that they don't swim well" - if it is true and if "we" swim well would be a valid concern. You may have better reasons to include them, but still them not swimming well is a valid concern.

Right. "Lots of people in Neighborhood A don't swim well, and I don't want bad swimmers from Neighborhood A swimming at the same pool my kid swims at (although I'm fine with bad swimmers from my neighborhood swimming at the same pool my kid swims at), so I don't want to let Neighborhood A become part of the community pool."

That's your choice of expressing your opinion. My choice would be: "lots of people in Neighborhood A do not swim well. But people from Neighborhood B swim better. If given the choice, I would favor including B."

Is there anything wrong with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the post where someone was recommending splitting up the PTA funds across all schools. Funny. Already we pay higher income and property taxes which funds MCPS programs across the county. And now a PTA redistribution?? Ain't gonna happen.

You might pay higher income taxes. You don't pay higher property taxes - everyone pays the same rate. If you pay more property taxes, it's because the value of your property is higher.

Also, taxes aren't user fees. You're not entitled to more school services based on paying more taxes.

What does PTA fund have to do with these taxes?

What does the PTA fund have to do with boundary decisions?

Look at the bold text. That is where this started. You may want to ask this question to whoever posted "recommending splitting up the PTA funds across all schools".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am concerned about low-performing students - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group.

Am I that concerned so that I would want to start a compaign to remove them? No. And also I understand changes take more effort. So I am not for changes to the current situation. I am simply concerned enough so that I would resist any changes that could bring in more bad apples. Bringing in more low performing kids (again, doesn't matter if they are low performing white kids or asian kids or AA kids or hispanic kids or rich kids or poor kids) increases that chance so I would resist that.

If people believe there are benefits that outweigh the concerns, they can spell those out, but don't just dismiss these valid concerns.

Is that so hard to understand?

Given that MCPS makes boundary decisions based on where you live, not on what your test scores are -- yes, actually it is hard to understand.

If there were a discussion at your community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, would you respond, "I am concerned about people who don't swim well - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group."?

If that was the only factor, then there would not be any changes.

If there were a discussion at my community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, and if that is OPTIONAL, then saying "I am concerned that they don't swim well" - if it is true and if "we" swim well would be a valid concern. You may have better reasons to include them, but still them not swimming well is a valid concern.

Right. "Lots of people in Neighborhood A don't swim well, and I don't want bad swimmers from Neighborhood A swimming at the same pool my kid swims at (although I'm fine with bad swimmers from my neighborhood swimming at the same pool my kid swims at), so I don't want to let Neighborhood A become part of the community pool."

That's your choice of expressing your opinion. My choice would be: "lots of people in Neighborhood A do not swim well. But people from Neighborhood B swim better. If given the choice, I would favor including B."

Is there anything wrong with that?

It's not very a propos when the question is about adding Neighborhood A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am concerned about low-performing students - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group.

Am I that concerned so that I would want to start a compaign to remove them? No. And also I understand changes take more effort. So I am not for changes to the current situation. I am simply concerned enough so that I would resist any changes that could bring in more bad apples. Bringing in more low performing kids (again, doesn't matter if they are low performing white kids or asian kids or AA kids or hispanic kids or rich kids or poor kids) increases that chance so I would resist that.

If people believe there are benefits that outweigh the concerns, they can spell those out, but don't just dismiss these valid concerns.

Is that so hard to understand?

Given that MCPS makes boundary decisions based on where you live, not on what your test scores are -- yes, actually it is hard to understand.

If there were a discussion at your community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, would you respond, "I am concerned about people who don't swim well - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group."?

I believe the BOE's recent vote prioritizes diversity over geographic proximity for these decisions going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am concerned about low-performing students - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group.

Am I that concerned so that I would want to start a compaign to remove them? No. And also I understand changes take more effort. So I am not for changes to the current situation. I am simply concerned enough so that I would resist any changes that could bring in more bad apples. Bringing in more low performing kids (again, doesn't matter if they are low performing white kids or asian kids or AA kids or hispanic kids or rich kids or poor kids) increases that chance so I would resist that.

If people believe there are benefits that outweigh the concerns, they can spell those out, but don't just dismiss these valid concerns.

Is that so hard to understand?

Given that MCPS makes boundary decisions based on where you live, not on what your test scores are -- yes, actually it is hard to understand.

If there were a discussion at your community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, would you respond, "I am concerned about people who don't swim well - doesn't matter if they are from a certain race or income group."?

If that was the only factor, then there would not be any changes.

If there were a discussion at my community pool about whether or not to include Neighborhood A, and if that is OPTIONAL, then saying "I am concerned that they don't swim well" - if it is true and if "we" swim well would be a valid concern. You may have better reasons to include them, but still them not swimming well is a valid concern.

Right. "Lots of people in Neighborhood A don't swim well, and I don't want bad swimmers from Neighborhood A swimming at the same pool my kid swims at (although I'm fine with bad swimmers from my neighborhood swimming at the same pool my kid swims at), so I don't want to let Neighborhood A become part of the community pool."

That's your choice of expressing your opinion. My choice would be: "lots of people in Neighborhood A do not swim well. But people from Neighborhood B swim better. If given the choice, I would favor including B."

Is there anything wrong with that?

It's not very a propos when the question is about adding Neighborhood A.

Then not wanting more people alone would be a valid reason (for not adding that neighborhood).

Now the real situation is a bit different because it started as the neighboring school being too crowded. So a better analogy would be that the area near you is too crowded (in their swimming pool) and they want you to take a neighborhood. If there is a choice, favoring a neighborhood with better swimmers would certainly be a valid reason. You may not like that reason but there is nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I believe the BOE's recent vote prioritizes diversity over geographic proximity for these decisions going forward.

No, it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Then not wanting more people alone would be a valid reason (for not adding that neighborhood).

Now the real situation is a bit different because it started as the neighboring school being too crowded. So a better analogy would be that the area near you is too crowded (in their swimming pool) and they want you to take a neighborhood. If there is a choice, favoring a neighborhood with better swimmers would certainly be a valid reason. You may not like that reason but there is nothing wrong with it.

Them: Should we add Neighborhood A to the community pool?
You: I want to add Neighborhood B, they have more good swimmers.
Them: ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the post where someone was recommending splitting up the PTA funds across all schools. Funny. Already we pay higher income and property taxes which funds MCPS programs across the county. And now a PTA redistribution?? Ain't gonna happen.

You might pay higher income taxes. You don't pay higher property taxes - everyone pays the same rate. If you pay more property taxes, it's because the value of your property is higher.

Also, taxes aren't user fees. You're not entitled to more school services based on paying more taxes.

What does PTA fund have to do with these taxes?

What does the PTA fund have to do with boundary decisions?

Look at the bold text. That is where this started. You may want to ask this question to whoever posted "recommending splitting up the PTA funds across all schools".

I believe it was in response to what kind of “by-products” that MCPS is hoping to create through the diversity initiative of bussing:


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.

[Anonymous]

What happened to democracy? We all live in a county, a state, a nation. Where are these attitudes coming from that we only want our children to be around other children who are the BEST at school (and at swimming!)? Do you only ride the metro with people who have the same IQ as you? Do you receive better trash service or smoother roads than people who don't have as many degrees as you? Those of you who are truly opposed to adding any children to your schools who do not perform as well as your own children, answer honestly: are you coming from countries where this is how education works -- only the brightest get an education? It seems to me that a lot of people are suffering from cultural confusion. That is not how things are done in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then not wanting more people alone would be a valid reason (for not adding that neighborhood).

Now the real situation is a bit different because it started as the neighboring school being too crowded. So a better analogy would be that the area near you is too crowded (in their swimming pool) and they want you to take a neighborhood. If there is a choice, favoring a neighborhood with better swimmers would certainly be a valid reason. You may not like that reason but there is nothing wrong with it.

Them: Should we add Neighborhood A to the community pool?
You: I want to add Neighborhood B, they have more good swimmers.
Them: ...

If they are only asking you whether to add neighborhood A, then it is not a good analogy to the current school situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read the post where someone was recommending splitting up the PTA funds across all schools. Funny. Already we pay higher income and property taxes which funds MCPS programs across the county. And now a PTA redistribution?? Ain't gonna happen.

You might pay higher income taxes. You don't pay higher property taxes - everyone pays the same rate. If you pay more property taxes, it's because the value of your property is higher.

Also, taxes aren't user fees. You're not entitled to more school services based on paying more taxes.

What does PTA fund have to do with these taxes?

What does the PTA fund have to do with boundary decisions?

Look at the bold text. That is where this started. You may want to ask this question to whoever posted "recommending splitting up the PTA funds across all schools".

I believe it was in response to what kind of “by-products” that MCPS is hoping to create through the diversity initiative of bussing:


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.

Yes, I wrote that. DCUM is a fun-house mirror sometimes. Someone asked what the benefits might be to reducing the yawning income inequality of the schools, and I gave one benefit. Then, in this paranoid game of telephone, it turned into "MCPS is recommending stealing our PTA's money!"