Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
SES = socioeconomic status (based on income, education, occupation) MCPS does not make decisions based on students' parents' socioeconomic status. In fact, MCPS doesn't even have data about students' parents' socioeconomic status. What's more, even if MCPS did have data about students' parents' socioeconomic status (which it doesn't) and made boundary decisions based on students' parents' socioeconomic status (which it doesn't), an individual student's parents' socioeconomic status still would tell you NOTHING - zip, zero, zilch - about that individual student's test scores. |
Anonymous
"Not as good", how? For example, there seems to be a common belief that Northwest HS is "not as good" as Quince Orchard HS. In what was is Northwest HS "not as good"? The teachers are worse? The facilities are worse? The principals are worse? The tennis team/yearbook/honors chorus is worse? |
Anonymous
Isn't FARMS part of SES? And of course I know nothing about an individual student' performance. But I do know their school's average performance. Without more data, I would naturally assume a neighborhood from a high-performing/low-performing school contains more high-performing/low-performing students. |
Anonymous
Do you understand what "more" means? 160% would be more than 150%. Keeping it at 150% cannot be called "shove more kids into". I am not saying it is good to keep it at 150%. But apparently you feel that is not enough to establish a valid argument, and you had to interpret other people's view of "not changing" as "putting more into"? If one cluster has 125% capacity, and the neighboring has 100%, and you think it's fine to keep putting more kids into the 125% capacity school, then essentially, you are saying it's fine to shove more kids into an already crowded school so long as your kids don't have to move.
Of course it could include any neighborhood near the boundary. But people can certainly express their willingness or unwillingness to contribute, right? Sure, never said you shouldn't and can't express your views, just as others can express their views about your views. Then who should move? Certainly not you, apparently. Let me guess... let the poor people move?
Bogus study. People doing research are well aware of the problems in interpreting these kind of studies. But that's fine. Politicians do things based on studies much less reliable so this is no surprise. Where's your "research" that shows those other research citing this is bogus?
Getting more low income kids is fine. Getting kids from different race is fine. Getting more low performing kids? Is there anything wrong with trying not to have that? Low income kids usually make up a large portion of the low performing kids. Yes, it's wrong to not want low performing kids in your school if it will help those kids but won't hurt your kids. I am not talking a horde. I am talking 10% or so.
If they like their current school, is there anything wrong with not wanting to go to another school which appears not as good? Again, saying that you agree that BOE should alleviate overcrowding, but just don't move my kids is the worse kind of NIMBY. |
Anonymous
Exactly. Also, is there really an RM school with only 7% FARMs? I thought all of the others were about 20-30%. |
Anonymous
I recall someone on this forum saying that QO was better because it was ruled by the predominately white and rich Lakelands/Kentland families. |
Anonymous
I am not talking about bringing evidence to the court. "A common belief" is a good reason for parents to like one school and not like the other. This is not trying to convince BoE on anything. This is simply rebutting the PP's implication that it might be morally wrong to not support the changes. There could be better or worse choices, but there is nothing morally wrong for many parents to choose to oppose the change if they believe it will hurt them. |
Anonymous
FARMs is a binary measure of household income - either you qualify for FARMs, or you don't. You could be $1 over the limit, you could be $1 million over the limit, you could be $1 under the limit, you could have a household income of $0, it's all the same. And household income is only one aspect of socioeconomic status. DCUM likes to use FARMs as a proxy measure of socioeconomic status, but it's not a good one. Also, as with SES, here's what you know about an individual student's test scores when you know the average test scores of the school the individual student attends: nothing. |
Anonymous
The projected FARMs rate by MCPS for Ritchie Park ES was 7%. Figures for 2017/18 show otherwise: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02227.pdf It went down by 2% from last year. However, take these figures with a grain of salt because now we all know that the MCPS figures can be wrong. |
Anonymous
It's certainly a reason. It's not an immoral reason. But it's not a good reason. |
Anonymous
How does your kid going to a school with a bit more low income kids going to hurt your kid? How is this belief not morally wrong? Is this like the thinking that black kids in the all white school will make the school worse? Was that thinking not morally wrong, either? |
Anonymous
Because 2017/2018 figures are before new boundary. |
Anonymous
| Lots of Wayside ES parents( currently in Churchill) were worried about getting rezoned for Wootton. I am not surer why. |
Anonymous
If Quince Orchard HS had the FARMs percentage that "not as good" Northwest HS has (22.5%) instead of the FARMs it actually has (21.3%), it would have 24 more kids who qualify for FARMs. 6 per grade. |
Anonymous
ah that's right. It opened in 2018. As we are almost done with 2018/19 school year I would think they could publish those numbers by now. |