Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Again, do you understand the meaning of "MORE"? I explained it very clearly in the PP. Just read it again before you put out another irrelevant response.

Anonymous wrote:


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?

Who should move is a different issue. People could be unwilling to contribute but would accept if by a fair process that it is determined that they have to. You are implying that "not willing" itself is not acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:



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?

when you don't even understand the meaning of "MORE" in a sentence and use that word arbitrarily, I find it hard to make you understand something like this. That is all right, I already suggested it is fine.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, you were talking about people not wanting low incoming kids. Not true. Low performing is the key.

Low incoming kids - as long as they are willing to study and want to work, they can do fine - maybe not as good as those high-income kids with extra help - but they can do fine, around the average, maybe above, maybe below, but certainly not far below average. Those that are really "low-performing" are likely those who simply do not study (i.e. bad apples).

I don't see anything wrong of not wanting to add those kids. Of course, it may turn out that people would have to sacrifice a bit to take them, but please do treat that as a sacrifice instead of your morally defined "must do".

Anonymous wrote:


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.

Clearly as I stated in the beginning of the PP, your post shows some problems with understanding logic. That is probably why you couldn't reason like most other people and had to resort to name calling like this

[Anonymous]

Oh, it's the "there's nothing wrong with parents not wanting kids with low test scores in their schools" PP again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If they like their current school, is there anything wrong with not wanting to go to another school which appears not as good?

"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?

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.

It's certainly a reason. It's not an immoral reason. But it's not a good reason.

That is what I wanted to show. I am not trying to convince people that is a good reason so that they change their mind on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Again, do you understand the meaning of "MORE"? I explained it very clearly in the PP. Just read it again before you put out another irrelevant response.

Anonymous wrote:


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?

Who should move is a different issue. People could be unwilling to contribute but would accept if by a fair process that it is determined that they have to. You are implying that "not willing" itself is not acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:



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?

when you don't even understand the meaning of "MORE" in a sentence and use that word arbitrarily, I find it hard to make you understand something like this. That is all right, I already suggested it is fine.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, you were talking about people not wanting low incoming kids. Not true. Low performing is the key.

Low incoming kids - as long as they are willing to study and want to work, they can do fine - maybe not as good as those high-income kids with extra help - but they can do fine, around the average, maybe above, maybe below, but certainly not far below average. Those that are really "low-performing" are likely those who simply do not study (i.e. bad apples).

I don't see anything wrong of not wanting to add those kids. Of course, it may turn out that people would have to sacrifice a bit to take them, but please do treat that as a sacrifice instead of your morally defined "must do".

Anonymous wrote:


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.

Clearly as I stated in the beginning of the PP, your post shows some problems with understanding logic. That is probably why you couldn't reason like most other people and had to resort to name calling like this

Oh, right, my replies show no reasoning or logic whatsoever. I call you out on your NIMBY because you don't want your kids to move but are fine with others moving, and your only reply is questioning my logic even though I responded point for point. That's fine. Doesn't really bother me what you, a NIMBY person, thinks of my logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If they like their current school, is there anything wrong with not wanting to go to another school which appears not as good?

"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?

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.

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?

That is a statement you created. I never said that.

In your eyes, the only reason people do not like a school would be how many low income kids there are in the school? Can't people have other reasons?

Putting a reason into people's mouth and argue against that, are you arguing against yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If they like their current school, is there anything wrong with not wanting to go to another school which appears not as good?

"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?

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.

It's certainly a reason. It's not an immoral reason. But it's not a good reason.

That is what I wanted to show. I am not trying to convince people that is a good reason so that they change their mind on the matter.

It's immoral for not wanting your kids exposed to low performing kids, like they have cooties or something, and it might rub off on your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If they like their current school, is there anything wrong with not wanting to go to another school which appears not as good?

"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?

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.

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?

That is a statement you created. I never said that.

In your eyes, the only reason people do not like a school would be how many low income kids there are in the school? Can't people have other reasons?

Putting a reason into people's mouth and argue against that, are you arguing against yourself?

So.. what is the reason? You said it was because you didn't like the other school. Why don't you like the other school?

You keep trying to defend yourself without explaining yourself other than the "because I said so" type argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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.

“nothing” is a bit exaggerating, but you could say "not much".

That is exactly the reason why people have to use school average to make educated guesses. We don't know the individual performance, and if we want to have a feeling of how well these students perform, one way (other than giving them tests) would be to look at the performance of students in their current school. Is it accurate? No. But it does provide some information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

“nothing” is a bit exaggerating, but you could say "not much".

That is exactly the reason why people have to use school average to make educated guesses. We don't know the individual performance, and if we want to have a feeling of how well these students perform, one way (other than giving them tests) would be to look at the performance of students in their current school. Is it accurate? No. But it does provide some information.

Right. It provides inaccurate information. Not a good basis for an educated guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So.. what is the reason? You said it was because you didn't like the other school. Why don't you like the other school?

You keep trying to defend yourself without explaining yourself other than the "because I said so" type argument.

If someone says he/she does not like a school, you just assume it is because of "low income kids"? What kind of logic is this?
Putting words in other people's mouth is easy and you were doing exactly that. Even if I did not provide a reason, you could have asked. But you did not.
Why" Because it is easy to argue against the statement you created. Very convenient, right?


Actually, I did provide a reason for that. It is very strange that you find me "keep defending myself" (you must have read a few of my posts then?) and did not see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So.. what is the reason? You said it was because you didn't like the other school. Why don't you like the other school?

You keep trying to defend yourself without explaining yourself other than the "because I said so" type argument.

If someone says he/she does not like a school, you just assume it is because of "low income kids"? What kind of logic is this?
Putting words in other people's mouth is easy and you were doing exactly that. Even if I did not provide a reason, you could have asked. But you did not.
Why" Because it is easy to argue against the statement you created. Very convenient, right?


Actually, I did provide a reason for that. It is very strange that you find me "keep defending myself" (you must have read a few of my posts then?) and did not see that.

NP confused.. so what is your reason?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So.. what is the reason? You said it was because you didn't like the other school. Why don't you like the other school?

You keep trying to defend yourself without explaining yourself other than the "because I said so" type argument.

If someone says he/she does not like a school, you just assume it is because of "low income kids"? What kind of logic is this?
Putting words in other people's mouth is easy and you were doing exactly that. Even if I did not provide a reason, you could have asked. But you did not.
Why" Because it is easy to argue against the statement you created. Very convenient, right?


Actually, I did provide a reason for that. It is very strange that you find me "keep defending myself" (you must have read a few of my posts then?) and did not see that.

NP confused.. so what is your reason?

Examples with discussions about the "reason": p5, 14:30, 14:38

May not be good reasons. But it is interesting to see the hypocrisy here when some posters frequently trying to re-direct discussions into their moral war on how the low income or URM groups were unfairly treated.

To the PP: Not everyone look at these aspects all the time. There are other aspects on things that people care too.

[Anonymous]

Parents will do what they believe is best for their children regardless if their beliefs are prejudiced, misguided, or ill informed. With that said, I have no idea how you correct the inequality gap in MCPS public schools but I strongly believe making any major change to school boundaries would be short sighted. High income families will simply look for better opportunities (however they define "better").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents will do what they believe is best for their children regardless if their beliefs are prejudiced, misguided, or ill informed. With that said, I have no idea how you correct the inequality gap in MCPS public schools but I strongly believe making any major change to school boundaries would be short sighted. High income families will simply look for better opportunities (however they define "better").

I don't think that is going to happen.

Politicians get support mostly when people think there are problems and think the politicians are working towards solving those.
So that is why they "create" problems.

They don't have to solve those, not mentioning doing things that could make a real mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents will do what they believe is best for their children regardless if their beliefs are prejudiced, misguided, or ill informed. With that said, I have no idea how you correct the inequality gap in MCPS public schools but I strongly believe making any major change to school boundaries would be short sighted. High income families will simply look for better opportunities (however they define "better").

Well, one way is to do an analysis of the possibilities of adjusting school zone boundaries for capacity and demographics.