MCPS and Starr will probably need to change boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But what is the same education? If your child does not speak English yet, should my child sit in ESOL classes while your child learns? Should your child sit in beginning French even though they are fluent becasue my child needs to learn? I don't think anyone would support that. So why do we think it is appropriate for every child to learn math at the same speed? An MCPS education does not mean the exact same education for all.

Good news! Nobody is saying that it does mean that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obviously I'm not legally entitled to any particular school district. You don't need to hammer that home. But the boundary issue IS an issue because of voices like mine, which aren't few and far between. It's the housing costs and the school quality (which by all accounts is similar at the lower-performing schools and more taxpayer money is spent on them; the bottom line is that the lower-performing kids there aren't getting home support, which won't change no matter where they go) that are the issue.

Basically you're faulting me for doing what I could to increase the chances (not guarantee) of my kids going to a high-performing school. Shame on me.

No, we're faulting you for failing to acknowledge that one major, proven way to improve the performance of the "lower-performing kids" is to get them out of high-poverty schools and into low-poverty schools.

As I said, I'm more than happy to welcome any kid from a high-poverty school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It all comes down to the average that lower income families do not put the time to make education a priority. Add Hispanics (many illegal) that do not even speak English and use school as daycare, well it just won't change no matter what school you put them in. The fact is MCPS lower class minority numbers are climbing as they over-populate the middle class minorities and whites. Upper class send their kids to private and many middle income minorities and whites leave public for privates/parochials too. The school district is nothing what is was 10yrs ago and will be even worse in 10 years.

Shoot, why do we even bother to send those lazy children of those lazy illiterate criminal non-English-speaking people to school? It's a total waste of money anyway.

...is what you seem to be saying, to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obviously I'm not legally entitled to any particular school district. You don't need to hammer that home. But the boundary issue IS an issue because of voices like mine, which aren't few and far between. It's the housing costs and the school quality (which by all accounts is similar at the lower-performing schools and more taxpayer money is spent on them; the bottom line is that the lower-performing kids there aren't getting home support, which won't change no matter where they go) that are the issue.

Basically you're faulting me for doing what I could to increase the chances (not guarantee) of my kids going to a high-performing school. Shame on me.

No, we're faulting you for failing to acknowledge that one major, proven way to improve the performance of the "lower-performing kids" is to get them out of high-poverty schools and into low-poverty schools.

As I said, I'm more than happy to welcome any kid from a high-poverty school.

But you've said it doesn't make a difference. After all, the problem isn't that poor kids go to school with other poor kids; it's that the poor kids are not getting enough home support, which won't change no matter where they go!

[Anonymous]

I think the MCPS are too far gone at this point. If they had started 10 years ago, they could have bused kids in to balance the impoverished with the middle class and wealthier. And, the eastern section of MoCo wouldn't be in such bad shape right now. And, it might have equalized the housing prices in the county a bit. As a resident I can say that now it just sucks to be living in eastern MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When did I say I don't want a kid from anywhere sitting next to my kid? I want my kid at the best school possible, as does, I'm sure, the parents of the kid from five miles away. All kids deserve a great education. He's welcome to sit with my kid and they can learn from and alongside each other. But I'm not sending my kid to a lower-performing school to make some PC point. It's a housing affordability issue. Bring kids whose parents can't afford a W school in? Absolutely. Force kids whose parents made sacrifices to live very close to that school out of it? Nope.

I think that people who don't live in Chevy Chase/Bethesda/Potomac will not be very sympathetic to your talk of sacrifices. Because

1. Lots of people make sacrifices for their children's education, and lots of people who make sacrifices for their children's education still can't afford to live in Chevy Chase/Bethesda/Potomac.
2. Sending your kid across the county to go to school is also a sacrifice -- a sacrifice that you think the children of affluent parents shouldn't have to make, or so I infer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A better tactic is talking about how neighborhood schools support the community, and you're all about building the community. That tactic has worked for the Chevy Chases, Bethesda, and Potomac for decades.

Yes, you are wrong.

1. Of course others make sacrifices. I never said they did not. Acknowledging one person's doesn't eliminate another's.
2. If an affluent person makes a decision to live within a certain school's boundary, no, they should not have to send their kid across the county to go to school. Yes, those boundaries may change and that's life, but the fact remains that if you make a decision with a reasonable expectation (that school boundaries won't change or at least not significantly), those expectations shouldn't be eliminated because others weren't able to make the same choices. If a fantastic charter school opened up across the county that I thought that was best for my kid, of course I'd sacrifice to take them there. I never said "children of affluent parents shouldn't have to make that sacrifice." That's putting words in my mouth, which I assume you know.

What I'm saying really isn't that complicated. It isn't PC, but it isn't complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obviously I'm not legally entitled to any particular school district. You don't need to hammer that home. But the boundary issue IS an issue because of voices like mine, which aren't few and far between. It's the housing costs and the school quality (which by all accounts is similar at the lower-performing schools and more taxpayer money is spent on them; the bottom line is that the lower-performing kids there aren't getting home support, which won't change no matter where they go) that are the issue.

Basically you're faulting me for doing what I could to increase the chances (not guarantee) of my kids going to a high-performing school. Shame on me.

No, we're faulting you for failing to acknowledge that one major, proven way to improve the performance of the "lower-performing kids" is to get them out of high-poverty schools and into low-poverty schools.

As I said, I'm more than happy to welcome any kid from a high-poverty school.

But you've said it doesn't make a difference. After all, the problem isn't that poor kids go to school with other poor kids; it's that the poor kids are not getting enough home support, which won't change no matter where they go!

I think you're arguing with more than one person.

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful is that they come from affluent families whose parents prioritize education and are able to support them academically. Do you deny that that is the case?

[Anonymous]

^^^I agree, it's not complicated. What you're saying is that the children of affluent people are entitled to a good education, and the children of poor people are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obviously I'm not legally entitled to any particular school district. You don't need to hammer that home. But the boundary issue IS an issue because of voices like mine, which aren't few and far between. It's the housing costs and the school quality (which by all accounts is similar at the lower-performing schools and more taxpayer money is spent on them; the bottom line is that the lower-performing kids there aren't getting home support, which won't change no matter where they go) that are the issue.

Basically you're faulting me for doing what I could to increase the chances (not guarantee) of my kids going to a high-performing school. Shame on me.

No, we're faulting you for failing to acknowledge that one major, proven way to improve the performance of the "lower-performing kids" is to get them out of high-poverty schools and into low-poverty schools.

As I said, I'm more than happy to welcome any kid from a high-poverty school.

So you'll let them eat cake?

[Anonymous]

If they implement some sort of radical boundary change, you can pretty much guarantee that it will be the less-affluent but-still-middle-class families who will get the short end of the stick. MCPS will claim to solve a problem by moving some boundaries around to reassign a few middle class neighborhoods into predominately poor schools. It will be the neighborhoods that lack the political muscle of places like the Whitman cluster. The Whitman and Bethesda folks, on the other hand, will defend their territory and boundaries more effectively for the same reason lots of things work out for them: they've got more money to make things go their way from a political/influence standpoint. If anyone followed what happened with the New Hampshire Estates and Oak View unpairing dispute that took place a year or two ago, it was a great lesson in how MCPS pays lip service to implementing programs that achieve diversity and prioritizes being able to check a box to say something was done rather than paying any mind to whether what was done was effective. They implement meaningless programs like ineffective pairings for show in the neighborhoods that lack any political clout to prevent it, but silently ignore the fact that they're not pulling the same stunts in the Whitman and other W clusters.

So for all of the underdogs out there who thing boundary shifts will be a great equalizer and will benefit you personally, be careful what you wish for. Because you may think your current assignment sucks, but MCPS may find a way to make it even worse lest they be forced to take any action that would rock the boat in those parts of MoCo that really call the shots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^I agree, it's not complicated. What you're saying is that the children of affluent people are entitled to a good education, and the children of poor people are not.

Not at all. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're arguing with more than one person.

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful is that they come from affluent families whose parents prioritize education and are able to support them academically. Do you deny that that is the case?

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful in school is that they tend to go to school with other affluent kids.

Another reason that affluent kids are more successful in school in is because all of the practical complications of life are easier to deal with if you have more money.

It follows, therefore, that if you want to improve the academic performance of non-affluent kids, you should send them to school with affluent kids, and you should make it as uncomplicated as possible for them to go to school with affluent kids and to stay in school with affluent kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they implement some sort of radical boundary change, you can pretty much guarantee that it will be the less-affluent but-still-middle-class families who will get the short end of the stick. MCPS will claim to solve a problem by moving some boundaries around to reassign a few middle class neighborhoods into predominately poor schools. It will be the neighborhoods that lack the political muscle of places like the Whitman cluster. The Whitman and Bethesda folks, on the other hand, will defend their territory and boundaries more effectively for the same reason lots of things work out for them: they've got more money to make things go their way from a political/influence standpoint. If anyone followed what happened with the New Hampshire Estates and Oak View unpairing dispute that took place a year or two ago, it was a great lesson in how MCPS pays lip service to implementing programs that achieve diversity and prioritizes being able to check a box to say something was done rather than paying any mind to whether what was done was effective. They implement meaningless programs like ineffective pairings for show in the neighborhoods that lack any political clout to prevent it, but silently ignore the fact that they're not pulling the same stunts in the Whitman and other W clusters.

So for all of the underdogs out there who thing boundary shifts will be a great equalizer and will benefit you personally, be careful what you wish for. Because you may think your current assignment sucks, but MCPS may find a way to make it even worse lest they be forced to take any action that would rock the boat in those parts of MoCo that really call the shots.

OK, so what's your proposed solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're arguing with more than one person.

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful is that they come from affluent families whose parents prioritize education and are able to support them academically. Do you deny that that is the case?

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful in school is that they tend to go to school with other affluent kids.

Another reason that affluent kids are more successful in school in is because all of the practical complications of life are easier to deal with if you have more money.

It follows, therefore, that if you want to improve the academic performance of non-affluent kids, you should send them to school with affluent kids, and you should make it as uncomplicated as possible for them to go to school with affluent kids and to stay in school with affluent kids.

You're not making sense. Those kids won't have more money (and you're right, the practical complications of life are more easily dealt with with more money) because they go to school with more affluent kids. They'll have a longer way to go and a bigger economic divide.

The solution is improving the lower-ranked schools and increasing home support.

[Anonymous]

But you've said it doesn't make a difference. After all, the problem isn't that poor kids go to school with other poor kids; it's that the poor kids are not getting enough home support, which won't change no matter where they go!

Another tool with a brain consisting solely of 2 neurons connected by a spirochete whose dumb parents told her poor people can't get educated or become worldly successful ... and she believes this.