Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One easy way is to stop using demographics information to "group" people and make those comparisons.

A harder way (but more effective) is to change the standards of various things (e.g. grades) to make the low performing groups perform "better", at least on paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which, from some people's reactions, is evidently akin to calling for routine child sacrifice to the dragon who lives on Mount Volsung.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here's the 14:30 post:

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

RESPONSE:
"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?

No response to above post.

Here's 14:38:

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.

I am not seeing any actual "reason" why the poster thinks the other school is not as good. Is it supposed to be this "common belief"? And so why is there a "common belief" that the other school isn't as good? What is this "belief" based on?

I'm still not seeing an actual reason. I won't put words in your mouth so I expect you to provide the "reason" why the other school is not as good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here's the 14:30 post:

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

RESPONSE:
"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?

No response to above post.

Here's 14:38:

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.

I am not seeing any actual "reason" why the poster thinks the other school is not as good. Is it supposed to be this "common belief"? And so why is there a "common belief" that the other school isn't as good? What is this "belief" based on?

I'm still not seeing an actual reason. I won't put words in your mouth so I expect you to provide the "reason" why the other school is not as good.

The PP asked " You said it was because you didn't like the other school. Why don't you like the other school? " I pointed the answer: if people think it is "not as good".

Now you want to know why "it is not as good"? Well when you look at schools, what do you look at?
1. Information you get online, like GS, student performance.

You may not trust these, but some people do, is that something stupid? I don't think so.

2. reputation of the school from talking to other people. In that case, why is "common belief" something that one can not use as a "reason"?
For example, why can't people just be lazy and not trying to dig out more information about a school, rather he/she just chats with neighbors and hear about their "common belief"? Does that make it immoral?

[Anonymous]

Having more low performing kids at your school doesn’t hurt your kid. The biggest predictors of educational achievement are household income and the mother’s education level. Those won’t change for your family regardless of who your kids go to school with.

What bring more low income/performing kids into a wealthier school does, though, is expose those kids to more resources, and a parent body that has both the knowledge and opportunity to advocate for more resources for that particular school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having more low performing kids at your school doesn’t hurt your kid. The biggest predictors of educational achievement are household income and the mother’s education level. Those won’t change for your family regardless of who your kids go to school with.

What bring more low income/performing kids into a wealthier school does, though, is expose those kids to more resources, and a parent body that has both the knowledge and opportunity to advocate for more resources for that particular school.

Yeah sure. For example, getting paired in a project with someone who simply does not study at all, that does not hurt your kid. It may be annoying but that is fine. The teachers and other students know how these kids do things so it is not going to affect your kid's grade. Ask your kids if they would enjoy that.

Again, low income is fine. Many low income kids do fine because they work hard - they may get achieve even more if provided the opportunities but even without those, they can do fine. I would think providing opportunities to them would be useful

But "low performing" kids? you certainly have more bad apples in that group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here's the 14:30 post:

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

RESPONSE:
"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?

No response to above post.

Here's 14:38:

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.

I am not seeing any actual "reason" why the poster thinks the other school is not as good. Is it supposed to be this "common belief"? And so why is there a "common belief" that the other school isn't as good? What is this "belief" based on?

I'm still not seeing an actual reason. I won't put words in your mouth so I expect you to provide the "reason" why the other school is not as good.

The PP asked " You said it was because you didn't like the other school. Why don't you like the other school? " I pointed the answer: if people think it is "not as good".

Now you want to know why "it is not as good"? Well when you look at schools, what do you look at?
1. Information you get online, like GS, student performance.

You may not trust these, but some people do, is that something stupid? I don't think so.

2. reputation of the school from talking to other people. In that case, why is "common belief" something that one can not use as a "reason"?
For example, why can't people just be lazy and not trying to dig out more information about a school, rather he/she just chats with neighbors and hear about their "common belief"? Does that make it immoral?

1. scores - I asked this before. How is being around a few more lower performing kids going to make your kids dumber? If the boundaries are changed, don't you think the FARMs rate and performance of the student body will change accordingly? You're thinking that only your child will be going to the new school surrounded by dumber kids. Where's the logic here?

2. reputation - what is the rep based on? First hand knowldedge? Gossip? GS scores? That goes back to #1 above.

For example, many W parents think that non W schools are terrible because they have "low" test scores, and so those schools have a terrible reputation amongst those parents, yet, many parents like those in the QO cluster will say that's not true. QO is a great school. Right? Example of reputation not based on first hand knowledge but on test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more low performing kids at your school doesn’t hurt your kid. The biggest predictors of educational achievement are household income and the mother’s education level. Those won’t change for your family regardless of who your kids go to school with.

What bring more low income/performing kids into a wealthier school does, though, is expose those kids to more resources, and a parent body that has both the knowledge and opportunity to advocate for more resources for that particular school.

Yeah sure. For example, getting paired in a project with someone who simply does not study at all, that does not hurt your kid. It may be annoying but that is fine. The teachers and other students know how these kids do things so it is not going to affect your kid's grade. Ask your kids if they would enjoy that.

Again, low income is fine. Many low income kids do fine because they work hard - they may get achieve even more if provided the opportunities but even without those, they can do fine. I would think providing opportunities to them would be useful

But "low performing" kids? you certainly have more bad apples in that group.

Sure, that sucks. My kids have had to deal with it. That's life. Hasn't that happened to you at work? In college? Do you honestly think that sh1t like this doesn't happen in higher performing schools? My kid went to an HGC, and this happened to DC there, too. Didn't hurt my kid. In fact, it taught my kid to be more resilient. I don't subscribe to the "lawnmower", "snowplow" parent where I think it's my job to remove every road block from my kids' successes.

Also, in HS, if your kid is high performing, your kid will be separated from the riff raff if your kid takes AP/honors courses. No worries there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1. scores - I asked this before. How is being around a few more lower performing kids going to make your kids dumber? If the boundaries are changed, don't you think the FARMs rate and performance of the student body will change accordingly? You're thinking that only your child will be going to the new school surrounded by dumber kids. Where's the logic here?

2. reputation - what is the rep based on? First hand knowldedge? Gossip? GS scores? That goes back to #1 above.

For example, many W parents think that non W schools are terrible because they have "low" test scores, and so those schools have a terrible reputation amongst those parents, yet, many parents like those in the QO cluster will say that's not true. QO is a great school. Right? Example of reputation not based on first hand knowledge but on test scores.

These are not immoral reasons and I am just pointing these out against some hypocrisy from people who define "not willing to ..." as immoral.
Whether these are good reasons that can convince you (so that you could support their objectives) or BoE, is an entirely different issue - which I have no intention to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having more low performing kids at your school doesn’t hurt your kid. The biggest predictors of educational achievement are household income and the mother’s education level. Those won’t change for your family regardless of who your kids go to school with.

What bring more low income/performing kids into a wealthier school does, though, is expose those kids to more resources, and a parent body that has both the knowledge and opportunity to advocate for more resources for that particular school.

Yeah sure. For example, getting paired in a project with someone who simply does not study at all, that does not hurt your kid. It may be annoying but that is fine. The teachers and other students know how these kids do things so it is not going to affect your kid's grade. Ask your kids if they would enjoy that.

Again, low income is fine. Many low income kids do fine because they work hard - they may get achieve even more if provided the opportunities but even without those, they can do fine. I would think providing opportunities to them would be useful

But "low performing" kids? you certainly have more bad apples in that group.

Sure, that sucks. My kids have had to deal with it. That's life. Hasn't that happened to you at work? In college? Do you honestly think that sh1t like this doesn't happen in higher performing schools? My kid went to an HGC, and this happened to DC there, too. Didn't hurt my kid. In fact, it taught my kid to be more resilient. I don't subscribe to the "lawnmower", "snowplow" parent where I think it's my job to remove every road block from my kids' successes.

Also, in HS, if your kid is high performing, your kid will be separated from the riff raff if your kid takes AP/honors courses. No worries there.

Of course it does too.

But who would like to deliberately and willingly increase the chance of that happening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course it does too.

But who would like to deliberately and willingly increase the chance of that happening?

PP is scared of poor kids.

[Anonymous]

You are all ridiculous. All boundary studies cause this kind of consternation. Look at Bayard Rustin, before that Silver Creek and now Seneca Valley. Nobody likes change, nobody wants their kid on an extra long bus ride driving past their neighborhood school, nobody wants a school with high FARMS percentage, or not enough diversity. Nobody likes boundary studies! There isn't a way to do one that won't make people unhappy (ask people who were around for ones 40 years ago, they still hold grudges). People get nasty. Neighborhoods get torn apart. Communities get torn apart.


And yet, for some reason, everybody is listening to a bunch of students who want to redraw lines to schools that they won't even attend because they'll be long since graduated.

And, if you think MCPS staff don't already know exactly what they are going to do with the results from the boundary assessment study, and how to direct the consultant to end up with results they want, you are a fool.

[Anonymous]

For most sane parents, this is an entirely financial debate because none of us would ever consider actually sending our children to failing schools if rezoned. It would just be expensive to move, that's all.

I hope the BOE understands that it can change boundaries, but it will never get our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For most sane parents, this is an entirely financial debate because none of us would ever consider actually sending our children to failing schools if rezoned. It would just be expensive to move, that's all.

I hope the BOE understands that it can change boundaries, but it will never get our kids.

You keep saying that. Who's we, and how will the BoE get whoever-we-are's kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are all ridiculous. All boundary studies cause this kind of consternation. Look at Bayard Rustin, before that Silver Creek and now Seneca Valley. Nobody likes change, nobody wants their kid on an extra long bus ride driving past their neighborhood school, nobody wants a school with high FARMS percentage, or not enough diversity. Nobody likes boundary studies! There isn't a way to do one that won't make people unhappy (ask people who were around for ones 40 years ago, they still hold grudges). People get nasty. Neighborhoods get torn apart. Communities get torn apart.

And yet, for some reason, everybody is listening to a bunch of students who want to redraw lines to schools that they won't even attend because they'll be long since graduated.

And, if you think MCPS staff don't already know exactly what they are going to do with the results from the boundary assessment study, and how to direct the consultant to end up with results they want, you are a fool.

On the contrary. And yet, for some reason, everybody is listening to a bunch of anonymous posters on an Internet message board who have been yelling that MCPS should do EXACTLY THIS KIND OF STUDY for YEARS.