Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

So option D? Positives and negatives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also some of you seem to believe that because you have money, your kids deserve unearned advantages in their public education. Do you not think your parenting is good enough to get them ahead without hoarding extra space and programs and keeping them away from Black and Latino kids?

This is aimed at DCC parents who say they can move but choose not to bc they like the area better, right?

No, our kids attend programs with Black and Latino kids. You seem to think that they are in segregated programs in the same school? They aren't.

This is logically inconsistent, then. Your school is not segregated within the school and therefore your demand for specific classes is not taking resources from Black and Brown kids, but if it happens at the level of the school then that IS taking resources?

I mean I can't help you understand if you think only White kids in DCC schools can be academically advanced, or that wealthy schools should be given more resources than they currently have.

I can’t help it if you think there are only white kids outside of the DCC, or that specialized classes within the DCC favored by white kids should be given resources that could be used to help other kids get on grade level.

I mean there should absolutely be more resources to help kids get on grade level. If only MCPS provided effective incentives for experienced teachers to support those students. Instead they have the highest paid teachers at the wealthiest schools.

On top of that MCPS gets extra funding from the state for kids that receive FARMS and ESOL. They don't actually spend that funding on services for these students, they just add it to the general budget. In other words wealthy schools use funding allocated to MCPS based on the number of low income students.

I get it, it is contrary to your interests for parents in other schools to advocate for our children. You're using our schools' diversity to try to divide us, based on your own stereotypes and internal narratives about our schools and the kids that attend them. I see what you are doing and why. It's pretty gross though.

“advocating for our own children” is a good way of avoiding the accusation that you are hoarding resources.

Lol now you are just playing the "I know you are but what am I game" how fun

Kind of the point here.

Oooh that's right, no MCPS classes today so the elementary students are home today

You aren’t recognizing that you are doing the same thing, with the same language, that you are accusing others of. *shrug*. Unsurprised you don’t see your own hypocrisy.

Because I said "I get it, it is contrary to your interests for parents in other schools to advocate for our children. You're using our schools' diversity to try to divide us, based on your own stereotypes and internal narratives about our schools and the kids that attend them. I see what you are doing and why. It's pretty gross though."?

I can see how that might have struck a nerve with you.

DP, but why the f should I advocate for your interests? You’re not advocating for mine and just assume we’re entitled and privileged and thumb your noses at us. It’s pretty gross actually that you’d brow beat us for not being diverse, parade around the fact that you chose not to move to our neighborhoods, and then have the nerve to expect us to support you and potentially at the expense of our kids? That’s the very definition of chutzpah.

The thing is, our cluster is organized and engaged and used its considerable social capital to protect the interests of our community. I won’t make any apologies over that. That’s called self-interest. What you’re doing is the same but you’re acting like it’s not.

DP - you really are preoccupied with this idea that we’re as callous as you, but are trying to hide it. It’s bizarre.

Spoiler alert: very few people are as callous as you.

Hey look, it’s the “I’m the main character” person again. Spoiler alert: nobody cares that your DD isn’t getting into some engineering, healthcare or leadership elective program, which let’s be honest, is mostly b.s. at the middle or high school level. And let me get this straight - it’s callous when I advocate for my kid but not when you advocate for yours? It’s also callous that I don’t advocate for your kid and potentially at the expense of mine. Do I have that right?

No, you don’t have it right.

!4:07 and 14:11 spelled it out for you (thanks, PPs!).

Actually, they didn't. Just a flippant misdirection. The disparity is due to the quality of the parental support independent of the school and the student body - what's so hard to understand? This article from 2023 does a good job of teasing out the disparities including, gasp, a startling link between the % FARMs and % that did not pass a single IB or AP exam:

https://theblackandwhite.net/77000/news/new-mcps-data-highlights-continuing-disparities-among-high-schools/

Guess what? No amount of funding is going to close that gap.

And that's why you are totally cool with allocating state funding for FARMS students to all high schools regardless of FARMS rates? It's kind of cool, like a reverse Robin Hood. So rad.

NP but no I’m not ok with that. But I also think I can advocate for my kid to have short bus rides and a safe commute and that’s ok.

Oh. Do you live in Kensington lol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

Positive: best option for utilization rates overall.

Negative: Wheaton numbers are dependent on Edison space which may or may not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

Positives: VME wins the real estate lotto.

Negatives: worst option for FARMS rates at Woodward and WJ. Worst option for current WJ zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

Positives: VME wins the real estate lotto.

Negatives: worst option for FARMS rates at Woodward and WJ. Worst option for current WJ zone.

I don't think you realize how bad it looks for you that you are afraid of those FARMS rates. Are you really that scared of low income families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

because they get split by school, or something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

Positive: best option for utilization rates overall.

Negative: Wheaton numbers are dependent on Edison space which may or may not exist.

aren't all of the Wheaton numbers potentially wrong for this reason? Or is there one that would be good for Wheaton utilization even with 2200 capacity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

Positives: VME wins the real estate lotto.

Negatives: worst option for FARMS rates at Woodward and WJ. Worst option for current WJ zone.

I don't think you realize how bad it looks for you that you are afraid of those FARMS rates. Are you really that scared of low income families?

I'm anonymous. I don't care how it looks.

Scared no. But high FARMS schools are NOT good schools. I want my kid to have a good school. This is consistent with academic literature that when FARMS crosses about 20%, it's a genuine decline in education outcomes for the broader school community. I want poor served along with middle class and the rich. I don't want to favor poor for sake of being poor or rich for sake of being rich. Need to educate everyone. Push up the elite of them all regardless of what family they come from. We need doctors, engineers, etc etc etc
Sorry not everyone is capable or even resources. We also need good plumbers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

because they get split by school, or something else?

They are basically the same neighborhood (a big chunk of the elementary school), same community pool, community association that does everything together, yet they're breaking it apart. One option even breaks up the Town of GP too, which is weird, bc it's such a tiny municipality. Option D will not sit well with that area

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

No worries, they will fix that with the upcoming elementary boundary study

They are fine at elementary and middle school actually. It's the high school they are not fine with. That community will rally. I have friends there who are up in arms

Wow. That's pretty disgusting. I hope for their children's sakes they do Option D because being this fragile is not good for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

It also sucks for broader Garrett Park community. Garrett Park pool crew (Garrett Park, Garrett Park estates, white flint park) will not be happy.

because they get split by school, or something else?

And it hurts their property values. Hate to say it bc of the Karens and Chads who get bothered by that point..... But it's true. People bought those SFHs for a reason. The good school. Now they aren't getting it. But the other side of the tracks will? Viers Mill wins the lotto in that option. GPE/WF lose. And it breaks up the cohesive community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So option D? Positives and negatives?

Positive: best option for utilization rates overall.

Negative: Wheaton numbers are dependent on Edison space which may or may not exist.

aren't all of the Wheaton numbers potentially wrong for this reason? Or is there one that would be good for Wheaton utilization even with 2200 capacity?

Yes, all the Wheaton numbers make no sense.