Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP

What value is it to be in school with poor kids? Honestly. What's the value to a non-poor kid's education to being with poor kids?

Unrelated, but on top of, is the economics of property values. It's why Whitman and Churchill are "good". Less poor kids.

There's no value to their learning reading, writing, math, science. None.

The woke will tell you it's value for the social experience. Over rated fluff.

No value. high poverty is bad for a school. Medium poverty not good. Low poverty good. It's simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP

What value is it to be in school with poor kids? Honestly. What's the value to a non-poor kid's education to being with poor kids?

Unrelated, but on top of, is the economics of property values. It's why Whitman and Churchill are "good". Less poor kids.

They won't grow up believing that they are entitled to better jobs because they grew up rich and come from the expected demographic group. I have supervised people that grew up with this attitude, and it didn't work out well for them.

Assumptions. Anecdotes. Not fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP

What value is it to be in school with poor kids? Honestly. What's the value to a non-poor kid's education to being with poor kids?

Unrelated, but on top of, is the economics of property values. It's why Whitman and Churchill are "good". Less poor kids.

Kids aren't rich or poor, their parents are. Its sad you determine someone's wealth by their zip code and house size even if they are heavily in debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

No they don't. They are quite mixed and equivocal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP

What value is it to be in school with poor kids? Honestly. What's the value to a non-poor kid's education to being with poor kids?

Unrelated, but on top of, is the economics of property values. It's why Whitman and Churchill are "good". Less poor kids.

Kids aren't rich or poor, their parents are. Its sad you determine someone's wealth by their zip code and house size even if they are heavily in debt.

Don't be sad. I actually determine it by FARMS rate. They get free food because they inherently do not have wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

No they don't. They are quite mixed and equivocal.

Incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP

What value is it to be in school with poor kids? Honestly. What's the value to a non-poor kid's education to being with poor kids?

Unrelated, but on top of, is the economics of property values. It's why Whitman and Churchill are "good". Less poor kids.

Kids aren't rich or poor, their parents are. Its sad you determine someone's wealth by their zip code and house size even if they are heavily in debt.

Huh? Of course kids are rich or poor.

[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: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.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

No they don't. They are quite mixed and equivocal.

Incorrect.

Even if they are mixed, why roll the dice? Ya know? Why chance it with your kid by sending them to school in the poor neighborhood when you have the resources to prevent it? No thanks

[Anonymous]

Poverty does lead to crime. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poverty does lead to crime. Prove me wrong.

Wealthy communities have less crime. Especially less violent crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poverty does lead to crime. Prove me wrong.

Of course it does, being hungry and having nothing to lose reduces the amount of Fs one give. Having something to lose is actually more the thing that enforces compliance to society’s norms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poverty does lead to crime. Prove me wrong.

Of course it does, being hungry and having nothing to lose reduces the amount of Fs one give. Having something to lose is actually more the thing that enforces compliance to society’s norms.

Agree.

Yet some crazy people on here think it's good for my kid to go to school with other kids who are more prone to comit crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP
Karen enters the room with disgust. Option D sucks for other reasons. Nobody wants to turn a good school to another crappy DCC ghetto school

Let's be real, you all know a 30% FARMS rate is fine, but you also know it means it will reduce the real estate differential for your neighborhood compared with the 40-50% FARMS school and you can't tolerate losing 5% of your $5 million in wealth

30% is worse than my current situation and my current situation is barely acceptable. So no, I'm not ok with it. Sure it sucks to lose home equity, but having a cruddy school on top of it? No thanks

I can't imagine what on earth about being, what, 20% or 25% FARMS makes a school "barely acceptable." That's not a high FARMS rate or anything like that, not enough to put any meaningful strain on a school's resources. A 30-40% FARMS rate is just a plain vanilla normal school, not a poor one-- if you're down below 30% you're definitely on the richer side of normal. If you don't like your school, fine, but probably the issue is that it's badly run or something like that. What kind of problems could possibly be caused by that low a FARMS rate?

Numerous peer reviewed academic studies state the tipping point is 20%. So you, random Internet person, not being able to "imagine" it mattering is not credible with your esteemed credentials.

Your mom isn’t credible with her esteemed credentials of raising a jackass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Oh no, the same pool? That will be chaos.

Community building sucks in this community. Nobody values it.

Because most of you are terribly unpleasant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poverty does lead to crime. Prove me wrong.

Wealthy communities have less crime. Especially less violent crime.

Yeah, but wealthy communities commit all the white collar crime, destabilize banking systems, and perpetuate predatory lending schemes.