Reply to Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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"?

[b]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.
[/b] [/quote]

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

[quote=Anonymous]

Of course it could include any neighborhood near the boundary. But people can certainly express their willingness or unwillingness to contribute, right?

[b]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?[/b]
[/quote]

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.

[quote=Anonymous]

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.

[b]Where's your "research" that shows those other research citing this is bogus?[/b][/quote]

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.

[quote=Anonymous]

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? 
[b]
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.[/b][/quote]

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".

[quote=Anonymous]

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

[b]Again, saying that you agree that BOE should alleviate overcrowding, but just don't move my kids is the worse kind of NIMBY.[/b][/quote]

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 :lol: 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics