Reply to Option H is permanent and the old Wootton HS campus will be closed for good?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Option H is permanent and the old Wootton HS campus will be closed for good?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It is not people commenting on here who will close a "W" school. It will be elected officials.   And people who want to keep Wootton and the other "W" schools open probably voted for these officials.  [b]These same officials wanted to change the name of the school a couple years back.[/b] This might also be a factor.  Closing the school certainly eliminates the name.  Bussing was also proposed at one point.   Think before you vote for these officials[/quote]

There are no elected officials on the school board or county council who ever expressed wanting to change the name of Wootton.  Stop making things up.

There are only two elected officials who were even in office at the time when they approved initiating a review TO SEE IF THERE WAS COMMUNITY INTEREST in changing the name of any school.  There was none, so nothing happened.  No elected official advocated in support of changing the name of Wootton.

Additionally, no elected official (other than one Gaithersburg city councilmember) has advocated in support of Option H.  Stop making things up.[/quote]Laura Stewart has been pushing for bussing for years.  She hates the W schools and would to see one of them closed because they are an affront to equity.[/quote]

She doesn’t care but she also understands the limited opportunities at other schools, which is where budding could help some students.  [/quote]

Why not fix the problems at those schools instead of bussing to other schools?[/quote]

That would be great, and I think the vast majority would prefer it that way, but it requires much greater differential funding to those schools with less manageable cohorts to ensure:

1) Identification of ability/needs at early levels via means other than exposure-based metrics, such that populations in schools with less manageable cohorts are identified consistently with their peers at schools with more manageabe cohorts.

2) Addressing of that need/nurturing of that ability through elementary and middle (e.g., with greater resources dedicated to differentiation where those less manageable cohorts exist) to establish underpinnings of on-level academic success for populations currently underperforming/to maintain the learning performance of those more highly capable in a manner consistent with that which they would achieve if attending a school with a more manageable cohort.

3) Provision of high school-level programming (classes/curricula or otherwise, to include elective, magnet and advanced/college-level courses), on top of any support associated with the needs of the less manageable cohort, such that it is equally accessible to populations in such school catchments as it is to populations in school catchments with more manageable cohorts.

If we are willing to shift resources accordingly, whether drawing away from the more manageable to the less manageable or increasing the overall resource (tax) grant to the system so that current levels might be maintained at the more manageable while increasing them at the less manageable to provide the par described above (not equal outcomes, but equivalent addressing of individual need across the system), then we might be able to avoid the undesired outcome.

PS -- Referring to current differentials from Title I and the like, which address only a part of these issues and not nearly enough, is a modern equivalent of the [i]A Chistmas Carol[/i] observation, "Are there no prisons?...Are there no workhouses?" [/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