Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People scoff at the European and Asian styles of schooling where the bottom 1/3 go to trade school and middle 1/3 go to college and the top 1/3 go to university

The exact same thing happens here according to income/school district

The bottom 1/3 would do much better going to a trade school vs a traditional high school

+1
THANK YOU!

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows this myth is true. It's been repeatedly proven with study after study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
A consulting firm is selected by BOE today. Please check thie website and see what they did for Brooklyn District 15.


How is this relevant? They did what Brooklyn District 15 hired them to do, which is not the same as what the Montgomery County Board of Education has hired them to do.


Consultants always repeat their work. Anyone hiring a consultant knows that the end product will closely resemble what they have done for prior customers. Its the way consulting works. What is interesting about Brooklyn is that almost none of the wealthy students who were re-assigned to poorly performing schools showed up. They succeeded in getting some poor students into wealthier schools but they drove a bunch of people out of the school system.

This is a pretty predictable outcome. If people are willing to pay a sizable premium and/or accept a longer commute to work to be in a better school system then it is extremely unlikely that they will all of sudden no longer value this once the school system decides to bus their kid to a low performing school. They will be upset at their loss but they are unlikely to go with the flow and stop caring about their kids education so they'll just pull out their kids.


So it's win-win since we no longer have to educate the children of whiney and priveleged when they go private! It's not like wealthy people really pay taxes anyway. More resources for everyone else.


OK I can see how this would help reduce overcrowding in desirable schools but how is this a win for the original stated purpose when the poorer performing schools will remain poor and low performing?

DP.. more affluent families in that school would bring to the table what they bring to the more affluent schools -- money and time.

Higher achieving kids in the lower performing school would have a wider academic peer group. That's pretty important. It ups the game for them in the classroom.

Whoa reading comprehension please! The point of the post that you are responding to is that it is predictable that the affluent families will NOT show up at the lower performing school. This happened in Brooklyn and is pretty predictable based on the prior actions of the affluent. You won't end up with higher achieving kids in lower performing schools or a wider academic peer group.

Some families left. Others didn't. I read the WaPo article, and seems to me that the students that the article followed were doing fine, especially the lower income kid who got into the highly desirable school. The upper income kid and the parents had reservations, but she seemed to be fine in the end. Kids adapt easier than adults do.

DP. The WaPo article followed two kids over their first 5 days in school. Nothing meaningful can be gleaned from that. It was nothing but fluff. Let's see if they follow up at the end of the year, with more than 1 example of a kid that went to the undesirable school.

I see. So, someone posted a wapo article to backup their assertion that UMC left the school district en masse, but if others post about the positive aspects of the story, then that's just fluff.

Plenty of smart kids go to undesirable school and do fine. I went to an undesirable school myself. The undesirable school that the story covered had some really good programs. I recall my elderly neighbor talking about how when their neighborhood got rezoned to an undesirable school, many pulled their kids out of private. They chose to remain, and their kids are now professionals (think doctor type professionals). The ones I am aware of who went to private are no where near as educated or successful, but their parents have a lot of money.

I went to the red headed stepchild of FCPS and ended up at a top Ivy. I did fine as did many of my classmates. The difference between these schools is that some are more diverse. That's it. They all offer advanced and remedial classes.

This is true if you are an advanced and serious student. These types of gifted students will succeed anywhere because they will be in Honors/GT/AP courses for much of their core academic courses and be with like-minded students (school within a school). The issue that most parents have is with your average student in the regular classes. Their classmates in the undesirable schools are more likely to be disruptive and there may be a greater gap in the level of basal knowledge. Their classmates may need more remedial work and attention just purely based on their life circumstances. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of disruptive kids in the desirable schools (they are kids at the end of the day), but the proportion is higher in the undesirable schools. Some of that is because the desirable schools tend to not report behavioral issues, but it doesn't account for all of the differences in incidents in the MCPS at-a-glances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
A consulting firm is selected by BOE today. Please check thie website and see what they did for Brooklyn District 15.


How is this relevant? They did what Brooklyn District 15 hired them to do, which is not the same as what the Montgomery County Board of Education has hired them to do.


Consultants always repeat their work. Anyone hiring a consultant knows that the end product will closely resemble what they have done for prior customers. Its the way consulting works. What is interesting about Brooklyn is that almost none of the wealthy students who were re-assigned to poorly performing schools showed up. They succeeded in getting some poor students into wealthier schools but they drove a bunch of people out of the school system.

This is a pretty predictable outcome. If people are willing to pay a sizable premium and/or accept a longer commute to work to be in a better school system then it is extremely unlikely that they will all of sudden no longer value this once the school system decides to bus their kid to a low performing school. They will be upset at their loss but they are unlikely to go with the flow and stop caring about their kids education so they'll just pull out their kids.


So it's win-win since we no longer have to educate the children of whiney and priveleged when they go private! It's not like wealthy people really pay taxes anyway. More resources for everyone else.


OK I can see how this would help reduce overcrowding in desirable schools but how is this a win for the original stated purpose when the poorer performing schools will remain poor and low performing?

DP.. more affluent families in that school would bring to the table what they bring to the more affluent schools -- money and time.

Higher achieving kids in the lower performing school would have a wider academic peer group. That's pretty important. It ups the game for them in the classroom.

Whoa reading comprehension please! The point of the post that you are responding to is that it is predictable that the affluent families will NOT show up at the lower performing school. This happened in Brooklyn and is pretty predictable based on the prior actions of the affluent. You won't end up with higher achieving kids in lower performing schools or a wider academic peer group.

Some families left. Others didn't. I read the WaPo article, and seems to me that the students that the article followed were doing fine, especially the lower income kid who got into the highly desirable school. The upper income kid and the parents had reservations, but she seemed to be fine in the end. Kids adapt easier than adults do.

DP. The WaPo article followed two kids over their first 5 days in school. Nothing meaningful can be gleaned from that. It was nothing but fluff. Let's see if they follow up at the end of the year, with more than 1 example of a kid that went to the undesirable school.

I see. So, someone posted a wapo article to backup their assertion that UMC left the school district en masse, but if others post about the positive aspects of the story, then that's just fluff.

Plenty of smart kids go to undesirable school and do fine. I went to an undesirable school myself. The undesirable school that the story covered had some really good programs. I recall my elderly neighbor talking about how when their neighborhood got rezoned to an undesirable school, many pulled their kids out of private. They chose to remain, and their kids are now professionals (think doctor type professionals). The ones I am aware of who went to private are no where near as educated or successful, but their parents have a lot of money.

I went to the red headed stepchild of FCPS and ended up at a top Ivy. I did fine as did many of my classmates. The difference between these schools is that some are more diverse. That's it. They all offer advanced and remedial classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
A consulting firm is selected by BOE today. Please check thie website and see what they did for Brooklyn District 15.


How is this relevant? They did what Brooklyn District 15 hired them to do, which is not the same as what the Montgomery County Board of Education has hired them to do.


Consultants always repeat their work. Anyone hiring a consultant knows that the end product will closely resemble what they have done for prior customers. Its the way consulting works. What is interesting about Brooklyn is that almost none of the wealthy students who were re-assigned to poorly performing schools showed up. They succeeded in getting some poor students into wealthier schools but they drove a bunch of people out of the school system.

This is a pretty predictable outcome. If people are willing to pay a sizable premium and/or accept a longer commute to work to be in a better school system then it is extremely unlikely that they will all of sudden no longer value this once the school system decides to bus their kid to a low performing school. They will be upset at their loss but they are unlikely to go with the flow and stop caring about their kids education so they'll just pull out their kids.


So it's win-win since we no longer have to educate the children of whiney and priveleged when they go private! It's not like wealthy people really pay taxes anyway. More resources for everyone else.


OK I can see how this would help reduce overcrowding in desirable schools but how is this a win for the original stated purpose when the poorer performing schools will remain poor and low performing?

DP.. more affluent families in that school would bring to the table what they bring to the more affluent schools -- money and time.

Higher achieving kids in the lower performing school would have a wider academic peer group. That's pretty important. It ups the game for them in the classroom.

Whoa reading comprehension please! The point of the post that you are responding to is that it is predictable that the affluent families will NOT show up at the lower performing school. This happened in Brooklyn and is pretty predictable based on the prior actions of the affluent. You won't end up with higher achieving kids in lower performing schools or a wider academic peer group.

Some families left. Others didn't. I read the WaPo article, and seems to me that the students that the article followed were doing fine, especially the lower income kid who got into the highly desirable school. The upper income kid and the parents had reservations, but she seemed to be fine in the end. Kids adapt easier than adults do.

DP. The WaPo article followed two kids over their first 5 days in school. Nothing meaningful can be gleaned from that. It was nothing but fluff. Let's see if they follow up at the end of the year, with more than 1 example of a kid that went to the undesirable school.

I see. So, someone posted a wapo article to backup their assertion that UMC left the school district en masse, but if others post about the positive aspects of the story, then that's just fluff.

Plenty of smart kids go to undesirable school and do fine. I went to an undesirable school myself. The undesirable school that the story covered had some really good programs. I recall my elderly neighbor talking about how when their neighborhood got rezoned to an undesirable school, many pulled their kids out of private. They chose to remain, and their kids are now professionals (think doctor type professionals). The ones I am aware of who went to private are no where near as educated or successful, but their parents have a lot of money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
From the article -

In Brooklyn, many families, affluent and poor, were happy with their placements when they were announced last spring. But 45 children were assigned to Charles O. Dewey, the middle school Sophie is attending, who had not included it anywhere on their ranked list of choices. Enrollment figures indicate most of those students did not show, moving to private or charter schools, or perhaps leaving the district. The percent of kids from priority groups enrolled in Dewey’s sixth grade class went from 95 percent last year to 92 percent this year.

Look if you rezone someone from Whitman to BCC or from Wheaton to Einstein they may not mind. You could probably rezone someone from Einstein to BCC and they would be happy.

If you rezone someone to an undesirable school or a school they never selected then they won't show up. You are not going to get Whitman kids at Einstein anymore than Brooklyn could get affluent kids into Dewey.

Wow, people are really misinformed. I think you’re thinking of a different school because there are lots of well-off, professional, educated families whose kids go to Einstein. I dare say many would be indistinguishable from these alleged “Whitman kids.” It’s so ludicrous that people think Einstein is south central LA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
A consulting firm is selected by BOE today. Please check thie website and see what they did for Brooklyn District 15.


How is this relevant? They did what Brooklyn District 15 hired them to do, which is not the same as what the Montgomery County Board of Education has hired them to do.


Consultants always repeat their work. Anyone hiring a consultant knows that the end product will closely resemble what they have done for prior customers. Its the way consulting works. What is interesting about Brooklyn is that almost none of the wealthy students who were re-assigned to poorly performing schools showed up. They succeeded in getting some poor students into wealthier schools but they drove a bunch of people out of the school system.

This is a pretty predictable outcome. If people are willing to pay a sizable premium and/or accept a longer commute to work to be in a better school system then it is extremely unlikely that they will all of sudden no longer value this once the school system decides to bus their kid to a low performing school. They will be upset at their loss but they are unlikely to go with the flow and stop caring about their kids education so they'll just pull out their kids.


So it's win-win since we no longer have to educate the children of whiney and priveleged when they go private! It's not like wealthy people really pay taxes anyway. More resources for everyone else.


OK I can see how this would help reduce overcrowding in desirable schools but how is this a win for the original stated purpose when the poorer performing schools will remain poor and low performing?

DP.. more affluent families in that school would bring to the table what they bring to the more affluent schools -- money and time.

Higher achieving kids in the lower performing school would have a wider academic peer group. That's pretty important. It ups the game for them in the classroom.

Whoa reading comprehension please! The point of the post that you are responding to is that it is predictable that the affluent families will NOT show up at the lower performing school. This happened in Brooklyn and is pretty predictable based on the prior actions of the affluent. You won't end up with higher achieving kids in lower performing schools or a wider academic peer group.

Some families left. Others didn't. I read the WaPo article, and seems to me that the students that the article followed were doing fine, especially the lower income kid who got into the highly desirable school. The upper income kid and the parents had reservations, but she seemed to be fine in the end. Kids adapt easier than adults do.

DP. The WaPo article followed two kids over their first 5 days in school. Nothing meaningful can be gleaned from that. It was nothing but fluff. Let's see if they follow up at the end of the year, with more than 1 example of a kid that went to the undesirable school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
A consulting firm is selected by BOE today. Please check thie website and see what they did for Brooklyn District 15.


How is this relevant? They did what Brooklyn District 15 hired them to do, which is not the same as what the Montgomery County Board of Education has hired them to do.


Consultants always repeat their work. Anyone hiring a consultant knows that the end product will closely resemble what they have done for prior customers. Its the way consulting works. What is interesting about Brooklyn is that almost none of the wealthy students who were re-assigned to poorly performing schools showed up. They succeeded in getting some poor students into wealthier schools but they drove a bunch of people out of the school system.

This is a pretty predictable outcome. If people are willing to pay a sizable premium and/or accept a longer commute to work to be in a better school system then it is extremely unlikely that they will all of sudden no longer value this once the school system decides to bus their kid to a low performing school. They will be upset at their loss but they are unlikely to go with the flow and stop caring about their kids education so they'll just pull out their kids.


So it's win-win since we no longer have to educate the children of whiney and priveleged when they go private! It's not like wealthy people really pay taxes anyway. More resources for everyone else.


OK I can see how this would help reduce overcrowding in desirable schools but how is this a win for the original stated purpose when the poorer performing schools will remain poor and low performing?

DP.. more affluent families in that school would bring to the table what they bring to the more affluent schools -- money and time.

Higher achieving kids in the lower performing school would have a wider academic peer group. That's pretty important. It ups the game for them in the classroom.

Whoa reading comprehension please! The point of the post that you are responding to is that it is predictable that the affluent families will NOT show up at the lower performing school. This happened in Brooklyn and is pretty predictable based on the prior actions of the affluent. You won't end up with higher achieving kids in lower performing schools or a wider academic peer group.

Some families left. Others didn't. I read the WaPo article, and seems to me that the students that the article followed were doing fine, especially the lower income kid who got into the highly desirable school. The upper income kid and the parents had reservations, but she seemed to be fine in the end. Kids adapt easier than adults do.

Anonymous wrote:
From the article -

In Brooklyn, many families, affluent and poor, were happy with their placements when they were announced last spring. But 45 children were assigned to Charles O. Dewey, the middle school Sophie is attending, who had not included it anywhere on their ranked list of choices. Enrollment figures indicate most of those students did not show, moving to private or charter schools, or perhaps leaving the district. The percent of kids from priority groups enrolled in Dewey’s sixth grade class went from 95 percent last year to 92 percent this year.

Look if you rezone someone from Whitman to BCC or from Wheaton to Einstein they may not mind. You could probably rezone someone from Einstein to BCC and they would be happy.

If you rezone someone to an undesirable school or a school they never selected then they won't show up. You are not going to get Whitman kids at Einstein anymore than Brooklyn could get affluent kids into Dewey.

"Preliminary enrollment data show the overall racial makeup of District 15’s sixth-grade class this year barely changed, with no sign of heightened white flight from the public system. "

Anonymous wrote:
From the article -

In Brooklyn, many families, affluent and poor, were happy with their placements when they were announced last spring. But 45 children were assigned to Charles O. Dewey, the middle school Sophie is attending, who had not included it anywhere on their ranked list of choices. Enrollment figures indicate most of those students did not show, moving to private or charter schools, or perhaps leaving the district. The percent of kids from priority groups enrolled in Dewey’s sixth grade class went from 95 percent last year to 92 percent this year.

Look if you rezone someone from Whitman to BCC or from Wheaton to Einstein they may not mind. You could probably rezone someone from Einstein to BCC and they would be happy.

If you rezone someone to an undesirable school or a school they never selected then they won't show up. You are not going to get Whitman kids at Einstein anymore than Brooklyn could get affluent kids into Dewey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
A consulting firm is selected by BOE today. Please check thie website and see what they did for Brooklyn District 15.


How is this relevant? They did what Brooklyn District 15 hired them to do, which is not the same as what the Montgomery County Board of Education has hired them to do.


Consultants always repeat their work. Anyone hiring a consultant knows that the end product will closely resemble what they have done for prior customers. Its the way consulting works. What is interesting about Brooklyn is that almost none of the wealthy students who were re-assigned to poorly performing schools showed up. They succeeded in getting some poor students into wealthier schools but they drove a bunch of people out of the school system.

This is a pretty predictable outcome. If people are willing to pay a sizable premium and/or accept a longer commute to work to be in a better school system then it is extremely unlikely that they will all of sudden no longer value this once the school system decides to bus their kid to a low performing school. They will be upset at their loss but they are unlikely to go with the flow and stop caring about their kids education so they'll just pull out their kids.


So it's win-win since we no longer have to educate the children of whiney and priveleged when they go private! It's not like wealthy people really pay taxes anyway. More resources for everyone else.


OK I can see how this would help reduce overcrowding in desirable schools but how is this a win for the original stated purpose when the poorer performing schools will remain poor and low performing?

DP.. more affluent families in that school would bring to the table what they bring to the more affluent schools -- money and time.

Higher achieving kids in the lower performing school would have a wider academic peer group. That's pretty important. It ups the game for them in the classroom.

Whoa reading comprehension please! The point of the post that you are responding to is that it is predictable that the affluent families will NOT show up at the lower performing school. This happened in Brooklyn and is pretty predictable based on the prior actions of the affluent. You won't end up with higher achieving kids in lower performing schools or a wider academic peer group.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
A consulting firm is selected by BOE today. Please check thie website and see what they did for Brooklyn District 15.


How is this relevant? They did what Brooklyn District 15 hired them to do, which is not the same as what the Montgomery County Board of Education has hired them to do.


Consultants always repeat their work. Anyone hiring a consultant knows that the end product will closely resemble what they have done for prior customers. Its the way consulting works. What is interesting about Brooklyn is that almost none of the wealthy students who were re-assigned to poorly performing schools showed up. They succeeded in getting some poor students into wealthier schools but they drove a bunch of people out of the school system.

This is a pretty predictable outcome. If people are willing to pay a sizable premium and/or accept a longer commute to work to be in a better school system then it is extremely unlikely that they will all of sudden no longer value this once the school system decides to bus their kid to a low performing school. They will be upset at their loss but they are unlikely to go with the flow and stop caring about their kids education so they'll just pull out their kids.


So it's win-win since we no longer have to educate the children of whiney and priveleged when they go private! It's not like wealthy people really pay taxes anyway. More resources for everyone else.


OK I can see how this would help reduce overcrowding in desirable schools but how is this a win for the original stated purpose when the poorer performing schools will remain poor and low performing?

DP.. more affluent families in that school would bring to the table what they bring to the more affluent schools -- money and time.

Higher achieving kids in the lower performing school would have a wider academic peer group. That's pretty important. It ups the game for them in the classroom.

Whoa reading comprehension please! The point of the post that you are responding to is that it is predictable that the affluent families will NOT show up at the lower performing school. This happened in Brooklyn and is pretty predictable based on the prior actions of the affluent. You won't end up with higher achieving kids in lower performing schools or a wider academic peer group.

NP. But you will be able to show those Feds you are trying yet something else to meet their goal that everyone be above average. So the Fed $ will flow for another couple of years.