Anonymous wrote:

No I'm not saying that at all. Inhale exhale please. As I said, schools shouldn't be disproportionately poor and if we can make adjustments we should do it as long as we're not imposing long bus rides to students. I also said that we should FIX the real issue and let's not think that boundary changes is a unicorn that will solve the problem of poor, low performing kids. MCPS can't get away that easy. Somehow some people have failed to learn the reason why kids fail at school. How do you help poor kids who are failing at school? Free tutoring, teaching kids the skills they need to succeed at school and to succeed in life (not go to jail, not get pregnant, etc.), having extra counselors so that they can navigate a difficult home life. Will changing schools give them that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you agree kids should have 45 minutes bus rides to a school? Do you really think that changing the boundaries will decrease the achievement gap? SO miraculously, a kid who goes to a low performing school who doesn't have the support at home will all of a sudden receive the at home support and the values and the skills needed to succeed in the newly assigned higher performing school?

Is your thinking here that "go to a low-performing school" and "doesn't have the support at home" are synonyms?

Because if not, then taking your argument as given, kids who go to a "low-performing school" and DO have the support at home WILL benefit from going to a "higher performing school." How about those kids?

Nope, not synonymous of course. And what makes you presume that kids who go to a low-performing school and DO have the support at home and are already excelling at their current school, would want to be subjected to long bus rides? What value will this bring to them?

You've put together a seamless argument there. Poor kids at high-poverty schools who don't have the support at home won't do well anywhere, so why move them? Poor kids at high-poverty schools who do have the support at home are already excelling, so why move them? Bottom line: everybody benefits when the school system keeps the poor kids at the high-poverty schools! How convenient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Such as?

I sure hope that it's not the same people arguing, on the one hand, that the world will come to an end if they get rezoned for Seneca Valley High School, and, on the other hand, that a student at a high-poverty high school has exactly the same opportunities as a student at a low-poverty high school.

Yes, this lack of opportunity is BS. There IS opportunity for high achieving kids in practically every high school. SVHS has an IB program. Rockville HS has IB. Gaithersburg HS has Signature Academies. I'm not buying this BS that only schools with low FARMS have opportunity. EVERY kid, rich or poor, with the motivation, guidance, and ambition can succeed in any school in this county, even the ones that are disproportionately poorer than other schools. I've seen it. Yes, I think boundaries need to be reviewed from time to time to make sure they still work and that demographics aren't skewed disproportionately towards one group and where we can make adjustments WITHIN adjacent school clusters, then yes we should. BUt we need to not be supporting 45 minute bus rides. And even if boundaries are adjusted, let's not kid ourselves in thinking that this is actually helping low performing students who don't have the support at home. Let's be honest and realize that all this is doing is raising the AVERAGE test scores at low performing schools so that MCPS can say, "see we fixed it!"

bus routes aren't changing

It's all about closing the achievement gap rightly or wrongly that's what the goal of all of this is. To do that by having less high performing and low performing schools and you do that by tweaking boundaries to try and level out SES levels across attendance areas.

Do you agree kids should have 45 minutes bus rides to a school? Do you really think that changing the boundaries will decrease the achievement gap? SO miraculously, a kid who goes to a low performing school who doesn't have the support at home will all of a sudden receive the at home support and the values and the skills needed to succeed in the newly assigned higher performing school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to Fairfax County:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/795336.page

lol -- people just love to bitch and moan

Anonymous wrote:Not to Fairfax County:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/795336.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you agree kids should have 45 minutes bus rides to a school? Do you really think that changing the boundaries will decrease the achievement gap? SO miraculously, a kid who goes to a low performing school who doesn't have the support at home will all of a sudden receive the at home support and the values and the skills needed to succeed in the newly assigned higher performing school?

Is your thinking here that "go to a low-performing school" and "doesn't have the support at home" are synonyms?

Because if not, then taking your argument as given, kids who go to a "low-performing school" and DO have the support at home WILL benefit from going to a "higher performing school." How about those kids?

Nope, not synonymous of course. And what makes you presume that kids who go to a low-performing school and DO have the support at home and are already excelling at their current school, would want to be subjected to long bus rides? What value will this bring to them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you agree kids should have 45 minutes bus rides to a school? Do you really think that changing the boundaries will decrease the achievement gap? SO miraculously, a kid who goes to a low performing school who doesn't have the support at home will all of a sudden receive the at home support and the values and the skills needed to succeed in the newly assigned higher performing school?

Is your thinking here that "go to a low-performing school" and "doesn't have the support at home" are synonyms?

Because if not, then taking your argument as given, kids who go to a "low-performing school" and DO have the support at home WILL benefit from going to a "higher performing school." How about those kids?

Anonymous wrote:

My kids bus ride now that is under 1 mile takes 40+ minutes from the time school gets out to dropoff so think it's par for the course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Such as?

I sure hope that it's not the same people arguing, on the one hand, that the world will come to an end if they get rezoned for Seneca Valley High School, and, on the other hand, that a student at a high-poverty high school has exactly the same opportunities as a student at a low-poverty high school.

Yes, this lack of opportunity is BS. There IS opportunity for high achieving kids in practically every high school. SVHS has an IB program. Rockville HS has IB. Gaithersburg HS has Signature Academies. I'm not buying this BS that only schools with low FARMS have opportunity. EVERY kid, rich or poor, with the motivation, guidance, and ambition can succeed in any school in this county, even the ones that are disproportionately poorer than other schools. I've seen it. Yes, I think boundaries need to be reviewed from time to time to make sure they still work and that demographics aren't skewed disproportionately towards one group and where we can make adjustments WITHIN adjacent school clusters, then yes we should. BUt we need to not be supporting 45 minute bus rides. And even if boundaries are adjusted, let's not kid ourselves in thinking that this is actually helping low performing students who don't have the support at home. Let's be honest and realize that all this is doing is raising the AVERAGE test scores at low performing schools so that MCPS can say, "see we fixed it!"

Anonymous wrote:

Do you agree kids should have 45 minutes bus rides to a school? Do you really think that changing the boundaries will decrease the achievement gap? SO miraculously, a kid who goes to a low performing school who doesn't have the support at home will all of a sudden receive the at home support and the values and the skills needed to succeed in the newly assigned higher performing school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Such as?

I sure hope that it's not the same people arguing, on the one hand, that the world will come to an end if they get rezoned for Seneca Valley High School, and, on the other hand, that a student at a high-poverty high school has exactly the same opportunities as a student at a low-poverty high school.

Yes, this lack of opportunity is BS. There IS opportunity for high achieving kids in practically every high school. SVHS has an IB program. Rockville HS has IB. Gaithersburg HS has Signature Academies. I'm not buying this BS that only schools with low FARMS have opportunity. EVERY kid, rich or poor, with the motivation, guidance, and ambition can succeed in any school in this county, even the ones that are disproportionately poorer than other schools. I've seen it. Yes, I think boundaries need to be reviewed from time to time to make sure they still work and that demographics aren't skewed disproportionately towards one group and where we can make adjustments WITHIN adjacent school clusters, then yes we should. BUt we need to not be supporting 45 minute bus rides. And even if boundaries are adjusted, let's not kid ourselves in thinking that this is actually helping low performing students who don't have the support at home. Let's be honest and realize that all this is doing is raising the AVERAGE test scores at low performing schools so that MCPS can say, "see we fixed it!"

bus routes aren't changing

It's all about closing the achievement gap rightly or wrongly that's what the goal of all of this is. To do that by having less high performing and low performing schools and you do that by tweaking boundaries to try and level out SES levels across attendance areas.

Do you agree kids should have 45 minutes bus rides to a school? Do you really think that changing the boundaries will decrease the achievement gap? SO miraculously, a kid who goes to a low performing school who doesn't have the support at home will all of a sudden receive the at home support and the values and the skills needed to succeed in the newly assigned higher performing school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Such as?

I sure hope that it's not the same people arguing, on the one hand, that the world will come to an end if they get rezoned for Seneca Valley High School, and, on the other hand, that a student at a high-poverty high school has exactly the same opportunities as a student at a low-poverty high school.

Yes, this lack of opportunity is BS. There IS opportunity for high achieving kids in practically every high school. SVHS has an IB program. Rockville HS has IB. Gaithersburg HS has Signature Academies. I'm not buying this BS that only schools with low FARMS have opportunity. EVERY kid, rich or poor, with the motivation, guidance, and ambition can succeed in any school in this county, even the ones that are disproportionately poorer than other schools. I've seen it. Yes, I think boundaries need to be reviewed from time to time to make sure they still work and that demographics aren't skewed disproportionately towards one group and where we can make adjustments WITHIN adjacent school clusters, then yes we should. BUt we need to not be supporting 45 minute bus rides. And even if boundaries are adjusted, let's not kid ourselves in thinking that this is actually helping low performing students who don't have the support at home. Let's be honest and realize that all this is doing is raising the AVERAGE test scores at low performing schools so that MCPS can say, "see we fixed it!"

bus routes aren't changing

It's all about closing the achievement gap rightly or wrongly that's what the goal of all of this is. To do that by having less high performing and low performing schools and you do that by tweaking boundaries to try and level out SES levels across attendance areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, this lack of opportunity is BS. There IS opportunity for high achieving kids in practically every high school. SVHS has an IB program. Rockville HS has IB. Gaithersburg HS has Signature Academies. I'm not buying this BS that only schools with low FARMS have opportunity. EVERY kid, rich or poor, with the motivation, guidance, and ambition can succeed in any school in this county, even the ones that are disproportionately poorer than other schools. I've seen it. Yes, I think boundaries need to be reviewed from time to time to make sure they still work and that demographics aren't skewed disproportionately towards one group and where we can make adjustments WITHIN adjacent school clusters, then yes we should. BUt we need to not be supporting 45 minute bus rides. And even if boundaries are adjusted, let's not kid ourselves in thinking that this is actually helping low performing students who don't have the support at home. Let's be honest and realize that all this is doing is raising the AVERAGE test scores at low performing schools so that MCPS can say, "see we fixed it!"

For example, between Northwest High School and Seneca Valley High School.

You know what else is depressing? DCUM people's willingness to write off poor kids.