Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, and? If they want to spend their money that way, go for it.

Can’t wait for MCPS to lose. Back to the drawing board!

So a few Wootton families are upset their kids might have to go to school with poors and are taking MCPS to court about it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, and? If they want to spend their money that way, go for it.

Can’t wait for MCPS to lose. Back to the drawing board!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

I assume they are lazy and don't want to drive their kids back and forth for activities and sports and if they miss the bus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

You’re right. It’s not about “race.” It’s about class.

Class too is a matter of demographics.

And, precisely because of that, your statistic of “40% increase in students from underperforming schools” is completely overstated. Do you really think it’s Downtown Crown kids who are disadvantaged and struggling academically at Rosemont? If you really think that, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cutting out the overstated fear-mongering that would be ridiculous to apply to places like Downtown Crown or Washingtonian Woods, your rhetoric is targeted perniciously against families at Fields Road who live north of the Muddy Branch/ Great Seneca intersection.

So, actually, we do get back to the issue of race. Because in this community, it intersects with class. So let’s name it: you don’t care about the success of lower income Latino students. You see them as a liability. You know, deep down, they’re not going to change the educational experience for your kids with just a 5% increase in FARMS. The SMCS program, honors classes etc. could become a school within a school. And that’s something that’s also known very well by wealthy families at BCC, which has a higher FARMS rate than Wootton @ Crown will have, and whose affluent families are wealthier than Wootton’s and don’t stay up at night worrying that disadvantaged families will affect their kids’ performance.

You’re worried about the ranking sliding overall. You’re worried about the school moving out of your neighborhood and no longer being able to advertise it’s in walking distance.

Ergo, you’re worried about property values. And in the United States of America, to think that property values can be divorced from the question of class and race is absurd. It’s absolutely part of your argument.

To be fair, I don’t think you or others are racist in the sense that you would cuss out or offend others on the basis of race. You are, on the other hand, more than happy to treat a minority of disadvantaged families and their belonging or rejection from your community as primarily a matter of your personal accounting, rather than one with academic merits.

And that is absolutely classist. And it is a form of classism that, at least in this specific case, has a racialized dimension.

Now, to your final point, I agree with you. Raising issues of race or class shouldn’t be used to cut off discussion. But you have to have a better retort to keep the discussion going. So far, implicitly or explicitly, over 50% of commenters I have seen speak on this issue, and near to 100% of them who take issue with the inclusion of Fields Road, seem primarily worried about the issue of home values.

I understand your point about class—and how it often overlaps with race. But I think you’re attributing a single motivation to a much broader set of concerns. Not every objection to this proposal is rooted in viewing lower-income students as a liability. There are multiple issues being raised at once: (1) relocating an entire high school; (2) the timing and rollout of Option H; (3) whether the process felt complete and transparent; (4) community stability; and yes, for some, (5) the impact on home values.

Reducing all of that to classism doesn’t really engage with the full picture.

On Fields Road specifically: It’s reasonable to ask whether this kind of change actually improves outcomes or simply redistributes challenges. That question can be asked without making assumptions about the students themselves.

And on property values: In the U.S., school assignments and housing are closely linked. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t automatically make someone’s concerns discriminatory—it reflects how the system functions.

Decisions of this scale should be clearly justified, improve outcomes, and be implemented through a process people trust. Framing most opposing views as primarily driven by class or race makes that conversation harder, not easier.

If you put as much time into parenting as you do with that kind of reply here on an anonymous forum, I guarantee your kids will turn out fantastic. Parenting… imagine that for affecting outcomes.

I already do and have 2 straight A high schoolers to show for it. How are your kids doing?

As for parenting, go tell that to every parent whose kids will attend Crown and we will all be happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

You’re right. It’s not about “race.” It’s about class.

Class too is a matter of demographics.

And, precisely because of that, your statistic of “40% increase in students from underperforming schools” is completely overstated. Do you really think it’s Downtown Crown kids who are disadvantaged and struggling academically at Rosemont? If you really think that, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cutting out the overstated fear-mongering that would be ridiculous to apply to places like Downtown Crown or Washingtonian Woods, your rhetoric is targeted perniciously against families at Fields Road who live north of the Muddy Branch/ Great Seneca intersection.

So, actually, we do get back to the issue of race. Because in this community, it intersects with class. So let’s name it: you don’t care about the success of lower income Latino students. You see them as a liability. You know, deep down, they’re not going to change the educational experience for your kids with just a 5% increase in FARMS. The SMCS program, honors classes etc. could become a school within a school. And that’s something that’s also known very well by wealthy families at BCC, which has a higher FARMS rate than Wootton @ Crown will have, and whose affluent families are wealthier than Wootton’s and don’t stay up at night worrying that disadvantaged families will affect their kids’ performance.

You’re worried about the ranking sliding overall. You’re worried about the school moving out of your neighborhood and no longer being able to advertise it’s in walking distance.

Ergo, you’re worried about property values. And in the United States of America, to think that property values can be divorced from the question of class and race is absurd. It’s absolutely part of your argument.

To be fair, I don’t think you or others are racist in the sense that you would cuss out or offend others on the basis of race. You are, on the other hand, more than happy to treat a minority of disadvantaged families and their belonging or rejection from your community as primarily a matter of your personal accounting, rather than one with academic merits.

And that is absolutely classist. And it is a form of classism that, at least in this specific case, has a racialized dimension.

Now, to your final point, I agree with you. Raising issues of race or class shouldn’t be used to cut off discussion. But you have to have a better retort to keep the discussion going. So far, implicitly or explicitly, over 50% of commenters I have seen speak on this issue, and near to 100% of them who take issue with the inclusion of Fields Road, seem primarily worried about the issue of home values.

I understand your point about class—and how it often overlaps with race. But I think you’re attributing a single motivation to a much broader set of concerns. Not every objection to this proposal is rooted in viewing lower-income students as a liability. There are multiple issues being raised at once: (1) relocating an entire high school; (2) the timing and rollout of Option H; (3) whether the process felt complete and transparent; (4) community stability; and yes, for some, (5) the impact on home values.

Reducing all of that to classism doesn’t really engage with the full picture.

On Fields Road specifically: It’s reasonable to ask whether this kind of change actually improves outcomes or simply redistributes challenges. That question can be asked without making assumptions about the students themselves.

And on property values: In the U.S., school assignments and housing are closely linked. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t automatically make someone’s concerns discriminatory—it reflects how the system functions.

Decisions of this scale should be clearly justified, improve outcomes, and be implemented through a process people trust. Framing most opposing views as primarily driven by class or race makes that conversation harder, not easier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

Why are they "rightly" concerned about that?

As has been discussed before, the research indicates it is more likely that there will be a slight INCREASE in the aggregate test scores of all students attending Wootton at Crown.

That may be what some research suggests in the aggregate, but it’s not guaranteed here. If additional students are coming from schools with lower average test scores, it’s entirely possible that overall averages could go down, not up. General research trends don’t automatically apply to a specific plan. Outcomes depend on the actual mix of students and how the transition is implemented. So the idea that scores will increase isn’t a given—it could just as easily decline depending on the specifics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

You’re right. It’s not about “race.” It’s about class.

Class too is a matter of demographics.

And, precisely because of that, your statistic of “40% increase in students from underperforming schools” is completely overstated. Do you really think it’s Downtown Crown kids who are disadvantaged and struggling academically at Rosemont? If you really think that, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cutting out the overstated fear-mongering that would be ridiculous to apply to places like Downtown Crown or Washingtonian Woods, your rhetoric is targeted perniciously against families at Fields Road who live north of the Muddy Branch/ Great Seneca intersection.

So, actually, we do get back to the issue of race. Because in this community, it intersects with class. So let’s name it: you don’t care about the success of lower income Latino students. You see them as a liability. You know, deep down, they’re not going to change the educational experience for your kids with just a 5% increase in FARMS. The SMCS program, honors classes etc. could become a school within a school. And that’s something that’s also known very well by wealthy families at BCC, which has a higher FARMS rate than Wootton @ Crown will have, and whose affluent families are wealthier than Wootton’s and don’t stay up at night worrying that disadvantaged families will affect their kids’ performance.

You’re worried about the ranking sliding overall. You’re worried about the school moving out of your neighborhood and no longer being able to advertise it’s in walking distance.

Ergo, you’re worried about property values. And in the United States of America, to think that property values can be divorced from the question of class and race is absurd. It’s absolutely part of your argument.

To be fair, I don’t think you or others are racist in the sense that you would cuss out or offend others on the basis of race. You are, on the other hand, more than happy to treat a minority of disadvantaged families and their belonging or rejection from your community as primarily a matter of your personal accounting, rather than one with academic merits.

And that is absolutely classist. And it is a form of classism that, at least in this specific case, has a racialized dimension.

Now, to your final point, I agree with you. Raising issues of race or class shouldn’t be used to cut off discussion. But you have to have a better retort to keep the discussion going. So far, implicitly or explicitly, over 50% of commenters I have seen speak on this issue, and near to 100% of them who take issue with the inclusion of Fields Road, seem primarily worried about the issue of home values.

I understand your point about class—and how it often overlaps with race. But I think you’re attributing a single motivation to a much broader set of concerns. Not every objection to this proposal is rooted in viewing lower-income students as a liability. There are multiple issues being raised at once: (1) relocating an entire high school; (2) the timing and rollout of Option H; (3) whether the process felt complete and transparent; (4) community stability; and yes, for some, (5) the impact on home values.

Reducing all of that to classism doesn’t really engage with the full picture.

On Fields Road specifically: It’s reasonable to ask whether this kind of change actually improves outcomes or simply redistributes challenges. That question can be asked without making assumptions about the students themselves.

And on property values: In the U.S., school assignments and housing are closely linked. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t automatically make someone’s concerns discriminatory—it reflects how the system functions.

Decisions of this scale should be clearly justified, improve outcomes, and be implemented through a process people trust. Framing most opposing views as primarily driven by class or race makes that conversation harder, not easier.

If you put as much time into parenting as you do with that kind of reply here on an anonymous forum, I guarantee your kids will turn out fantastic. Parenting… imagine that for affecting outcomes.

I already do and have 2 straight A high schoolers to show for it. How are your kids doing?

As for parenting, go tell that to every parent whose kids will attend Crown and we will all be happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

You’re right. It’s not about “race.” It’s about class.

Class too is a matter of demographics.

And, precisely because of that, your statistic of “40% increase in students from underperforming schools” is completely overstated. Do you really think it’s Downtown Crown kids who are disadvantaged and struggling academically at Rosemont? If you really think that, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cutting out the overstated fear-mongering that would be ridiculous to apply to places like Downtown Crown or Washingtonian Woods, your rhetoric is targeted perniciously against families at Fields Road who live north of the Muddy Branch/ Great Seneca intersection.

So, actually, we do get back to the issue of race. Because in this community, it intersects with class. So let’s name it: you don’t care about the success of lower income Latino students. You see them as a liability. You know, deep down, they’re not going to change the educational experience for your kids with just a 5% increase in FARMS. The SMCS program, honors classes etc. could become a school within a school. And that’s something that’s also known very well by wealthy families at BCC, which has a higher FARMS rate than Wootton @ Crown will have, and whose affluent families are wealthier than Wootton’s and don’t stay up at night worrying that disadvantaged families will affect their kids’ performance.

You’re worried about the ranking sliding overall. You’re worried about the school moving out of your neighborhood and no longer being able to advertise it’s in walking distance.

Ergo, you’re worried about property values. And in the United States of America, to think that property values can be divorced from the question of class and race is absurd. It’s absolutely part of your argument.

To be fair, I don’t think you or others are racist in the sense that you would cuss out or offend others on the basis of race. You are, on the other hand, more than happy to treat a minority of disadvantaged families and their belonging or rejection from your community as primarily a matter of your personal accounting, rather than one with academic merits.

And that is absolutely classist. And it is a form of classism that, at least in this specific case, has a racialized dimension.

Now, to your final point, I agree with you. Raising issues of race or class shouldn’t be used to cut off discussion. But you have to have a better retort to keep the discussion going. So far, implicitly or explicitly, over 50% of commenters I have seen speak on this issue, and near to 100% of them who take issue with the inclusion of Fields Road, seem primarily worried about the issue of home values.

I understand your point about class—and how it often overlaps with race. But I think you’re attributing a single motivation to a much broader set of concerns. Not every objection to this proposal is rooted in viewing lower-income students as a liability. There are multiple issues being raised at once: (1) relocating an entire high school; (2) the timing and rollout of Option H; (3) whether the process felt complete and transparent; (4) community stability; and yes, for some, (5) the impact on home values.

Reducing all of that to classism doesn’t really engage with the full picture.

On Fields Road specifically: It’s reasonable to ask whether this kind of change actually improves outcomes or simply redistributes challenges. That question can be asked without making assumptions about the students themselves.

And on property values: In the U.S., school assignments and housing are closely linked. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t automatically make someone’s concerns discriminatory—it reflects how the system functions.

Decisions of this scale should be clearly justified, improve outcomes, and be implemented through a process people trust. Framing most opposing views as primarily driven by class or race makes that conversation harder, not easier.

If you put as much time into parenting as you do with that kind of reply here on an anonymous forum, I guarantee your kids will turn out fantastic. Parenting… imagine that for affecting outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

You’re right. It’s not about “race.” It’s about class.

Class too is a matter of demographics.

And, precisely because of that, your statistic of “40% increase in students from underperforming schools” is completely overstated. Do you really think it’s Downtown Crown kids who are disadvantaged and struggling academically at Rosemont? If you really think that, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cutting out the overstated fear-mongering that would be ridiculous to apply to places like Downtown Crown or Washingtonian Woods, your rhetoric is targeted perniciously against families at Fields Road who live north of the Muddy Branch/ Great Seneca intersection.

So, actually, we do get back to the issue of race. Because in this community, it intersects with class. So let’s name it: you don’t care about the success of lower income Latino students. You see them as a liability. You know, deep down, they’re not going to change the educational experience for your kids with just a 5% increase in FARMS. The SMCS program, honors classes etc. could become a school within a school. And that’s something that’s also known very well by wealthy families at BCC, which has a higher FARMS rate than Wootton @ Crown will have, and whose affluent families are wealthier than Wootton’s and don’t stay up at night worrying that disadvantaged families will affect their kids’ performance.

You’re worried about the ranking sliding overall. You’re worried about the school moving out of your neighborhood and no longer being able to advertise it’s in walking distance.

Ergo, you’re worried about property values. And in the United States of America, to think that property values can be divorced from the question of class and race is absurd. It’s absolutely part of your argument.

To be fair, I don’t think you or others are racist in the sense that you would cuss out or offend others on the basis of race. You are, on the other hand, more than happy to treat a minority of disadvantaged families and their belonging or rejection from your community as primarily a matter of your personal accounting, rather than one with academic merits.

And that is absolutely classist. And it is a form of classism that, at least in this specific case, has a racialized dimension.

Now, to your final point, I agree with you. Raising issues of race or class shouldn’t be used to cut off discussion. But you have to have a better retort to keep the discussion going. So far, implicitly or explicitly, over 50% of commenters I have seen speak on this issue, and near to 100% of them who take issue with the inclusion of Fields Road, seem primarily worried about the issue of home values.

I understand your point about class—and how it often overlaps with race. But I think you’re attributing a single motivation to a much broader set of concerns. Not every objection to this proposal is rooted in viewing lower-income students as a liability. There are multiple issues being raised at once: (1) relocating an entire high school; (2) the timing and rollout of Option H; (3) whether the process felt complete and transparent; (4) community stability; and yes, for some, (5) the impact on home values.

Reducing all of that to classism doesn’t really engage with the full picture.

On Fields Road specifically: It’s reasonable to ask whether this kind of change actually improves outcomes or simply redistributes challenges. That question can be asked without making assumptions about the students themselves.

And on property values: In the U.S., school assignments and housing are closely linked. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t automatically make someone’s concerns discriminatory—it reflects how the system functions.

Decisions of this scale should be clearly justified, improve outcomes, and be implemented through a process people trust. Framing most opposing views as primarily driven by class or race makes that conversation harder, not easier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

Why are they "rightly" concerned about that?

As has been discussed before, the research indicates it is more likely that there will be a slight INCREASE in the aggregate test scores of all students attending Wootton at Crown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

You’re right. It’s not about “race.” It’s about class.

Class too is a matter of demographics.

And, precisely because of that, your statistic of “40% increase in students from underperforming schools” is completely overstated. Do you really think it’s Downtown Crown kids who are disadvantaged and struggling academically at Rosemont? If you really think that, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cutting out the overstated fear-mongering that would be ridiculous to apply to places like Downtown Crown or Washingtonian Woods, your rhetoric is targeted perniciously against families at Fields Road who live north of the Muddy Branch/ Great Seneca intersection.

So, actually, we do get back to the issue of race. Because in this community, it intersects with class. So let’s name it: you don’t care about the success of lower income Latino students. You see them as a liability. You know, deep down, they’re not going to change the educational experience for your kids with just a 5% increase in FARMS. The SMCS program, honors classes etc. could become a school within a school. And that’s something that’s also known very well by wealthy families at BCC, which has a higher FARMS rate than Wootton @ Crown will have, and whose affluent families are wealthier than Wootton’s and don’t stay up at night worrying that disadvantaged families will affect their kids’ performance.

You’re worried about the ranking sliding overall. You’re worried about the school moving out of your neighborhood and no longer being able to advertise it’s in walking distance.

Ergo, you’re worried about property values. And in the United States of America, to think that property values can be divorced from the question of class and race is absurd. It’s absolutely part of your argument.

To be fair, I don’t think you or others are racist in the sense that you would cuss out or offend others on the basis of race. You are, on the other hand, more than happy to treat a minority of disadvantaged families and their belonging or rejection from your community as primarily a matter of your personal accounting, rather than one with academic merits.

And that is absolutely classist. And it is a form of classism that, at least in this specific case, has a racialized dimension.

Now, to your final point, I agree with you. Raising issues of race or class shouldn’t be used to cut off discussion. But you have to have a better retort to keep the discussion going. So far, implicitly or explicitly, over 50% of commenters I have seen speak on this issue, and near to 100% of them who take issue with the inclusion of Fields Road, seem primarily worried about the issue of home values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it for what it is. They don't want the demographics of their school to change. Full stop.

You assume that. You don't know that.

Maybe they want to keep their neighborhood school, just like the community in Silver Spring wants to keep SSIMS and Sligo Creek ES in their neighborhood. Is Silver Spring not "wanting the demographics of their school/s" to change?

Like many on this board, the PP’s knee jerk reaction is to cry r-cism because that immediately discredits the complainer and shuts down the debate. This isn’t about demographics- Wootton already has a student population that is majority minorities (albeit not the “right” minorities according to PP). However, that student population is made up of high achievers, as evidenced by their academic performance and top graduation rate. Wootton families are rightly concerned that the academic performance of Wootton will decline because of a 40% increase I students from lower performing schools.

MCPS is putting money (and covering up its gross mismanagement thereof) over academic achievement, as it always seems to do these days.