Anything wrong with saying that it's about performance, when it's about demographics and capacity?

What is pissing people off is that it certainly appears that the BOE is ignoring capacity in favor for demographics and MCPS has done this several times in the past. The Darnestown option to move into Seneca Valley does nothing for the capacity problems that exist. It is ONLY about getting those students into a poorer school.

For RM -the under enrolled ES schools in Wootton would have jumped for joy to get more students from the adjacent areas and be able to renovate/expand Wootton. MCPS did not want to do this because the RM areas adjacent to Wootton are high performing and MCPS wanted those kids at RM. MCPS had already tried to move GHS kids down into Wootton but GHS parents put up a huge fight not to be bussed all the way down to Wootton.

Bottom line is that no one wants to be plucked out of their school and driven past other schools so they can be the token rich or poor kids at a school. No one in an overcrowded school wants to be told that they can't join an adjacent under enrolled school because their kids are being used for demographics at the overcrowded school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently our focuses are quite different. You were trying to show why BoE (and/or some posters here) were proposing those (or at least why they claim they were doing proposing those) changes - for demographic and income disparities.

I don't want to argue against those reasons. These can be very noble reasons. I wouldn't want to try arguing against something that already holds the moral high ground, would I?

In the PP, I was basically telling you that their proposed changes are effectively aimed at "helping" low performing students, so the facts listed in PP (which mostly affect high performers) are not relevant.

Right. You keep saying that BoE isn't doing it for the reasons they say they're doing it, they're doing it for the reasons you say they're doing it. BoE: it's about capacity and demographics. You: that means it's really actually about the test scores.

No. I don't care what reasons they do it for. Only they know that for sure, and I can't go into their heads to dig those out.

They can claim they do it for some reasons. Those can be sound reasons, so I don't go against those - who am I to go against some noble reasons like "helping the poor" "diversity"?

What I am saying is when you look at the proposed changes, effectively it is (also) about performance.

Anything wrong with that?

Anything wrong with saying that it's about performance, when it's about demographics and capacity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently our focuses are quite different. You were trying to show why BoE (and/or some posters here) were proposing those (or at least why they claim they were doing proposing those) changes - for demographic and income disparities.

I don't want to argue against those reasons. These can be very noble reasons. I wouldn't want to try arguing against something that already holds the moral high ground, would I?

In the PP, I was basically telling you that their proposed changes are effectively aimed at "helping" low performing students, so the facts listed in PP (which mostly affect high performers) are not relevant.

Right. You keep saying that BoE isn't doing it for the reasons they say they're doing it, they're doing it for the reasons you say they're doing it. BoE: it's about capacity and demographics. You: that means it's really actually about the test scores.

No. I don't care what reasons they do it for. Only they know that for sure, and I can't go into their heads to dig those out.

They can claim they do it for some reasons. Those can be sound reasons, so I don't go against those - who am I to go against some noble reasons like "helping the poor" "diversity"?


What I am saying is when you look at the proposed changes, effectively it is (also) about performance.

Anything wrong with that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have already claimed links between income/demographics to performance.

I don't have a problem when people use these perspectives to support their views. People have different views, sometimes due to different perspectives.

I am simply pointing out that this is also (if you do not like the word "truly") about boosting the performance of certain students - clearly not something related to the facts in the PP.

No. It is an end in itself, in the view of BoE. Even if you don't think that it should be, it is.

It doesn't matter.

They do something, claim that they do it for certain reasons.

If you agree or disagree, especially if you disagree, you do not always have to argue against the reasons they claim. Taking a different perspective and showing why it is not good, is also a valid approach.

Good grief. It's like trying to have a discussion with Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass.

Apparently our focuses are quite different. You were trying to show why BoE (and/or some posters here) were proposing those (or at least why they claim they were doing proposing those) changes - for demographic and income disparities.

I don't want to argue against those reasons. These can be very noble reasons. I wouldn't want to try arguing against something that already holds the moral high ground, would I?

In the PP, I was basically telling you that their proposed changes are effectively aimed at "helping" low performing students, so the facts listed in PP (which mostly affect high performers) are not relevant.

Right. You keep saying that BoE isn't doing it for the reasons they say they're doing it, they're doing it for the reasons you say they're doing it. BoE: it's about capacity and demographics. You: that means it's really actually about the test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have already claimed links between income/demographics to performance.

I don't have a problem when people use these perspectives to support their views. People have different views, sometimes due to different perspectives.

I am simply pointing out that this is also (if you do not like the word "truly") about boosting the performance of certain students - clearly not something related to the facts in the PP.

No. It is an end in itself, in the view of BoE. Even if you don't think that it should be, it is.

It doesn't matter.

They do something, claim that they do it for certain reasons.

If you agree or disagree, especially if you disagree, you do not always have to argue against the reasons they claim. Taking a different perspective and showing why it is not good, is also a valid approach.

Good grief. It's like trying to have a discussion with Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass.

Apparently our focuses are quite different. You were trying to show why BoE (and/or some posters here) were proposing those (or at least why they claim they were doing proposing those) changes - for demographic and income disparities.

I don't want to argue against those reasons. These can be very noble reasons. I wouldn't want to try arguing against something that already holds the moral high ground, would I?

In the PP, I was basically telling you that their proposed changes are effectively aimed at "helping" low performing students, so the facts listed in PP (which mostly affect high performers) are not relevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - MCPS isn't even the best in MD. Its halfway down the list of MD counties now. Howard and Frederick surpassed it years ago.

MCPS hit its peak in the early 2000s and has been sliding down ever since due to bad decisions and a changing demographic. There really is zero reason to move to MoCo for the schools. If you have a job in MoCo and its an easier commute then sure move here and deal with the so so schools or pay for private. Other than that, there is just no reason to move here other than its cheaper than areas in VA and DC now (which wasn't true until the past few years).

OMG. You're too dumb and clueless but don't let facts get in your way. This is DCUM after all...

um schools performance is based on demographics

the best schools are in the areas with the highest income. It has nothing to do with the teaching. Schools are about the kids who attend not the teachers period.

More about the kids who don't attend since they negatively impact the average for many schools with low FARMs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have already claimed links between income/demographics to performance.

I don't have a problem when people use these perspectives to support their views. People have different views, sometimes due to different perspectives.

I am simply pointing out that this is also (if you do not like the word "truly") about boosting the performance of certain students - clearly not something related to the facts in the PP.

No. It is an end in itself, in the view of BoE. Even if you don't think that it should be, it is.

It doesn't matter.

They do something, claim that they do it for certain reasons.

If you agree or disagree, especially if you disagree, you do not always have to argue against the reasons they claim. Taking a different perspective and showing why it is not good, is also a valid approach.

Good grief. It's like trying to have a discussion with Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass.

Basically

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have already claimed links between income/demographics to performance.

I don't have a problem when people use these perspectives to support their views. People have different views, sometimes due to different perspectives.

I am simply pointing out that this is also (if you do not like the word "truly") about boosting the performance of certain students - clearly not something related to the facts in the PP.

No. It is an end in itself, in the view of BoE. Even if you don't think that it should be, it is.

It doesn't matter.

They do something, claim that they do it for certain reasons.

If you agree or disagree, especially if you disagree, you do not always have to argue against the reasons they claim. Taking a different perspective and showing why it is not good, is also a valid approach.

Good grief. It's like trying to have a discussion with Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have already claimed links between income/demographics to performance.

I don't have a problem when people use these perspectives to support their views. People have different views, sometimes due to different perspectives.

I am simply pointing out that this is also (if you do not like the word "truly") about boosting the performance of certain students - clearly not something related to the facts in the PP.

No. It is an end in itself, in the view of BoE. Even if you don't think that it should be, it is.

It doesn't matter.

They do something, claim that they do it for certain reasons.

If you agree or disagree, especially if you disagree, you do not always have to argue against the reasons they claim. Taking a different perspective and showing why it is not good, is also a valid approach.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it is also aimed at maximizing space at schools so we don’t have empty space in schools while 3 miles away there is a crowded school. This will keep our taxes down!

+1 this is why BOE should be looking at adjacent clusters when drawing boundaries. It irks me that they didn't do this during the RM ES#5 boundary discussion. Most if not all of the ES in the adjacent cluster in Wootton are under capacity.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, it is also aimed at maximizing space at schools so we don’t have empty space in schools while 3 miles away there is a crowded school. This will keep our taxes down!

Apparently this part of the equation has been forgotten by most posters.

Actually, it is also aimed at maximizing space at schools so we don’t have empty space in schools while 3 miles away there is a crowded school. This will keep our taxes down!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG - MCPS isn't even the best in MD. Its halfway down the list of MD counties now. Howard and Frederick surpassed it years ago.

MCPS hit its peak in the early 2000s and has been sliding down ever since due to bad decisions and a changing demographic. There really is zero reason to move to MoCo for the schools. If you have a job in MoCo and its an easier commute then sure move here and deal with the so so schools or pay for private. Other than that, there is just no reason to move here other than its cheaper than areas in VA and DC now (which wasn't true until the past few years).

OMG. You're too dumb and clueless but don't let facts get in your way. This is DCUM after all...

um schools performance is based on demographics

the best schools are in the areas with the highest income. It has nothing to do with the teaching. Schools are about the kids who attend not the teachers period.

Anonymous wrote:

Because they have already claimed links between income/demographics to performance.

I don't have a problem when people use these perspectives to support their views. People have different views, sometimes due to different perspectives.

I am simply pointing out that this is also (if you do not like the word "truly") about boosting the performance of certain students - clearly not something related to the facts in the PP.

No. It is an end in itself, in the view of BoE. Even if you don't think that it should be, it is.

Anonymous wrote:OMG - MCPS isn't even the best in MD. Its halfway down the list of MD counties now. Howard and Frederick surpassed it years ago.

MCPS hit its peak in the early 2000s and has been sliding down ever since due to bad decisions and a changing demographic. There really is zero reason to move to MoCo for the schools. If you have a job in MoCo and its an easier commute then sure move here and deal with the so so schools or pay for private. Other than that, there is just no reason to move here other than its cheaper than areas in VA and DC now (which wasn't true until the past few years).

OMG. You're too dumb and clueless but don't let facts get in your way. This is DCUM after all...