Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

[Anonymous]

Also, can't wait for this all to repeat itself in a year when they do the elementary school boundary study. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

+1 The October options were created PRIOR to the CIP plan, so they need to be redone. On Thursday evening, Jeannie Franklin (survey owner and primary creator of the maps) said that she will be creating "at least two, if not a few" more options in November.

No, Jeannie Franklin is on the regional program project, not the boundary studies.

They are now inextricably linked, with the regions arbitrarily binding any boundary changes. She shared this information directly at the Kennedy HS engagement meeting last week.

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.

This is not a talking point. The BOE met on Thursday and approved Superintendent Taylor's request to make additional boundary maps based on the CIP. This was on livestream and later announced at Kennedy in front of 200 parents. Jeannie Franklin was there and named as the lead point of contact at that meeting for questions on the boundary maps. There was a separate section of the room focused on academic program content, and others were stationed there. She repeatedly mentioned that she is the owner of the survey and leading the map development (based on FLO Analytics information). She said she will likely add more options to the existing survey rather than create a new one. But, that the decision was only made at 6:35 p.m. and they had not spoken about it yet.

You must be mixing Jeannie Franklin up with someone else, then. She is the head of the department on consortium choice and application programs. She has been central to the academic programs work the whole way through, but I have never seen her referred to as involved in the boundary study side of things at all.

You are completely correct. I have the wrong name. I apologize. Will try to get the correct name.

Cat Malchodi is the boundary study staffer who spoke at Kennedy.

Okay. And she said she was creating two or more new boundary options for the Woodward area study, and those would be choices alongside the current 4?

Correct. The Kennedy meeting happened 30 minutes after the BOE approved the superintendent's request to make more options to reflect the CIP proposal to make Crown a holding school and to close SSIMS. So, at the Kennedy meeting Cat Malchodi said that this new news, but that she'd likely be making at least two, if not a few, more options. She said she didn't know yet if they'd put out a new survey or add options to the current survey. But, that there will be more options based on feedback and based on the CIP.

Though she isn't the one making the boundary options, Flo Analytics is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the regional program model restricts meaningful boundary adjustments? I'm not sure I'm following that line of argument. Thanks.

I think (grain of salt there) that the regional program relies on treating all regions the same, which means ending the consortia. The consortia lead to much larger school-to-school commutes than the regions would, such that they lead to measurable impacts on utilization. So the consortia are really the sticking point here. I think it's a path forward to say "hey we are ending the consortia, period, and adopting new boundaries. We can wait a year to figure out the regional programs." But the issue is more that the consortia and the regional model is tied bc the consortia people are mad that something is being taken away and nothing else is being provided.

OK, but I still don't see how the regional lines are restricting boundary adjustments. The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly.

ah, I now see what you are saying. I don't really know. Is that what MCPS is saying?

The OP is saying "We hope to avoid prematurely locking in regional program boundaries that restrict meaningful boundary adjustments, to ensure the process is transparent, data-driven, and inclusive of historically underserved communities." I'm looking for more information on how they are being prematurely locked in.

This is why all of this doesn't make any sense. Originally, they were working on boundaries. Then, all of a sudden they drew the finalized regional maps. I've asked the same question -- why can't they finish the boundaries, then make the regions based on the boundaries. But no, for some reason, they made the regions, and now claim that they cannot adjust boundaries because the regional boundaries are decided.

PP wrote" "The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly." They have consistently said that the regions are decided and then boundaries must fit within them. So then, that limits the boundaries!

But that isn't the case. For example, in the current options, Kemp Mill ES is reassigned from Northwood (region 1) to Kennedy (region 3). If that becomes the new assignment, then the region 1/3 boundary line would shift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw for those who are posting about the DCC without any familiarity with it, it offers programs that are NOT segregated programs. They benefit several hundreds of kids at each school and are interest based. The school choice aspect has positives and negatives. How do we address the negatives without eliminating the positives. Zero work has been done on this question. Why would you take something away and expect the community to not push back?

The negatives being that it does lead to greater levels of segregation along race/class, as the better resourced kids in the consortium lottery to other schools. It's why Kennedy is so under-utilized.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

You're being a little condescending, I am going to try to spell this out in more simple terms:

1. There should be no magnet programs
2. If they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.

Wow, I am a DP and I could not disagree with you more.
1. The current magnet programs are the best educational opportunities in MCPS and when they have gotten rid of them, advanced learners have been left with insufficient work at even the best resourced schools
2. Diversity is great, but their job is education, not solve the county’s issue that people tend to choose housing in certain ways that create homogeneity. I think it’s more important that they focus on giving all kids a great education.
3. You are assuming a lot and I’m not sure your assumptions are correct. Many students access all kinds of programs and they come from all backgrounds. But if they actually gave comprehensive transportation, that would help much more, for all families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

I thought that was only for the Crown study. Are the Woodward study options changing too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

I thought that was only for the Crown study. Are the Woodward study options changing too?

Yes, to include the possibility of SSIMS being turned into a holding school. But again, the October options aren't being rejected, they're just being added to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

I thought that was only for the Crown study. Are the Woodward study options changing too?

Yes, to include the possibility of SSIMS being turned into a holding school. But again, the October options aren't being rejected, they're just being added to.

Ahhhh gotcha. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw for those who are posting about the DCC without any familiarity with it, it offers programs that are NOT segregated programs. They benefit several hundreds of kids at each school and are interest based. The school choice aspect has positives and negatives. How do we address the negatives without eliminating the positives. Zero work has been done on this question. Why would you take something away and expect the community to not push back?

The negatives being that it does lead to greater levels of segregation along race/class, as the better resourced kids in the consortium lottery to other schools. It's why Kennedy is so under-utilized.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

You're being a little condescending, I am going to try to spell this out in more simple terms:

1. There should be no magnet programs
2. If they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.

But I am agreeing with you that 1) we shouldn't have magnet programs, and 2) the magnet programs should be in low-income schools ("I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school"). We disagree, apparently, on what the magnets do. I don't think they offer much to these low-income schools. You, apparently, do. I don't think they offer much because they only serve a tiny sliver of kids at those low-income schools, and probably mask bigger issues with those schools.

How many times do I need to say that I don't think there should be any magnets?

? you say we shouldn't have magnets but then say "but if we do they should be in these low income schools." I don't know why you think I'm not hearing what you are saying, when I am repeating it back to you.

I think magnets may have a small benefit to low income schools, but I don't think that benefit is worth negative impacts on other schools. But if they have magnets, they should put them in low income schools because putting them in high income schools is actively harmful to low income schools and not much of a benefit to high income schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw for those who are posting about the DCC without any familiarity with it, it offers programs that are NOT segregated programs. They benefit several hundreds of kids at each school and are interest based. The school choice aspect has positives and negatives. How do we address the negatives without eliminating the positives. Zero work has been done on this question. Why would you take something away and expect the community to not push back?

The negatives being that it does lead to greater levels of segregation along race/class, as the better resourced kids in the consortium lottery to other schools. It's why Kennedy is so under-utilized.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

You're being a little condescending, I am going to try to spell this out in more simple terms:

1. There should be no magnet programs
2. If they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.

Wow, I am a DP and I could not disagree with you more.
1. The current magnet programs are the best educational opportunities in MCPS and when they have gotten rid of them, advanced learners have been left with insufficient work at even the best resourced schools
2. Diversity is great, but their job is education, not solve the county’s issue that people tend to choose housing in certain ways that create homogeneity. I think it’s more important that they focus on giving all kids a great education.
3. You are assuming a lot and I’m not sure your assumptions are correct. Many students access all kinds of programs and they come from all backgrounds. But if they actually gave comprehensive transportation, that would help much more, for all families.

It's okay for us to disagree. Fwiw my "assumptions" are based in research and experiences of other magnets, as well as the vehement arguments that are being used to dissolve the DCC. You can't insist the DCC must be taken away and say it is good to have specialized programs that kids get transportation to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a bullshit letter. We see right through this hey keep all the rich white school is the same and don’t rush anything else. GTFO

Huh? How'd you get that from the petition? It's not about favoring rich white schools at all. Did you read it?

NP- As an upcounty resident who read the petition and the comments about 50 MCCPTA delegates, I won’t be signing this petition despite agreeing with some of its points. Why? Because it seems to overwhelming focus on certain areas and not take into account the needs of many others parts of the county. This is evident by calling out Silver Spring and the DCC without even a bit of acknowledgement that others in the boundary studies experience split articulations. Further, 50 MCCPTA delegates when there is more than 200 schools, mean there vote represents less than 1/4 of the districts schools.

Folks are constantly talking about MCPS needing to reach out and communicate more and better. Seems the same can be said for this effort against MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a bullshit letter. We see right through this hey keep all the rich white school is the same and don’t rush anything else. GTFO

Huh? How'd you get that from the petition? It's not about favoring rich white schools at all. Did you read it?

NP- As an upcounty resident who read the petition and the comments about 50 MCCPTA delegates, I won’t be signing this petition despite agreeing with some of its points. Why? Because it seems to overwhelming focus on certain areas and not take into account the needs of many others parts of the county. This is evident by calling out Silver Spring and the DCC without even a bit of acknowledgement that others in the boundary studies experience split articulations. Further, 50 MCCPTA delegates when there is more than 200 schools, mean there vote represents less than 1/4 of the districts schools.

Folks are constantly talking about MCPS needing to reach out and communicate more and better. Seems the same can be said for this effort against MCPS.

You seem really triggered by other people advocating for their communities. We're not going to stop just because you want us to stfu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a bullshit letter. We see right through this hey keep all the rich white school is the same and don’t rush anything else. GTFO

Huh? How'd you get that from the petition? It's not about favoring rich white schools at all. Did you read it?

NP- As an upcounty resident who read the petition and the comments about 50 MCCPTA delegates, I won’t be signing this petition despite agreeing with some of its points. Why? Because it seems to overwhelming focus on certain areas and not take into account the needs of many others parts of the county. This is evident by calling out Silver Spring and the DCC without even a bit of acknowledgement that others in the boundary studies experience split articulations. Further, 50 MCCPTA delegates when there is more than 200 schools, mean there vote represents less than 1/4 of the districts schools.

Folks are constantly talking about MCPS needing to reach out and communicate more and better. Seems the same can be said for this effort against MCPS.

You seem really triggered by other people advocating for their communities. We're not going to stop just because you want us to stfu.

DP. But pot…kettle…African American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a bullshit letter. We see right through this hey keep all the rich white school is the same and don’t rush anything else. GTFO

Huh? How'd you get that from the petition? It's not about favoring rich white schools at all. Did you read it?

NP- As an upcounty resident who read the petition and the comments about 50 MCCPTA delegates, I won’t be signing this petition despite agreeing with some of its points. Why? Because it seems to overwhelming focus on certain areas and not take into account the needs of many others parts of the county. This is evident by calling out Silver Spring and the DCC without even a bit of acknowledgement that others in the boundary studies experience split articulations. Further, 50 MCCPTA delegates when there is more than 200 schools, mean there vote represents less than 1/4 of the districts schools.

Folks are constantly talking about MCPS needing to reach out and communicate more and better. Seems the same can be said for this effort against MCPS.

You seem really triggered by other people advocating for their communities. We're not going to stop just because you want us to stfu.

DP. But pot…kettle…African American.

Huh? I have no problem with up county advocating for itself. PP doesn't seem to want to do that, just attack DCC parents.

Funny how so many people are so angry the DCC doesn't want to lose its programs but nobody has a problem with all the special classes at wealthy schools that most other schools don't have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the regional program model restricts meaningful boundary adjustments? I'm not sure I'm following that line of argument. Thanks.

I think (grain of salt there) that the regional program relies on treating all regions the same, which means ending the consortia. The consortia lead to much larger school-to-school commutes than the regions would, such that they lead to measurable impacts on utilization. So the consortia are really the sticking point here. I think it's a path forward to say "hey we are ending the consortia, period, and adopting new boundaries. We can wait a year to figure out the regional programs." But the issue is more that the consortia and the regional model is tied bc the consortia people are mad that something is being taken away and nothing else is being provided.

OK, but I still don't see how the regional lines are restricting boundary adjustments. The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly.

ah, I now see what you are saying. I don't really know. Is that what MCPS is saying?

The OP is saying "We hope to avoid prematurely locking in regional program boundaries that restrict meaningful boundary adjustments, to ensure the process is transparent, data-driven, and inclusive of historically underserved communities." I'm looking for more information on how they are being prematurely locked in.

This is why all of this doesn't make any sense. Originally, they were working on boundaries. Then, all of a sudden they drew the finalized regional maps. I've asked the same question -- why can't they finish the boundaries, then make the regions based on the boundaries. But no, for some reason, they made the regions, and now claim that they cannot adjust boundaries because the regional boundaries are decided.

PP wrote" "The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly." They have consistently said that the regions are decided and then boundaries must fit within them. So then, that limits the boundaries!

But that isn't the case. For example, in the current options, Kemp Mill ES is reassigned from Northwood (region 1) to Kennedy (region 3). If that becomes the new assignment, then the region 1/3 boundary line would shift.

I’m surprised no one is fighting this as they are at Northwood but a lot go to privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a bullshit letter. We see right through this hey keep all the rich white school is the same and don’t rush anything else. GTFO

Huh? How'd you get that from the petition? It's not about favoring rich white schools at all. Did you read it?

NP- As an upcounty resident who read the petition and the comments about 50 MCCPTA delegates, I won’t be signing this petition despite agreeing with some of its points. Why? Because it seems to overwhelming focus on certain areas and not take into account the needs of many others parts of the county. This is evident by calling out Silver Spring and the DCC without even a bit of acknowledgement that others in the boundary studies experience split articulations. Further, 50 MCCPTA delegates when there is more than 200 schools, mean there vote represents less than 1/4 of the districts schools.

Folks are constantly talking about MCPS needing to reach out and communicate more and better. Seems the same can be said for this effort against MCPS.

The OP specifically mentioned that this was focused on the Woodward boundary study, and was not intended to speak for the Crown boundary study families. The point is to get MCPS to slow down the regional programs model and focus on the boundaries. If you are for that generally, who cares which examples got picked??