Upcoming in-person boundary study & regional model "engagement session": how to engage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

Genuine question: What was the "back and forth" element of the feedback room session? I don't consider asking questions back and forth--that's a one-way flow of information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New presentation slides suggest they are allowing only 15 minutes of at-table, small-group Q&A.

They are going to make everyone listen to 45 minutes of presentation on stuff most of us already know?

Blair session in progress right now. I'm looking forward to hearing first-hand experience tonight which will prepare us better for the Thursday meeting.

It was awful. The MCPS staff employed a divide-and-conquer approach. People were pigeonholed into various classrooms, with the media center featuring Central Office administrators (not teachers) there to answer parents' questions about programs, not that this staff has first-hand experience teaching lately. Principals from nearby schools were there trying to find out information about what was going to happen with regional programs.

Look for the feedback room. That is where MCPS' chief of staff and chief academic officer were stonewalling the difficult questions tonight.

Principals from which schools? Do you know offhand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

I was also in the feedback room. A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback." When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman). Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc. Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools. She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.

[Anonymous]

Essie McGuire flat-out lied to the room about how the latest boundary maps were drawn. She said MCPS considered facility utilization, schools stability, geography, and demographics. Those are the key factors MCPS is supposed to consider in any boundary adjustment.

What she DIDN'T say is that MCPS instructed the consultants to use the regional dividing lines as the priority. The new maps keep students in the same region from K-12. Doing that meant eliminating some options from the first set of maps, such as sending kids from Kensington Parkwood tio Einstein instead of WJ. Since KP is in Region 3, the students all have to go to a Region 3 high school. They cut off the Northwood footprint just south of Odessa Shannon, so that Odessa Shannon students all stay in Region 3. Truncating the Northwood boundary makes it impossible to adjust the boundary for Blair significantly, so Blair will still be at or above capacity. Kennedy will also be at or above capacity, because they're getting a chunk of students who could otherwise be zoned for Northwood.

Now they want to start an ES boundary study AFTER locking in the regions + the MS and HS changes. Only they've painted themselves into a corner and won't be able to do more than tinker with ES boundaries within the confines of each region.

Heaven help any region that get a big multi-unit housing development in the future. All the kids in the region will just have to deal with the crowding, since MCPS has decided this regional model is more important than anything else in the universe.

P.S. Tell the Board of Ed what you think of all of it. They say they're not hearing enough from the community.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

I was also in the feedback room. A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback." When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman). Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc. Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools. She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.

Thanks so much for this detailed answer-- super-helpful.

On the bolded point, this lines up with what Jeannie Franklin said in the other room when asked how they considered equity and the differential impact on high-SES vs low-SES schools of having an academic magnet or not/bringing in vs losing dozens of high-achieving kids per grade. She straight-out said that they did not consider equity in placing programs, and instead based the placement of programs on what "assets" the various schools already had in place.

It was frankly shocking to me-- I assumed they would have some sort of canned answer about how this placement really does improve equity for some complicated reasons that don't hold water but sound good on the surface-- but the fact that they didn't consider it at all and seemed surprised to be asked was just stunning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

I was also in the feedback room. A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback." When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman). Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc. Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools. She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.

Thanks so much for this detailed answer-- super-helpful.

On the bolded point, this lines up with what Jeannie Franklin said in the other room when asked how they considered equity and the differential impact on high-SES vs low-SES schools of having an academic magnet or not/bringing in vs losing dozens of high-achieving kids per grade. She straight-out said that they did not consider equity in placing programs, and instead based the placement of programs on what "assets" the various schools already had in place.

It was frankly shocking to me-- I assumed they would have some sort of canned answer about how this placement really does improve equity for some complicated reasons that don't hold water but sound good on the surface-- but the fact that they didn't consider it at all and seemed surprised to be asked was just stunning.

Wow. This HAS to be discussed publicly. Unbelievable. Which of our elected officials is going to do some basic due diligence before rubber stamping this offensive proposal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

I was also in the feedback room. A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback." When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman). Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc. Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools. She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.

Thanks so much for this detailed answer-- super-helpful.

On the bolded point, this lines up with what Jeannie Franklin said in the other room when asked how they considered equity and the differential impact on high-SES vs low-SES schools of having an academic magnet or not/bringing in vs losing dozens of high-achieving kids per grade. She straight-out said that they did not consider equity in placing programs, and instead based the placement of programs on what "assets" the various schools already had in place.

It was frankly shocking to me-- I assumed they would have some sort of canned answer about how this placement really does improve equity for some complicated reasons that don't hold water but sound good on the surface-- but the fact that they didn't consider it at all and seemed surprised to be asked was just stunning.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I was on the opportunity design team and it was clear that this was policy-making by spreadsheet. They didn't look at student data at all. They didn't even look at their own data about enrollment in existing programs. At one point, they proposed putting a Teacher Academy of Maryland magnet at Einstein, because that program was already there. They didn't check enrollment figures, though. There were only 18 students in the whole program. In fact, Einstein discontinued it this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

I was also in the feedback room. A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback." When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman). Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc. Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools. She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.

Thanks so much for this detailed answer-- super-helpful.

On the bolded point, this lines up with what Jeannie Franklin said in the other room when asked how they considered equity and the differential impact on high-SES vs low-SES schools of having an academic magnet or not/bringing in vs losing dozens of high-achieving kids per grade. She straight-out said that they did not consider equity in placing programs, and instead based the placement of programs on what "assets" the various schools already had in place.

It was frankly shocking to me-- I assumed they would have some sort of canned answer about how this placement really does improve equity for some complicated reasons that don't hold water but sound good on the surface-- but the fact that they didn't consider it at all and seemed surprised to be asked was just stunning.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I was on the opportunity design team and it was clear that this was policy-making by spreadsheet. They didn't look at student data at all. They didn't even look at their own data about enrollment in existing programs. At one point, they proposed putting a Teacher Academy of Maryland magnet at Einstein, because that program was already there. They didn't check enrollment figures, though. There were only 18 students in the whole program. In fact, Einstein discontinued it this year.

Yup. MCPS does very little with substance, thoroughness and intention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

I was also in the feedback room. A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback." When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman). Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc. Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools. She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.

Thanks so much for this detailed answer-- super-helpful.

On the bolded point, this lines up with what Jeannie Franklin said in the other room when asked how they considered equity and the differential impact on high-SES vs low-SES schools of having an academic magnet or not/bringing in vs losing dozens of high-achieving kids per grade. She straight-out said that they did not consider equity in placing programs, and instead based the placement of programs on what "assets" the various schools already had in place.

It was frankly shocking to me-- I assumed they would have some sort of canned answer about how this placement really does improve equity for some complicated reasons that don't hold water but sound good on the surface-- but the fact that they didn't consider it at all and seemed surprised to be asked was just stunning.

Jeannie must have had a candid moment there. I have heard a lot of faux equity-speak from Taylor and his minions on this.

[Anonymous]

Here is a report from Taylor on the 2024 program enrollment across the county, worth a review on the numbers across the county.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/curriculum/specialprograms/240911-update-on-the-ces-and-secregcoprgradmiresults-fy-2024.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Essie McGuire flat-out lied to the room about how the latest boundary maps were drawn. She said MCPS considered facility utilization, schools stability, geography, and demographics. Those are the key factors MCPS is supposed to consider in any boundary adjustment.

What she DIDN'T say is that MCPS instructed the consultants to use the regional dividing lines as the priority. The new maps keep students in the same region from K-12. Doing that meant eliminating some options from the first set of maps, such as sending kids from Kensington Parkwood tio Einstein instead of WJ. Since KP is in Region 3, the students all have to go to a Region 3 high school. They cut off the Northwood footprint just south of Odessa Shannon, so that Odessa Shannon students all stay in Region 3. Truncating the Northwood boundary makes it impossible to adjust the boundary for Blair significantly, so Blair will still be at or above capacity. Kennedy will also be at or above capacity, because they're getting a chunk of students who could otherwise be zoned for Northwood.

Now they want to start an ES boundary study AFTER locking in the regions + the MS and HS changes. Only they've painted themselves into a corner and won't be able to do more than tinker with ES boundaries within the confines of each region.

Heaven help any region that get a big multi-unit housing development in the future. All the kids in the region will just have to deal with the crowding, since MCPS has decided this regional model is more important than anything else in the universe.

P.S. Tell the Board of Ed what you think of all of it. They say they're not hearing enough from the community.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Thanks for your, and everyone's, reporting. Because there is no transparency in this "iterative" process, it's unfortunate that this is one of the ways we can get information about what is going on with the proposal.
MCPS should have a town hall style format so that community who were unable to attend can get updated on what's going on.

If, for their proposal, regions would come before boundaries, MCPS needs to make sure FARMS is equitably balanced between regions. As it stands--as that parent at last night's session pointed out--the whitest and wealthiest school clusters remain untouched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essie McGuire flat-out lied to the room about how the latest boundary maps were drawn. She said MCPS considered facility utilization, schools stability, geography, and demographics. Those are the key factors MCPS is supposed to consider in any boundary adjustment.

What she DIDN'T say is that MCPS instructed the consultants to use the regional dividing lines as the priority. The new maps keep students in the same region from K-12. Doing that meant eliminating some options from the first set of maps, such as sending kids from Kensington Parkwood tio Einstein instead of WJ. Since KP is in Region 3, the students all have to go to a Region 3 high school. They cut off the Northwood footprint just south of Odessa Shannon, so that Odessa Shannon students all stay in Region 3. Truncating the Northwood boundary makes it impossible to adjust the boundary for Blair significantly, so Blair will still be at or above capacity. Kennedy will also be at or above capacity, because they're getting a chunk of students who could otherwise be zoned for Northwood.

Now they want to start an ES boundary study AFTER locking in the regions + the MS and HS changes. Only they've painted themselves into a corner and won't be able to do more than tinker with ES boundaries within the confines of each region.

Heaven help any region that get a big multi-unit housing development in the future. All the kids in the region will just have to deal with the crowding, since MCPS has decided this regional model is more important than anything else in the universe.

P.S. Tell the Board of Ed what you think of all of it. They say they're not hearing enough from the community.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Thanks for your, and everyone's, reporting. Because there is no transparency in this "iterative" process, it's unfortunate that this is one of the ways we can get information about what is going on with the proposal.
MCPS should have a town hall style format so that community who were unable to attend can get updated on what's going on.

If, for their proposal, regions would come before boundaries, MCPS needs to make sure FARMS is equitably balanced between regions. As it stands--as that parent at last night's session pointed out--the whitest and wealthiest school clusters remain untouched.

Not untouched - they will also get hundreds of high performing students from lower income schools traveling to them.

[Anonymous]

I was in the room too and there was a comment made about improving the core curriculum to reduce dependence on these special programs because they end up being the only chance for academic rigor and that's part of the problem with demand for these special programs. MCCPTA has been saying the secondary curricula have been lacking for years with no willingness on CO part to address the problem, and so much of the talent could stay at local schools if they upgrade the current curricula for these classes (like English) that the special program kids also have to take anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essie McGuire flat-out lied to the room about how the latest boundary maps were drawn. She said MCPS considered facility utilization, schools stability, geography, and demographics. Those are the key factors MCPS is supposed to consider in any boundary adjustment.

What she DIDN'T say is that MCPS instructed the consultants to use the regional dividing lines as the priority. The new maps keep students in the same region from K-12. Doing that meant eliminating some options from the first set of maps, such as sending kids from Kensington Parkwood tio Einstein instead of WJ. Since KP is in Region 3, the students all have to go to a Region 3 high school. They cut off the Northwood footprint just south of Odessa Shannon, so that Odessa Shannon students all stay in Region 3. Truncating the Northwood boundary makes it impossible to adjust the boundary for Blair significantly, so Blair will still be at or above capacity. Kennedy will also be at or above capacity, because they're getting a chunk of students who could otherwise be zoned for Northwood.

Now they want to start an ES boundary study AFTER locking in the regions + the MS and HS changes. Only they've painted themselves into a corner and won't be able to do more than tinker with ES boundaries within the confines of each region.

Heaven help any region that get a big multi-unit housing development in the future. All the kids in the region will just have to deal with the crowding, since MCPS has decided this regional model is more important than anything else in the universe.

P.S. Tell the Board of Ed what you think of all of it. They say they're not hearing enough from the community.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Thanks for your, and everyone's, reporting. Because there is no transparency in this "iterative" process, it's unfortunate that this is one of the ways we can get information about what is going on with the proposal.
MCPS should have a town hall style format so that community who were unable to attend can get updated on what's going on.

If, for their proposal, regions would come before boundaries, MCPS needs to make sure FARMS is equitably balanced between regions. As it stands--as that parent at last night's session pointed out--the whitest and wealthiest school clusters remain untouched.

Not untouched - they will also get hundreds of high performing students from lower income schools traveling to them.

This. Plus the resources (limited as they are) in curriculum, materials, teacher PD, extra-curriculars that come with these programs. And a special allocation for in-bound students, on top of no transportation barrier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essie McGuire flat-out lied to the room about how the latest boundary maps were drawn. She said MCPS considered facility utilization, schools stability, geography, and demographics. Those are the key factors MCPS is supposed to consider in any boundary adjustment.

What she DIDN'T say is that MCPS instructed the consultants to use the regional dividing lines as the priority. The new maps keep students in the same region from K-12. Doing that meant eliminating some options from the first set of maps, such as sending kids from Kensington Parkwood tio Einstein instead of WJ. Since KP is in Region 3, the students all have to go to a Region 3 high school. They cut off the Northwood footprint just south of Odessa Shannon, so that Odessa Shannon students all stay in Region 3. Truncating the Northwood boundary makes it impossible to adjust the boundary for Blair significantly, so Blair will still be at or above capacity. Kennedy will also be at or above capacity, because they're getting a chunk of students who could otherwise be zoned for Northwood.

Now they want to start an ES boundary study AFTER locking in the regions + the MS and HS changes. Only they've painted themselves into a corner and won't be able to do more than tinker with ES boundaries within the confines of each region.

Heaven help any region that get a big multi-unit housing development in the future. All the kids in the region will just have to deal with the crowding, since MCPS has decided this regional model is more important than anything else in the universe.

P.S. Tell the Board of Ed what you think of all of it. They say they're not hearing enough from the community.

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Thanks for your, and everyone's, reporting. Because there is no transparency in this "iterative" process, it's unfortunate that this is one of the ways we can get information about what is going on with the proposal.
MCPS should have a town hall style format so that community who were unable to attend can get updated on what's going on.

If, for their proposal, regions would come before boundaries, MCPS needs to make sure FARMS is equitably balanced between regions. As it stands--as that parent at last night's session pointed out--the whitest and wealthiest school clusters remain untouched.

Not untouched - they will also get hundreds of high performing students from lower income schools traveling to them.

+1