Is Einstein getting totally screwed in the boundary and program study proposals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

It shouldn't be. Neighborhood kids should attend neighborhood schools. TOK should go to Einstein.

[Anonymous]

WJ is going to be another Whitman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

It shouldn't be. Neighborhood kids should attend neighborhood schools. TOK should go to Einstein.

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

It shouldn't be. Neighborhood kids should attend neighborhood schools. TOK should go to Einstein.

Why not?

No

[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:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

It shouldn't be. Neighborhood kids should attend neighborhood schools. TOK should go to Einstein.

Why not?

No

Einstein is overcrowded and they like to be seperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

Btw I’m the poster you’re quoting (who says it’s a non-starter) and I’m an Einstein parent. Trying to be realistic here.

[Anonymous]

Option A with condition that criterion based magnet( humanities) goes to Einstein instead of BCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

Btw I’m the poster you’re quoting (who says it’s a non-starter) and I’m an Einstein parent. Trying to be realistic here.

Genuinely curious since I don't know the background here-- what makes Kensington families so special that it's a nonstarter to do things they don't want but it doesn't matter what the rest of us want?

[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:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

Btw I’m the poster you’re quoting (who says it’s a non-starter) and I’m an Einstein parent. Trying to be realistic here.

Genuinely curious since I don't know the background here-- what makes Kensington families so special that it's a nonstarter to do things they don't want but it doesn't matter what the rest of us want?

Oh boy let’s not derail the thread here!

[Anonymous]

Someone wrote the following in another thread, anyone have an answer?: “Do these tables have an error for Northwood's future capacity? They say it's 2,260 (including new building in 2027), but everywhere else I've seen the new building's capacity reported at 2,700.

If there is an error, then all of these options would have NW's utilization at 70-80%.”

[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:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

Btw I’m the poster you’re quoting (who says it’s a non-starter) and I’m an Einstein parent. Trying to be realistic here.

Genuinely curious since I don't know the background here-- what makes Kensington families so special that it's a nonstarter to do things they don't want but it doesn't matter what the rest of us want?

Oh boy let’s not derail the thread here!

Let’s bring the convo back to the topic of this thread.

To those unfamiliar with the impact of a regional model on Einstein and DCC, listen to a parent of an Einstein student's BOE testimony 9/25/25 (1:20:36)

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=DJMGFB439000#

To submit community feedback, click the red rectangular "Ask a Question" button that is to the left of the screen. This links to a "We want to hear from you! MCPS Proposal for More Choices, Better Access to High School Academic Programs" google form where you can type in your concerns under "Please share any questions you have that we have not already answered in this survey."

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/

This unfortunately appears to be the only way you can submit feedback about the proposed program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

It's honestly bizarre that it isn't even being considered. Maybe the political forces against equity are too strong - but let's not let them gloss over that fact and pretend this is what all parents want.

Btw it took me a couple of hours of looking at the initial options to understand the pros and cons of each and write them into the survey, clicking back and forth between the maps and the tables. It's a process clearly designed for people with more time, education and technology. Of course they got more responses from the highest resourced neighborhoods. And I honestly think they trolled the west county folks a bit with Option 3. Instead of focusing on contiguous clusters they did stuff that any reasonable person would think is unreasonable But sending ToK to the high school located in Kensington is simply not unreasonable and shpuld be on the table minus poison pill sh$t like sending Farmland to Kennedy. I have to give it to MCPS, they sure set it up well to get the feedback they wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

It's honestly bizarre that it isn't even being considered. Maybe the political forces against equity are too strong - but let's not let them gloss over that fact and pretend this is what all parents want.

Btw it took me a couple of hours of looking at the initial options to understand the pros and cons of each and write them into the survey, clicking back and forth between the maps and the tables. It's a process clearly designed for people with more time, education and technology. Of course they got more responses from the highest resourced neighborhoods. And I honestly think they trolled the west county folks a bit with Option 3. Instead of focusing on contiguous clusters they did stuff that any reasonable person would think is unreasonable But sending ToK to the high school located in Kensington is simply not unreasonable and shpuld be on the table minus poison pill sh$t like sending Farmland to Kennedy. I have to give it to MCPS, they sure set it up well to get the feedback they wanted.

+1 MCPS loves to say "equity" when they oppose different English classes for different abilities, but the idea of having Kensington kids attend the Kensington high school? That's a bridge too far.

[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:In taking the suggestion to push the BOE hard on delaying the regional model implementation, I also think they should face a lot of pressure to either select Option B from the current slate or another one altogether that doesn’t significantly increase Einstein’s FARMS rate. They need to be pushed hard on both fronts.

Are the upcoming Facilities and Boundaries Hearings good places to do this?

Each of the four options have Einstein with a FARMS rate of 40-46%.

The current FARMS rate at Einstein is 37.5%. Option B is 40%. I’d say that’s better than the other options, wouldn’t you?

A little, but is it a meaningful difference? I don't know. Especially with BCC staying unchanged at 22.5%, it seems absurd that Einstein's rate should go up at all.

Stop trying to turn this into a conflict with BCC. BCC is not geographically adjacent to Woodward at all. Why does it matter to you what BCC’s FARMs rate is? It is not similar to Einstein currently so I don’t get why you think these schools must shuffle kids across town to get matching demographics starting in 2027?

Nobody has ever claimed MCPS should match demographics at all schools. But they should be utilizing their facilities effectively and in ways that help all students access appropriate educational opportunities. Instead they are pulling the highest achieving kids with the most resources to manage what I imagine will be limited transportation for magnets out of Einstein to BCC and other academic magnets. They should have moved Woodlin ES (which is not close to Einstein) to BCC and put ToK in Einstein. Instead of supercharging the existing segregation.

So, basically more of the same. There will not be many slots to bus kids. It’s all for show and making change for the sake of saying you did something. TOK has not been to Einstein in many years and moving them will not fix the issues.

It won't fix the issues but it will:
- stop bussing for ToK since we know bussing is bad!
- not make the issues worse.

Folks should realize at this point that TOK going to Einstein is a nonstarter. Focus on engaging with the work that’s been done so far to improve the outcome. At a minimum - highlight that option C disproportionately increases the FARMS rate at Einstein far more than other schools which is both unfair and bad policy, and that if VAPA isn’t going to be a regional magnet then Einstein should get a criteria based magnet current slated for BCC (so either IB or Humanities) in exchange for BCC getting the education magnet. Decisionmakers are more likely to align behind these easier fixes. Re: Option C - there are other problems with it as well, eg more split articulation than Options A and B and worse facility utilization than Option D.

+1 seriously listen to this poster. You are all spending a lot of time letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Advocate for what you can reasonably get, not something aspirational that will get turned down.

It's honestly bizarre that it isn't even being considered. Maybe the political forces against equity are too strong - but let's not let them gloss over that fact and pretend this is what all parents want.

Btw it took me a couple of hours of looking at the initial options to understand the pros and cons of each and write them into the survey, clicking back and forth between the maps and the tables. It's a process clearly designed for people with more time, education and technology. Of course they got more responses from the highest resourced neighborhoods. And I honestly think they trolled the west county folks a bit with Option 3. Instead of focusing on contiguous clusters they did stuff that any reasonable person would think is unreasonable But sending ToK to the high school located in Kensington is simply not unreasonable and shpuld be on the table minus poison pill sh$t like sending Farmland to Kennedy. I have to give it to MCPS, they sure set it up well to get the feedback they wanted.

+1 MCPS loves to say "equity" when they oppose different English classes for different abilities, but the idea of having Kensington kids attend the Kensington high school? That's a bridge too far.

Not all kids go to their local schools. There is no such thing as equity, which is why they took it out of their new moto. No one cares that the Town kids don't go to Einstein. Let them go to WJ.